http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/d...ge_Rumour.html
Saw this on xbit, I hope this doesn't happen or amd are even more likely stuffed. Even if it ends up just a collaboration with Intel using nvidia graphics on chip that would be bad enough.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/d...ge_Rumour.html
Saw this on xbit, I hope this doesn't happen or amd are even more likely stuffed. Even if it ends up just a collaboration with Intel using nvidia graphics on chip that would be bad enough.
OTH,wouldn't that mean Project Denver would be screwed if Nvidia gave its graphics IP to Intel??
Also mergers in the US have been prevented if any inkling of it creating a monopoly could happen.
This is a recent example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt..._USA_by_AT%26T
Edit!!
The rumour originates from this article:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...-of-intel.aspx
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-12-2012 at 01:26 AM.
Can't see it being for that, Tegra would be a perfect way for Intel to get into phones though - Atom has gone nowhere on that front.
Intel are going ARM thenMaybe the end of worlders are right!
VodkaOriginally Posted by Ephesians
TBH,why would Intel even need to buy Nvidia for that?? Intel licensed their Atom SOC graphics core from Imagination Technologies,who also develop the graphics core in the Apple SOCs. The Apple SOCs have the fastest graphics cores ATM.
If anything they could probably buy Imagination Technologies themselves, and probably Texas Instruments mobile SOC division too. That would still cost less than half of what Nvidia costs and moreover they would have access to all of the MIPs patents too.
Even the site who originated the rumour said it was to be taken with bucket of salt.
So,basically all the Intel board members,would need to be fired??This time around, our sources have said that Intel did not categorically say no to one of requirements, should Nvidia be acquired - and that is that the CEO of Nvidia and the senior management take over the respectable roles in the new entity, regardless of the entity size.
Edit!!
Another thing:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Art...or-ireland.htm
Intel has $7 billion dollar in debt offset by $10 billion in cash.
So that means Intel would have between $15 billion to $22 billion in total debt if they bought Nvidia??The company is currently valued at just $7.82 billion, which is a small chunk of change for Intel, which had higher profits. Given the cost of IP and other liabilities, the acquisition would probably not be below $15 billion - but that's a wide ballpark figure.
Second Edit!!
Nvidia has around $3.4 billion to $3.75 billion in cash and investments and no debt it appears,so appear to be in a better position than Intel.
That would still mean around $11 billion in cash and investments and $15 billlion to $22 billion in debt. Actually,that sounds like Nvidia would be in a worse situation,than it is now?
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 16-12-2012 at 12:20 PM.
I didn't realise Nintendo has more cash in hand than Intel and also has zero debt! What?
Qualcomm has over $20 billion in cash and investments and appears to have almost no debt too.
I wonder if Intel is desperate enough to actually make such a huge change to the company??
Edit!!
Here is CD from SA making a comment on the BSN article which he discredits:
http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showp...95&postcount=7
Intel tried to buy Nvidia twice before according to CD! However,both CD and TV don't appear to like each other,so it is hard to say whether CD is correct.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-12-2012 at 02:13 AM.
I don't think I have ever seen so many edits so packed together
This is interesting news. A collaboration could be fruitful.
Home Entertainment =Epson TW9400, Samsung 65" HDTV, Denon AVRX6300H, Panasonic DPUB450EBK Ultra HD Blu-Ray and Monitor Audio Silver RX 7.0, Monitor Audio CT265IDC(x4) Dolby Atmos and XTZ 12.17 Sub - (Config 7.1.4)
My System=Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wi-Fi, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Patriot 16 GB DDR4 3200MHz, 256GB Crucial SSD, Kingston 256GB SSD and 500GB Samsung F3, Palit GTX1070 GameRock Edition , Enermax Liberty 620W, Akasa Eclipse-32,Dell 2715H & Dell U2311H
Home Server 2/HTPC - Ryzen 5 3600, Asus Strix B450, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte 1660 Super, Corsair TX550, Kodi with MadVR & Nvidia Shield Pro (4K)
Diskstation/HTPC - Synology DS2415+ with 47TB
Portable=Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Huawei M5 10" & HP Omen 15 laptop
I thought I read recently that Intel borrowed money for tax purposes. Some how them borrowing money at a very low rate worked out better than buying with cash.
Not again...
what Nvidia need to do is team up with Crytek and Sega and release a killer console with some kick ass graphics rich titles. Market share won. And new life for the graphics industry.
no, but it would kick start a new wave of games that would help move the stagnant PC pool along and force those of us running 2-3 year old cards to have to actually need to upgrade them. So long as graphics are throttled by the console development mentality then graphics progress (and the need to buy newer cards) is throttled.
The next generation of consoles from MS and Sony are already late in development stages and are likely to be a significant improvement over the current generation, but it's not really reasonable to expect top-end PC performance from a console. Heat/power/BOM/size are all major issues limiting console hardware, and they're often designed to be sold with small or even negative margins initially, improving as time goes on with die shrinks/better yield/etc.
why? am i missing something? powerful chips already exist. powerful GPU already exist. select appropriate components, design chassis, test + market. Hardware-wise this is pretty straightforward it seems to me. Games development might take longer, sure, but high end PC GPU architecture is already on the market and able to do more than current (or even the next-gen) consoles. So I don't see why it would need to cost billions in R&D.
All the reasons I listed, high end hardware costs a lot more than the vast majority of people would pay for a console, they use more power and produce far more heat than is acceptable for a small device, which among other things harms reliability, and would necessitate an inconveniently large case.
Designing a console involves a LOT more than buying a lot of off the shelf components and cramming them into a case...
You're talking about two different things here: A PC that can play games and a console that sits under your TV.
For example: None of the 3 major consoles use the same CPU architecture as a PC. All have a custom CPU of some kind, even if it has been derived from a previous design and architecture.
What happens when your PC based CPU stops getting produced? Going to move to the latest one? : Fragmentation problems, new memory controllers, new bus, new northbridge and so on.....You've got to test all that EVERY single time. What happens if there is a hardware based bug? mass recall with a cost of billions if you sell world wide.
Not going to move to the latest and greatest? Then you need someone to produce that CPU. Go and ask Intel to make you a few P4 CPUs and see what response you get. The same would happen after 6 months to a year with off the shelf PC parts.
What about local validation? Different laws in each country governing the sale of hardware (Validation in the UK might fall foul of FCC laws in the US).
What about development kits and the software? The cost of making a fully blown SDK with people who know that their doing for a console is insane. Programmers of that calibre can demand high wages.
What about returns when the console goes faulty?
What about patents and legal issues? The wireless controller you're planning to ship with the console: Subject to almost countless numbers of patents in the US which you'll have to defend yourself against.
You're not really talking about a console. You're talking about a PC with a media centre style front-end. They are vastly different things. The Steambox is probably much closer to what you actually want.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)