Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Sale to Dell Rumored

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the more-than-chump-change dept.

325

An anonymous reader writes "Advanced Micro Devices may be up for sale. AMD's shares were significantly up yesterday, apparently on rumors that Dell is interested in buying the American multinational semiconductor company. If AMD ends up being bought out, the purchase by Dell, or any other company for that matter, would be among the biggest the technology industry has seen. It would be of course bigger than when AMD bought ATI in 2006."

cancel ×

325 comments

Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (3, Interesting)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209588)

Is Dell considering making a more integrated kind of product line? Talk about a change in strategy.

And a damn good one it would be. I can't even begin to imagine the profits Dell could reap through the fruits inherited from an AMD buyout. It's much cheaper to manufacture products when you control every aspect of most of the primary components being used. And then also manufacturing facilities.. well, even more so.. wow.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209690)

Considering AMD only nets around $200-300 million a year whilst Dell lost around $1.3 billion last year, I don't see how that is going to be "redonkulously profitable" unless you have some different way to add numbers. The way for Dell to become profitable is not to spend ~$6 billion, AMD's current market cap, to buy the company.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (3, Interesting)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209834)

AMD's net income was 471 million and Dell's net income was 1.4 billion; I have no idea where you get your information...

Add this to the fact that using their own product to build all their systems would save them quite a bit on every CPU and video card they bundle in a sold system means that this could be a big deal for Dell.

Now, all that aside, I don't know how I feel about Dell owning AMD/ATI. However, it could push AMD into more marketshare which means more R&D and as long as Dell still sells wholesale, too, it might not be so bad.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

lp_bugman (623152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210422)

It be awful; Will be very difficult for competitors to differentiate from AMD by using their same CPU's. Most likely the all will switch to something else (only real alternative is Intel).
Dell also is known for their little R&D and overall cheap products; witch is also not good if you want bleeding edge AMD preprocessors.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210136)

The idea is that Dell would use the new ability to design everything on their systems to reduce the cost of manufacturing, thus not losing 1.3 bilion a year.

I doubt they can do that, but hey, who am I? I don't see value even on the Nokia sellout for Microsoft.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (4, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209750)

Maybe yes, maybe no. The big loser in this would be Intel. I'm not sure of the % of Dell computers that ship with AMD CPU's but it's certainly less than 25%. Dell is big enough to hurt Intel if they switch to AMD.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209814)

You do realize that most of Dell's revenue stream is propped up by money given to them from Intel? If anything, dropping Intel is going to mean Dell is going to lose even more money in net income.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210356)

I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's either Dell did the math and they will make more money owning AMD & ATI then being paid by Intel or they are using AMD to leverage more cash out of Intel. Frankly, I like the idea of owning AMD more likely, just for the vertical integration aspect. I would trade a little less profitability in the short term for something like that.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209828)

Dell is big enough to hurt Intel if they switch to AMD.

Considering Intel's CPUs beat AMD on pretty much every measure other than price, Intel could really hurt Dell if they switch to AMD. Nvidia would be far more likely to suffer if Dell only sold ATI cards in their gaming systems.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (5, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210094)

Every measure but price? ok...
They certainly use less energy for the performance.
They certainly have higher maximum performance at the top end.

AMD CPU's on the other hand beat most Intel models on price/performance and match Intel's best values (i7 920 and i5 750 last I checked).
What that means is that at almost any given price point, the AMD chip is better than the Intel chip with only a few cases where they are equal.

The only two reasons to buy intel are if you need to use less power or if you want the heavy lifting of a thousand dollar cpu for intense computation or benchmark ego masturbation.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210172)

$ per computing unit per watt

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (3, Interesting)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210512)

I considered such ratios when building my latest low-power machine... until I figured out that with the focus of "low-power", most of the time, it's just a wattage ceiling that I need, not a strong ratio. Once I realized that, it was just a filtering job of:

hide all processors over 65w
hide all processors with one core
hide all processors over $125 (I'm a budget builder)

Within that group, find the best relative computing power.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210226)

What that means is that at almost any given price point, the AMD chip is better than the Intel chip with only a few cases where they are equal.

