Print 28 comment(s) - last by crystal clear.. on Oct 9 at 2:04 AM

Other companies interested in NVIDIA instead

DailyTech previously reported analysts believed NVIDIA was a prime candidate for an Intel acquisition. Other analysts predict Intel is unlikely to acquire NVIDIA. Nevertheless, there’s interest in NVIDIA from other tech companies. Joe Osha, an analyst for Merril Lynch stated “We don't think there's a solid rationale for a deal and we don't think it's going to happen." According to sources it would appear other industry players were interested in NVIDIA, though no formal negotiations have occurred.

Craig Barret, Intel Chairman had this to say about the rumors "We treat investments and things of that sort like fine wine and we never discuss them before their time, so we don't comment on rumors of that sort.” Other analysts such as Doug Freedman from American Technology Research remain skeptical over a possible Intel acquisition.

Speculation of a NVIDIA purchase rumors began popping up shortly after the AMD and ATI merger.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

never going to happen
By cgrecu77 on 10/6/2006 5:16:49 PM , Rating: 1
it's too expensive, very likely to have problems getting through due to antitrust concerns (top 2 players in a close market with basically 3 significant players merging? I don't think so ...), it doesn't bring much to Intel other than hiting AMD below belt by retiring support - but even this is only worth something if it happens in the next 6 months or so, by next year ATI will be the top chipset maker for AMD by far (at least that's the way it should be).

I think nvidia will be bought though, because they can't really survive on their own, the mb market will be owned by Intel + AMD (each for their own CPUs), the graphic market will be owned by Intel + Ati, in two years ATI will have access to much superior manufacturing process from AMD + additional resources. So nvidia is being squeezed and they could be bought by IBM or Samsung for example. IBM has manufacturing capabilities but not a lot of interest I would think, Samsung might be interested in the brand, after all there is a lot of glamour in the high end video and chipset market that could benefit their brand and they also have enormous resources ...

RE: never going to happen
By Thorburn on 10/6/2006 5:47:49 PM , Rating: 1
AMD barely have the manufacturing resources to supply there own CPU's let alone ATI's graphics cards, whats more they are billions in the red now so they can't really afford to go building more fabs.

RE: never going to happen
By MonkeyPaw on 10/6/2006 6:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Except AMD is doing exactly that. FAB30 is slated for a several billion dollar upgrade, one large enough that when complete, it won't be called FAB30 anymore. This will happen after FAB36 is fully operational, I believe.

RE: never going to happen
By bob661 on 10/6/2006 6:09:11 PM , Rating: 4
AMD barely have the manufacturing resources to supply
I keep hearing this garbage yet no one can back this up! Do you really think Dell would get in bed with AMD if AMD didn't have enough to supply Dell?

RE: never going to happen
By dwalton on 10/7/2006 3:43:48 AM , Rating: 3
How do you explain the fact that AMD just certified Charter for 65nM production?

Simple, AMD chip demand outstrip its production capability and Dell will only increase that demand.

Ati might not have access to AMD fabs for the time being but AMD works on a more granular level and uses far more custom logic than NVIDIA or ATI. ATI now has access to AMD's entire portfolio of custom logic. (paraphrase from an earlier anandtech article)

RE: never going to happen
By DallasTexas on 10/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: never going to happen
By goku on 10/8/2006 11:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
lol bottom feeders, reducing the cache size wasn't that bad of an idea, it just means lower prices and higher production numbers (well it should). AMD processors don't benefit as much from large cache as much as intel procesors do.

RE: never going to happen
By Targon on 10/7/2006 8:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
AMD has Chartered doing manufacturing for them now to help with this. In addition to the already mentioned upgrade of Fab 30, AMD is also going to be building a fab in upstate New York unless that has changed.

For the next two years, the ATI division will be doing things pretty much the way they have been when it comes to manufacturing. Once AMD has their fabs upgraded and the new one(s) built, we may see the graphics division manufacturing brought in-house, or moved to a 65nm process at Chartered.