Which is what I said.

If you want the fastest CPU, you buy Intel. If you want the lowest power consumption for the performance, you buy Intel (or ARM, at the very low end). If you want cheap, you buy AMD.

If Dell switched to only selling AMD CPUs, they'd lose all the markets other than the low end... which is where the profit margins are usually the worst.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210276)

AMD CPU's on the other hand beat most Intel models on price/performance and match Intel's best values (i7 920 and i5 750 last I checked).

Except that they aren't current intel chips.

The latest benchmarks I saw showed that the Core i3 2100 was roughly as fast as the Phenom II X6 1100T. That's intel's slowest current generation desktop chip, at $100, as fast as AMD's fastest current generation desktop chip.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

anti-human 1 (911677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210342)

And clearly, that would have been impossible to link to, or even mutter a possible source.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210516)

Here [anandtech.com]

As was obvious from the start, the i3 gets beaten in the multithreaded tasks, but it offsets that by handing the X6 it's ass in the single threaded ones, so the two end up pretty much equal.

Alternatively, if you don't buy that, try the i5 2500 [anandtech.com] which wins in all but 3 tests and still costs significantly less.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210468)

You may want to recheck those benchmarks. Just googled "core i3 2100 vs phenom", this was the first review I found:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/16 [anandtech.com]

Second page shows the Phenom roundly trouncing the i3 in a large number of tests, and besting a number of the i7s. There were a few tests where the i3 was slightly superior, most others the phenom was 15-20% faster, and in some cases 50+% faster. Look at the encoding performance, the AMD slaughters the i3.

And from what I can see, the i3 is closer to $150, with its AMD equivalent-- the X2 645-- being closer to $120. On most benchmarks they are rather close to each other, but the AMD is a whopping 20% cheaper. Things arent quite what youre making them out to be.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210596)

Notably the test you linked only covers the absolute worst case for the i3. If you look at this (from the same site) [anandtech.com] which covers a much wider range of benchmarks, you see the i3 wins as many as it loses, and by similar margins – i.e. it's roughly equal.

If that doesn't satisfy you though, you may want to step up to the i5 2500, which is still significantly cheeper than the phenom, and beats it in all but 3 tests [anandtech.com] .

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210524)

The latest benchmarks I saw showed that the Core i3 2100 was roughly as fast as the Phenom II X6 1100T.

If by "roughly as fast" you mean about 50% slower, then, yeah.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210176)

the performance/price ratio is one of the most important.

what's the point of a cpu 1% faster when it costs 50% more? (exaggerating for getting the point across)

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210348)

what's the point of a cpu 1% faster when it costs 50% more? (exaggerating for getting the point across)

Exagerating to pointlessness. No sane person would pay 50% more for a CPU that's 1% faster, but the real world is more like 50-100% more for a CPU that's 50% faster... and a lot of people will pay that.

AMD's profits suck because they're forced to sell complex and expensive CPUs cheap because they can't compete on performance. Intel sell far more CPUs and make far more money because they own the high end of the market and the very low end of the market and compete well in the middle.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210202)

maybe on no profit consumer computers, but on servers Intel rules. Xeons are 32nm, faster in most cases, better power efficiency and by the time you price out the server the cost is the same or less than AMD based servers.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210254)

Maybe yes, maybe no. The big loser in this would be Intel. I'm not sure of the % of Dell computers that ship with AMD CPU's but it's certainly less than 25%. Dell is big enough to hurt Intel if they switch to AMD.

More likely good news for Intel. Fair chance all of Dell's competitors will switch from AMD to Intel where possible, just so Dell won't profit from their business. And you have to wonder if Dell's customers will just happily go along with AMD instead of Intel. If this happens, it could cost both Dell and AMD customers.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210548)

The flip side is how many other computer makers want to buy parts from a competitor? What will be the market for AMD chips if HP and others don't want to buy from Dell? Would AMD chips be as cheap (even internal pricing) for Dell if they lose half (or more) of the market for AMD chips and have to scale back production while still paying all the overhead costs associated with owning a lot of capacity?

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209762)

I think a more useful strategy for Dell would be to improve customer satisfaction. They could start with quality control.

If Dell took over AMD, then within a year I probably won't be buying AMD chips, just based on lack of quality.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209872)

So Dell will become the PC equivalent of Apple?

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209962)

No, because they're still under Microsoft's thumb as a Windows licensor.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (3, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210110)

No, Apple did the exact opposite: Dropped developing their own CPU/MB combos in favor of something that Intel offers and designs for them.

If you look only at Mac computers, and not the iphone, itouch, iwhatever, then Apple is a company that *designs* computers and has created and maintains a popular operating system. They don't actually build the gooey innards for their boxes, ATI (AMD), and Intel do, as well as other parts suppliers.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210246)

If the rumor is true, I think it would be more like a move towards IBM's business model. With AMD under the Dell umbrella, Dell could make a major play into big iron.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210264)

Apple don't own the fundamental pieces of their desktop hardware. Sure they have their own licensed version of ARM for their iDevices, but owning (ok, under) half of the x86 market would catapult a company farther than having a strictly licensed OS bundling strategy like Apple.

Apple are subject to the market pressures of buying CPUs from Intel. AMDell could avoid* the negotiations and sales margin.

*IANAL or in the US - is there some sort of competition/antitrust issue that would be raised?

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209884)

Dell is about buying cheap components, and screwing them together to make profitable PCs, and the like. AMD is about baking chips. I'm not sure if Dell's experience and success with PCs will guarantee that they are a good chip baker. Well, maybe if Dell can convince AMD's top management and techies to stay, and Dell leaves the whole operation alone, and doesn't try to fiddle with it too much. Just my take.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (4, Interesting)

altoz (653655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209916)

Let's see. HP has a WebOS PC coming out. Dell buys AMD...

My guess is they're both moving towards Apple's model. Could a real Dell-customized Linux desktop be far off?

Extremely Risky, won't happen. (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209968)

If Dell buys AMD, goes AMD exclusive, and AMD can't match Intel, Dell will lose out to all it's Intel using competitors.

This is much too big a risk to take, given that odds are in favor of Intel staying ahead.

Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. (3, Interesting)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210070)

Not necessarily - average PC buyers do not buy on actual performance, and haven't for years. See: Pentium 4 sales - the NetBurst architecture that didn't perform anywhere close to as good as what AMD was offering at the time, yet everyone bought them because of the Intel brand at a higher price.

Intel's been building a massive brand recognition since the 486, even though the vast majority of PC buyers couldn't even tell you what Intel makes other than "chips".

It wouldn't be that hard for Dell to just sell the Dell brand, regardless of what's inside the box. They've already been doing that with their shoddy dielectric-bursting capacitors as it is.

Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210132)

You do realize that Dell doesn't sell performance, they sell service and support, right? The whole reason most enterprises choose Dell is not because of the best hardware (it almost never is), but because Dell offers (generally) very efficient replacement of defective parts including but not limited to "free" (the cost is rolled into the retail and/or separate extended warranty) on-site service. It minimizes the enterprise's downtime and costs for internal IT support overhead. Corporate IT doesn't care that Intel offers 10% better performance than AMD at double the cost, they care whether they can keep all their systems up with minimal support overhead and downtime.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

HBD (450014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210044)

Apple's strategy really shouldn't be advocated by anyone, it leads to slave laborers being prevented from killing themselves - to name just one of the evils I *probably* won't get flamed for by someone with an iPhone shoved too far up their butt on vibrate to understand that Apple is all around bad.

If Dell is profitable enough to buy AMD with a purely modular approach - part of which would suggest that the back and fourth between AMD and Intel has fostered CPU speed enhancements that alone were able to force Apple to abandon it's purely in-house motto and go with Intel - then they will only degrade by buying AMD.

As for AMD, this could be good, it sets the stage for Apple to buy Intel, keep the PC and Apple cliques to themselves and royally screw any emerging competition without actually having a monopoly - which of course means they don't have to keep competing with Intel - at least if Apple were to make such a move, otherwise they are likely screwed just for having new management that doesn't understand how to compete in a market where they only have 1 other real competitor, implying a change from existing management.

Though I have to say, I like AMD, and am currently on a Dell XPS with an Intel chip - I'd sooner have it be an AMD chip - only because they tend to pioneer newer tech. If Dell aquires AMD I'd expect Moore's law to be dead and buried even if it is just a slow-release-for-greater-profits mechanism at this point.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210054)

Thanks to investors having zero foresight during the cashflow saga last year, AMD had to spin off manufacturing. It became Global Foundries, a 50-50 split with the Advanced Technology Investment Co. (basically, the Abu Dhabi govt).

So nowadays, AMD is losing grip on manufacturing. Their IP is definitely worth buying out however, in the same way as owning the fabless ARM Holdings would be.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210066)

The manufacturing facilities were spun off to Global Foundries. The last report I saw said they had dropped their stake in the manufacturing side from 30 to 14%.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210118)

You need to remember that AMD spun off it's manufacturing division a while back. The purchase of AMD would just be the technology it's self not the manufacturing.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (2)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210360)

At this point, AMD doesn't have any manufacturing facilities. They are a design show now.

Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210466)

AMD spun off their manufacturing facilities to stave off bankruptcy.

Personally if this is true I would think it is a strategic purchase. Even if dell has to subsidise AMD that may be a better option than letting intel drive them to bankrupcy and take a monopoly.

Time to switch to Intel then. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209652)

Time to switch to Intel then.

Re:Time to switch to Intel then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210442)

VIA!

bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209682)

Depending on how this goes I may have to make the switch to nvidia >_>

Please, god, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209706)

I don't want to have to switch to Intel and nVidia for everything. I love the price:performance ratio that AMD and ATI give me too much.

Some relief at last? (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209730)

Maybe now Dell will be done and get some distance from those unstable, overheating Nvidia cards.

Re:Some relief at last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209778)

Maybe now Dell will be done and get some distance from those unstable, overheating Nvidia cards.

If they can make the Catalyst drivers semi-decent, I'm all for it.

Re:Some relief at last? (3, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209940)

We would then have GPUs and CPUs with that world renowned Dell quality.

Re:Some relief at last? (1)

dieth (951868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210364)

Quality such as faulty mobos that flat line your CPU for minutes while the instruction buffer is unusable (google Dell Optiplex GX270 recall) - They also refused to acknowledge this was a problem for the first 2 years, always telling the customer to re-install their OS.

Quality such as Indian Tech support reps that can't speak a single coherent word of English, (Unless you bend over and pay for gold level [cashrape] support)

Need I go on?

Re:Some relief at last? (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210386)

Woosh?

Re:Some relief at last? (1)

dieth (951868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210572)

Nah I'd just say I was venting. Pretty sure I'm familiar with Dell's <sarcasm> great standards </sarcasm> already.

Dear god no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209740)

I wouldn't mind if AMD could buy out Dell, then maybe their quality would go up or their price would come down on the decent systems but not the other way around.
I am a big AMD fanboy when it comes to their processors, if they were bought out by Dell, I could see them turning into the Cyrix processors of the coming years or some situation where the good AMD chips are only sold in Dell PCs or some other crap.

I love AMD, but I despise Dell when it comes to their products.

Captcha: "Miscarry" how fitting,

Re:Dear god no. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210000)

You do realize that Cyrix hasn't existed for more than a decade, right? And as much as I respect Via's approach to their products, they just can't produce a processor with performance equivalent to AMD or Intel.

If AMD's quality is reduced to Dell's level generally following a buyout I'll be forced to switch loyalties too.

Re:Dear god no. (1)

HBD (450014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210212)

Captcha: "Miscarry" how fitting,

I'm convinced that /.'s CAPTCHA's are run by a semantic-search powered processor tied to a subliminal marketing engine of some kind.

Cue darth vader: (2)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209760)

*raises hands* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

On a serious note, Intel must be shitting themselves right now, if Dell were to buy AMD, intel just lost their biggest customer

Re:Cue darth vader: (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209954)

...which of course is assuming that Intel isn't paying Dell to buy up AMD then liquidate them to eliminate competition in the CPU market...

Re:Cue darth vader: (1)

badran (973386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210416)

That would hurt Intel in the long run, as they would not be able to sell to Government agencies.

Re:Cue darth vader: (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210642)

Not necessarily. Dell will sell what it can sell. If there are people who will buy Intel, Dell will sell them Intel.

AMD CPU, ATI graphics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209774)

Would Dell switch all its products to AMD/ATI only? That would be a big change

Why Would They Do That? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209796)

So they can both suck in stereo?

Can they actually do this ..? (5, Interesting)

Seggybop (835060) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209808)

My understanding is that currently there's something of an enforced equilibrium between Intel and AMD, wherein Intel needs AMD to exist in a somewhat healthy state in order to avoid being considered a monopoly. If Dell bought AMD, what would happen to that? Would Dell then sell AMD chips to other (competing) manufacturers?

There might be something similar going on with ATI vs nvidia as well. =/

Re:Can they actually do this ..? (2)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210010)

Would Dell then sell AMD chips to other (competing) manufacturers?

Dell would probably be happy to sell the chips. The real question is, would competing manufacturers want to buy them? For example, I'm quite sure that HP would phase out and eventually stop selling systems with AMD processors. Big companies don't like sending money to their competitors.

Re:Can they actually do this ..? (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210370)

Intel is competing against ARM manufacturers now.

Apple? (1, Redundant)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209826)

Would it not make more sense for Apple to buy AMD? They are already in CPU business and custom hardware, they ship their Macs with AMD video cards, and they are not particularly happy with Intel's video on CPU and controllers or their ultra low voltage offerings for Airs.

The problem... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209936)

Is that *no* x86 processor is going to appeal relative to their ARM for low-power applications. AMD has an edge for capable integrated graphics, but all in all the x86 offerings are not going to improve by going to AMD with respect to heat/battery concerns.

Re:Apple? (1)

yakovlev (210738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210374)

Been there, done that, DON'T want to do it again.

It was called: PowerPC.

Apple has decided (probably correctly for them) that the processor is a commodity, not a product differentiator. Apple has figured out that it's better for them to use the same processor chip everyone else does, and differentiate their products with software and industrial design.

The problem with using your own unique high-performance processors is that if you're ahead you might see a small benefit, but if you ever get behind, you lose big. This is almost exactly what happened with PowerPC and the move to Intel. Apple learned that since people don't buy Macs for the processors, it would be silly to invest in building something at best marginally faster/cheaper than the "industry standard" Intel processors.

Mobile phone processors are a little different, because there you're not really building the processor, you're using an ARM design and tacking on a few custom circuits. The costs of doing this are much lower, and you do it for peripheral cost/features, not to be better than your competitors.

Re:Apple? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210482)

I agree that purchasing AMD would be odd, PowerPC pretty much left Apple at the mercy of Motorola and IBM in the same way they are at the mercy of AMD and Intel today. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was that Apple could not get IBM to compete with Intel in the low-power arena and Apple was pretty much powerless to get what they wanted because it was all IBM at that point. History is kind of repeating with x86 v. ARM for them currently in the space that really matters to them (i.e. Mac desktops/laptops are barely a blip against the larger iPhone/iTunes market) making an x86 investment on the scale of purchasing AMD a bad idea. The long shot would be purchasing for GPUs, but so far no one has proven they can do awesome stuff in the power envelope given on that front and the current 'good enough' GPU capability may limit the usefulness of ATI.

what would happen to AMD's chip sales (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209848)

to HP, Lenovo, Asus, Sony, and Toshiba, when the latter realize that they're enriching their competitor?

Hint: turn your eyes lower.

Re:what would happen to AMD's chip sales (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210244)

I'm wondering the same thing. If I recall correctly, Wendy's dropped Pepsi products in favor of Coke products for exactly this reason - Pepsi, KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell were (are?) owned by the same company and Wendy's thought it was bad business to purchase from a major competitor.

Re:what would happen to AMD's chip sales (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210502)

Pepsi, KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell were (are?) owned by the same company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yum!_Brands [wikipedia.org]

pepsi owned them and spun them out as "yum brands Inc" in 1997.

Pepsico, aside from innumerable soft drink brands, mostly sells stuff best described as "junk food you would buy at a convenience store, and, weirdly enough, quaker oats"

Bad idea... (3, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209898)

For Dell.

We are talking about a chip design company that is at best second-place in most business concerns (GPU sometimes in an exception).

In the CPU industry, you are talking about a move that would severely alienate Intel, a valuable partner in the server arena at the moment. Further complicating things is that a lot of consumer electronics are on the ARM platform, with an ever-increasing chunk, and I don't think AMD has licensed that platform.

On the GPU front, they would be alienating nVidia.

Either by choice or force, you'd see Dell's competitors stop selling AMD products, and maybe medium-term some AMD loyalists will follow Dell, but overall you'd see people giving up on AMD as an invitation for total platform lock-in.

Re:Bad idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210104)

that's why an Apple acquisition would make much more sense

Re:Bad idea... (1)

specialguy92 (1974828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210456)

They would alienate both Intel and nVidia? Dell should start a company with those products... they could call it Alienware!

Speculation (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209910)

I would say the recent departures of senior executives — COO Robert Rivet last week, CEO Dirk Meyer back in January — is still unexplained and can lead to all kinds of speculation. There's not a lot of color on the rumor at this point. Is Dell considering making a more integrated kind of product line? Talk about a change in strategy.

Re:Speculation (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210090)

Dell could use a few senior execs to resign also. Hope springs eternal.

I hope not. (1)

ganktor (1448127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209938)

I really hope this is just a rumor. I have been die hard AMD since the K6-2. I don't think that this would ruin AMD, but I can't believe that it would benefit it. Besides that, I really, really despise Dell. I was sad when AMD ditched the ATI name. Probably just nostalgia because the first rig I built was a K6-2 with an ATI video card and I've been AMD/ATI ever since. I can just see the AMD name going away. I would have to switch to Intel just to not have a stupid Dell part in my computer. I know this is a lame whining rant, but I really hope the sale is just a rumor.

Poor ATI (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209950)

Bad enough it was bought by AMD but to wind up being owned by Dell? Blech.

How about Linux support ? (1)

BESTouff (531293) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209956)

The only thing I'm interested in, is how about the linux support ? AMD has been quite good lately, Dell has been so-so. With Dell buying AMD, I'm fearing linux support will go down.

After they funded Intel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35209966)

What about all that illegal under-the-table dealings with Intel over the years?
Seems like they should have done this years ago, or not at all.

Its about Storage (1, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209978)

This makes total sense, this is about storage. Dell has made some other purchases recently of storage vendors, and has a line of x86 based iscsi mid level SAN products they are seeking to push.

AMD has the right technology for that. You don't need powerful number crunching and the crunching you do need could be optimized easily in the hardware. What AMD offers is good bus and memory architectures that would serve well in those more integrated applications. I suspect this is a way for Dell to continue to leverage their existing technology while giving themselves a say in the development of the features in x86,AMD64 architecture processors and their support chips. They will use that say to get the stuff they want for storage controllers.

Re:Its about Storage (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210530)

On the flipside, after bringing about that awesome bus/memory architecture, they haven't made any particularly exciting breakthroughs ever since and Intel has caught up on that front.

Sometimes you have the right people and leadership to have an overwhelming improvement like HyperTransport to make you a clear market leader. Often times, that set of people turns out to be a one-trick pony and/or gets sucked out by companies willing to pay them more.

Re:Its about Storage (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210654)

On the flipside, after bringing about that awesome bus/memory architecture, they haven't made any particularly exciting breakthroughs ever since and Intel has caught up on that front.

More to the point, the 'awesome bus/memory architecture' only really helped them on servers; Intel's FSB was good enough for home users. And from what I've read the weird desire to maintain backwards compatibility with ancient motherboards has harmed their memory performance by forcing them to keep supporting DDR2 as well as DDR3; those kind of compatibility issues are one reason why we switched from integrated memory controllers to independent ones outside the CPU many years ago.

This is not going to happen, but if it did... (1)

tjb (226873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209994)

On the plus side, they could get rid of the overhead from AMD's sales and marketing team because no other system integrator would ever buy an AMD or ATI product again.

This maybe would increase AMD's CPU share - all of Dell plus motherboards for homebrew systems is probably slightly bigger than AMD's current share of the CPU market - but the ATI part of AMD (you know, the profitable part) would lose almost every system design win they have since Apple, Lenovo, HP et. al. wouldn't exactly be keen on putting money directly in a competitor's pocket.

No more Intel from Dell (1)

francium goes boom (1969836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210020)

I just don't see this happening. While I feel that Dell could handle a 2 tier business and succeed a move like this would more likely hurt their bottom line.

While AMD is currently offered in many of their product lines, they would have to covert their ENTIRE product line over to AMD. Intel would probably pull out and no longer be available through Dell. Why would you continue to support your major competitor?
Because of this Dell risks losing many contracts from businesses that need to keep configurations similar, favor Intel, or a host of other reasons. I don't see the savings of having complete vertical control of the product line overcoming the hit from loss of contracts.

The phone is the future anyways (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210024)

I wouldn't be too worked up over this. The future has always been in mobile computing, especially the phone market. It wont be long before we dock our cell phones in a station and work via KVM at our office desk. Wireless I'm sure. Aside from full blown out laptops, this has the potential to render the desktop (not high end workstation) obsolete. It will also force admins and managers to consolidate and secure data at the server side. At least more so than now days. That's a very good thing.

No, I think the days of the average desktop PC are numbered. In this fast paced throw-away technological society, the phone is future. Intel would best be suited to focus on this market for mobile CPU and GPUs.

Re:The phone is the future anyways (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210684)

It wont be long before we dock our cell phones in a station and work via KVM at our office desk.

True. Everyone wants a phone with a half-hour battery life, and every company wants employees carrying their work around in their pocket.

Unsubstantiated rumor (5, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210050)

I seem to be in the minority, but I do not think the merger is viable

1) Antitrust issues: Normally I would scoff at the U.S. gov't stepping in and stopping and anti-competitive merger. This, however, is very high profile and would impace Intel and U.S. business as a whole. I think the private sector would push hard enough that the gov't would have to act.

2) This is antithetical to what has made Dell successful. Dell does not want to be in the business of owning production. They want to be a middle person, putting their brand on items, finding efficiencies in distribution and doing very well at it. Owning production is a different game altogether.

3) Dell would damage their relationship with Intel. As long as Dell is independent they can negotiate hard with Intel and cooperate to ensure that product offerings integrate well with Intel's products. Intel is less likely to want to do business with Dell in a cooperative sense.

Overall, I think this rumor is just a rumor. Course, I've been wrong before, and businesses have done some boneheaded moves.

Re:Unsubstantiated rumor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210270)

What makes you think that this isn't just a ploy by Dell to get a better deal from Intel?

Re:Unsubstantiated rumor (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210438)

What makes you think that this isn't just a ploy by Dell to get a better deal from Intel?

Because Intel would laugh if Dell said they were only going to sell AMD CPUs in future?

Re:Unsubstantiated rumor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210334)

1) doubtful. apple designs the procs and the hardware and the software on iOS devices, no antitrust issues there 2) what? didn't dell get big by letting people customize their hardware online? that's much closer to production than a lot of other brands. 3) possibly.

Re:Unsubstantiated rumor (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210606)

2) the middle person is loosing money. Owning the line increase profit. This is what Wal-mart, Amazon, and many very successful companies do.

3) If they own AMD, then they won't really need Intel except for in the server space, and that's a different market and Intel would be happy to continue there relationship. That aren't going to loose server sales to 'get' Dell.

I don't know if ti's true or not. Hell, Dell may have started it becasue they are getting ready to enter negotiations with Intel.

It doesn't make sense for any PC vendor. IBM maybe (5, Interesting)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210078)

Any PC Vendor would risk putting itself at a performance disadvantage to it's Intel using competition.

Not only that, it would make competing PC vendors leery of using AMD chips.

This would be massive strategic failure for any PC vendor, hastening the slide of both the vendor business and the CPU business.

There are few potential companies that might have a good fit. IBM might be one. IBM might have the silicon expertise, funds and neutrality to keep AMD viable in the CPU industry.

Not IBM either.. (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210630)

If you want any indication of how important *Intel* x86 is to them, look at their current product line. They used to carry Blade and 2S server models with AMD. Now they just have a 4S box available. One could argue that 2S doesn't make sense with AMD's current architecture to explain away the missing 2S servers, but the Blade omission seems pretty glaring.

IBM is firmly in the Intel camp, and they would do nothing to threaten that in a head-on capacity (doing things with ARM and POWER are a little less direct).

That would be very odd... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210142)

Unless Dell is considering a fundamental rethink in strategy(as in "trying to turn into IBM" fundamental...), I can't imagine the logic behind buying AMD...

Right now, Dell is more or less Intel's box-assembly bitch; but they are reaping substantial "marketing assistance" funds, and they also seem to be able to buy AMD chips for their cheap seats and/or large-number-of-sockets servers(where hypertransport is still enough of a factor to make up for intel's better cores), since AMD's open-market prices are excellent.

Were they to aquire AMD, they would be spending a great deal of money in order to piss off intel(who would presumably de-friend them to the extent that the feds allow, thus ruining their prices and/or margins on intel-based systems), and obtain super-preferential access to a product that AMD is selling at excellent prices to all comers anyway... Why?

Unless there is some advantage that I'm not thinking of, buying AMD seems like it would essentially amount to conceding the market for things like corporate laptops and small servers to HP et al, and moving to some other strategy(presumably some sort of AMD APU-based light-to-thin desktop strategy(would they be eating Citrix next? between competition from Microsoft and competition from VMware, they might be edible enough), with some combination of leveraging hypertransport's advantages and hoping real hard for Bulldozer on the server/workstation end...)

That would be quite a shake-up. Anybody have an alternate hypothesis that seems less radical?

Re:That would be very odd... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210694)

(where hypertransport is still enough of a factor to make up for intel's better cores),

Except Intel does QPI which is pretty well equivalent technically. One could make a competent argument that AMD is more aggressive and pricing parts with enough links for 4/8 socket at the same level Intel is doing parts with only 2 socket capability, but the EX Intel stuff is technically capable of competing with AMD *if* you ignore the pricing structure.

Dude... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210400)

Dude you're getting a dell... and AMD is going to hell

Rumors (3, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210494)

I wonder how much it costs to start rumors like that whilst selling the stock short from another country.

excellent (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210534)

the three product I will never buy rolled into one easy and convenient company to ignore.

This could be the greatest merger since AOL-Time W (2)

neo-mkrey (948389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210578)

Oh, wait. . . nevermind.

Sounds Kinda Like Dell Wants to finally Grow Up (1)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210634)

Sounds like Dell wants to finally grow up into a big boy computer company, one that does more than just screw together OEM components for a thin profit margin. Look at Dell's competitors IBM and HP. They do more than just sell cheap computers to people and businesses. They have chipset architectures in their portfolios (POWER, Alpha, Itanium, etc, etc). They have their own Unix flavours (AIX, HP-UX, etc). This allows them to compete on the super large enterprise levels in ways that Dell could never even dream of, since right now they don't have nearly the right IP to compete in this market. They are probably looking to grow up and get into the Mainframe and high performance computer business that their rivals already posses the technology to compete in.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...