RE: never going to happen
By kilkennycat on 10/6/2006 6:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Er, excuse me. It seems that nVidia is perfectly capable of surviving on their own -- in fact, far better than AMD/ATi, now to be a billion or so in debt to the banks. Remember that the AMD offer for ATi per share is $16 in CASH and the balance in AMD stock. Meanwhile nVidia makes money hand over fist on GRAPHICS products -- the motherboard chipsets help sell nVidia graphics ( think SLI ), but have far lower margins per chip than ANY of their graphics offerings, except the sub-$75 bottom-of-the-barrel video cards. Now nVidia has the freedom to be THE ONLY advanced-graphics company on the planet. Investment by ATi in advanced graphics development will be hampered by the huge debt-load of the merger --- with Intel aggressively cutting prices left right and center include Core2, there will be little profit for AMD to pay down the debt, since they also have 65nm (and smaller) process development and manufacturing to simultaneously finance. The ATi/AMD merger is a very badly-timed mistake. As it is, both AMD and Ati now seem to be 9 months behind the ball - read the articles on the G80, Kentsfield and the recent AMD CPU schedules all here on your friendly Anandtech Daily News, and judge for yourselves. A great pity. I switched from exclusive-Intel in all my personal-use PC-builds to AMD X2/nForce4/SLI in my most recent; the most stable and trouble-free system that I have ever built. I expect to build my next personal machine around the middle of next year, quad-core/Dx10 etc, of course; sadly, the prospects of it being AMD again are rapidly waning.

RE: never going to happen
By dwalton on 10/7/2006 3:55:20 AM , Rating: 1
Unlike Nvidia, AMD has the ability to sell you the CPU, GPU and chipset to go with them.

While AMD acquired debt it also increased its revenue and market cap which often offset that increased debt since it worth 15 billion (?) instead of 10 billion (?).

It all comes down to AMD ability to execute. AMD can flounder in its cpu business for the next few years if it's able to flourish with its newly founded chipset and gpu business.

RE: never going to happen
By DallasTexas on 10/7/2006 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
"..As it is, both AMD and Ati now seem to be 9 months behind the ball...

I actually have (had) great admiration for ATI to the extent I bought ATI excluseivly. They had the best (compatible) drivers and stable. Unfortuneatly, like all acquiistions (mergers), a loss of focus will ensue. I'm araid that what remains of the once great ATI will be distracted as a chipset function to AMD to compete with Intel's mature platform strategy. It's sad but AMD needed to do this.

"...I switched from exclusive-Intel in all my personal-use PC-builds to AMD X2/nForce4/SLI in my most recent;.."

I'm sorry about your loss but I'm sure AMD will soon come out with something to make your investment worthy again. The K8L is rumored to be a worthy competitor to the Core 2
family - hopefully here before Intel again lowers the boom on 45nm Nehalem.

RE: never going to happen
By akugami on 10/8/2006 3:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to agree on the debt taken by AMD buying ATI. However, I'm going to disagree on your assumption that ATI does poorly in the market. There is no question in my mind nVidia does better however, ATI still makes a pretty penny and has about 35-45% of the discreet GPU market as well as a higher percentage of the integrated chipset market. Their share is usually in the upper 30's range and at times has reached the mid 40's and assuming they don't screw things up, it should remain similar. Granted nVidia does better but it's not like ATI is a company perennially in the red.

In fairness, ATI is going to lose a lot of integrated GPU/chipset sales on the Intel side of things but they should gain some sales in the AMD side to offset things. This actually has the potential to hurt nVidia as their integrated GPU and motherboard chipset business is mostly based on the AMD side of things. You can laugh about the profits for integrated chipsets and GPU's but when you consider the volume of such sales, it's a pretty penny indeed.

ATI does make a profit on discreet GPU's and there is absolutely no reason for AMD to shut this part of ATI's business down. I truly don't see how some people can predict nVidia having the discreet video card market to itself. Likely we will see the end of the "Built by ATI" cards but companies like ASUS, Sapphire, etc will pick up the slack. It basically comes down to why AMD would kill a cash cow? ATI likely doesn't have a positive cash flow, considering expenses spent, in it's discreet GPU business every quarter but at the end of the year, they usually come out with positive revenue after all.

As for how far behind ATI is to nVidia, last I heard from the rumor mill, they're set to release their next GPU in roughly Feb'07, give or take a bit. The G80 is set to be released in mid Nov so that would put ATI roughly 3 months behind assuming a Feb launch and if it's a March launch, they'd only be 4 months behind and not 9 months as you claim. Of course, this is based on assumptions on when AMD is going to launch their video card. If going by your schedule it'd be July of next year before ATI releases their next video card. I highly doubt that ATI will release their next video card in July'07.

Believe it or not, I don't think AMD buying out ATI will affect the discreet GPU market by any large amount. ATI will be following their own roadmaps for the next year to two years. I think AMD buying out ATI is more for their chipset business to sell to OEM's like Dell, HP, Sony, etc much like what Intel does now with their low end GPU's, motherboard chipsets as well as CPU's.

The other area is the specialized markets like servers, high end gaming, CAD, video special effects processing, or other high calculation intensive task that can take advantage of some of the designs of ATI's GPU's for tasks that today use the CPU. One example is the Folding@Home's newly released client that uses ATI GPU's for data processing.

There is also ATI's budding cell phone chipset business which if successful can pay huge dividends considering the increasingly powerful nature of smartphones and the increasing use of such smartphones in the place of PDA's and likely portable video and audio players.

Is it a huge risk for AMD? Absolutely, but ATI is trying to grow itself so it can better compete with Intel. It is not going to do it by relying only on people to switch to AMD chips. It has to go out and either create new markets for it's products or innovate enough in exhisting markets to make their products more compelling.

As for Intel, I don't see nVidia benefiting them much either. They are not interested in the discreet GPU business. Their aims are similar to some of the ones I outlined as reasons for ATI being bought by AMD. However, I think they are doing this with a combination of thier own in house GPU's and technology from lesser known companies. In that respect, it makes more sense for Intel to spend a few hundred million to a billion on lesser companies and funding it's existing departments rather than overspending for nVidia.

RE: never going to happen
By Hare on 10/7/2006 2:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
it's too expensive
AMD bought ATI. That was a huge deal when you compare the values of both companies company. nVidia would be peanuts for Intel. If ATI wasn't too expensive for AMD then surely nVidia isn't too expensive for Intel.

Anyway, I don't believe Intel buying nVidia. I just can't see the benefits that would justify the cost.

RE: never going to happen
By doctor sam adams on 10/8/2006 7:31:42 PM , Rating: 3
Anyway, I don't believe Intel buying nVidia. I just can't see the benefits that would justify the cost.

That's what "too expensive" means.

RE: never going to happen
By Plasmoid on 10/7/2006 9:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
You assume AMD would dare produce a single ATI graphics card.

The second they do they probably void every contract with their 3rd party manyfacturers like Aaphire and Asus. Even if it isnt in the contract it is an unwritten rule. It happened to 3dfx before, it could happen again.

I just wonder...
By S3anister on 10/6/2006 2:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Nevertheless, there’s interest in NVIDIA from other tech companies."

Who might these "other tech companies" be?

RE: I just wonder...
By IceTron on 10/6/2006 2:48:51 PM , Rating: 1
In Soviet Russia, Nvidia buys you!

RE: I just wonder...
By S3anister on 10/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: I just wonder...
By shecknoscopy on 10/6/2006 3:16:49 PM , Rating: 1
Well, while we're doing voices...


In America, first you get the nVidia Grahics card, then you... uh, get the second nVidia Graphics card for SLI. Then you get... erm... Oblivion at more than 10fps. Then you get the women.*


*-It'll probably require installing "The Sims," too.

RE: I just wonder...
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2006 3:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL. Awesome.

RE: I just wonder...
By CrystalBay on 10/6/2006 3:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds to me that C.Barret is saying they're are still negotiating terms...

RE: I just wonder...
By hstewarth on 10/6/2006 5:39:08 PM , Rating: 1
I am also wondering about this statement and it makes the entire article meanless. With AMD and ATI, the only real company that should be interested in NVidia would be Intel.

I think it more likely all other companies would not desired NVidia to joined forces with Intel - especially AMD.

Just think if NVidia some how could not make GPU for Intel cpus for some reason by purchasing some other company - this would be good for AMD because Intel market would be limited. It will really give AMD an unfair advantage and should not be allow to happen.

I don't believe any of these statements.

INTELs shift in focus
By crystal clear on 10/7/2006 6:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Intels shift of focus from being a PC CHIPMAKER to becoming a PROVIDER of TECHNOLOGIES for Different PLATFORMS,gives you an indication which direction Intel is moving into.
Thats the reason the Intel Inside logo is OUT & the new logo is IN.It shows the above change in direction,namely
TECHNOLOGY.One of the many examples is VIIV TECHNOLOGY,just to quote some.
The stratergy of Intel is to have the company operating around PLATFORMS,so it is restructored with this logic in mind.

All moves Intel takes has to fit in the new stratergy.
They have many partnership/collaboration deals with Technology companies,like-

*Intel-Micron for memory chips
*Intel-Imagination Technologies for graphic & video to be
incorporaated in Intel microprocessors.(3% stake for Intel)
*Intel-NVIDIA broad cross licensing agreement(details not
known to the press).

So people who know the Intel statergy will know to draw the correct conclusions.
Intel will not buyout Nvidia rather have a stake in Nvidia,
the motives/objectives being Technology.To fit this in their
new Intel statergy.

I expect a similar to INTEL-Imagination deal in the near future.
This move will interesting & will have some major upsets in the future in the fields of graphics.

RE: INTELs shift in focus
By crystal clear on 10/9/2006 2:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
"Intel said to be seeking strategic partnership with Nvidia"

Source-Digi Times OCT 9 2006.

If AMD and ATI can make Whoopee...
By Discord on 10/6/2006 6:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't beleive that it is going to happen but I thought the same with AMD and ATI. What's more now that DAAMIT is a go it would basically clear a path (or at least make it easier) for Intel to make the purchase.
My best guess as other suitors (or Intels) interest are more for the mobile cell/PDAish/convergence device market rather than high end GPUs.
So maybe TI, Samsung, Apple, or any of the Cell phone IC manufacturers are the other interested parties. I still doubt it will happen but as long as it helps my stock prices, scream it from the rooftops! Besides that Intel wine comment was awfully smug sounding.

By hans007 on 10/6/2006 7:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
the reason amd bought ATI was the "platform"

they want their own centrino , core 2 duo whatever. intel alreayd has that so that is why they would never buy nvidia. NVIDIA right now, is actually nearly as big market cap wise as AMD is. that said, the antitrust would not matter, since amd is getting ati. it might have mattered had this been done before that.

now AMD is going to spend 6 billion on ATI. they are in debt from upgrading fabs and will have no cash. Honestly if they really had wanted a platform , the could have just bought SIS or something. or ULI. too bad nvidia bought ULI before they did, they could have saved a lot of money. I am fairly certain graphics were not the reason amd bought ati outside of amd wanting to utilize their spare fab capacity (if and when they ever have spare capacity).

Nvidia is probably better off on its own anyway. they can sell for both platforms, since its probably inevitable that the attention amd gives to graphics begins to fall once ATI is integrated in, only allowing nvidia to be even more dominant in graphics.

in 2-3 years, nvidia could own graphics and physics.

By bloodypulp on 10/7/2006 12:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
IBM has already been working with Nvidia for some time now.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they decided to pull an AMD-like move and gobble up Nvidia. I'm sure IBM sees the inevitable CPU/GPU convergence and Nvidia would be the perfect answer for them.

Good for chipset design.
By Apprentic3 on 10/7/2006 2:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
I personally think that if Intel should acquire Nvidia if they are eyeing on their Nforce chipset department. In terms of graphic, I feel that Nvidia's offerings are not very impressive. I do think that hey have been competing based on pricing their products lower than ATI, in order to win the market. ATI's current gen graphic offerings are more advance and impressive, tho they are also more inefficient in terms of power consumption and cost.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home
Related Articles
AMD-ATI: A Done Deal
July 24, 2006, 5:00 AM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki