Intel buying out AMD rumors

[mikat]

12 hours ago, fasauceome said:

https://hothardware.com/news/crazy-plausible-intel-rumored-consider-amd-acquistion

nooooooooooooooooooooooo thank you.

Excuse me?

It's called a monopoly. Again, no thanks.

As someone who's not as well oriented in the business world, I have to ask; Is Intel legally allowed to do anything remotely close to this? They poached Raja Koduri but that's another story. 

 

This whole thing feels like some kind of prank, or maybe a fever dream?

 

Either way, the PC space is worse off with Intel as the sole chip designer, as we've seen thus far.

My main concern about tech related "leaks" and rumors lately is that they have had a startling accuracy over the last few months. AMD was rumored to make up to a 16 core AM4 CPU and the newly revealed chip with only one chiplet on it looks to make that rumor far more accurate. 

No they can't since they'd get screwed by anti monopoly laws

[Thaldor]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you will find the EU has no power to block the takeover of an American company by another American company.  What they posses at the moment is power to reside over antitrust cases in the EU and block the take over of EU companies. 

Quite many coutries have legistation for huge company merges and I would like to believe even US has one. Intel buying out AMD would trigger those laws in quite a many places and EU is the one that would rise the biggest voice probably. If the US was to give green light for Intel to buyout AMD I would think EU would pose quite many anti-trust cases and penalties that Intel would be even forced to leave EU markets (which put shortly is impossible, just like Google, EA, Microsoft and any other global company can't just leave EU markets because there's quite a lot of money and the biggests risk, if they were to leave either existing or newly emerging competitor would gain very strong foothold) or break into pieces. So technically EU cannot stop Intel from buying AMD, but "here's XX billion dollar fine, break up or we give another fine".

[straight_stewie]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Basically the only things that make it such a high value is you are buying access to the x86 CPU and GPU market,

There may actually be law against entering into the x86 market. I'm still a little fuzzy about all the detail around how AMD and VIA came to be allowed to make modern variants.

I'm less fuzzy about how Zilog is allowed to continue making x86 compatible processors, but that's a different scenario altogether.

I'm very fuzzy about how Cyrix, now National Semiconductor, was allowed to make x86 compatible processors in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

So technically EU cannot stop Intel from buying AMD, but "here's XX billion dollar fine, break up or we give another fine".

I still have to make the point that sometimes, it doesn't matter what some countries do or want. Both AMD and Intel are US based companies. Both are also the only suppliers of IBM PC Compatible processors. That means something huge: If Intel and AMD decided they didn't like the law in a country, they could stop selling processors in that country. That would absolutely cripple that countries academic, military, scientific, and government industries.

That's a huge amount of power to hold over a government, and would basically mean that, if pushed to that resolution and standing together, they could probably force any government to allow them to do anything they want. The only possible way for governments to get out of such a situation would be to write new law, purposefully violating their own patent infringement/copyright violation law, to allow another company (in this case, likely ARM) to continue making the products.

Or in other words, if Intel/AMD wanted, they could put the EU in a situation where the only way to continue an influx of new x86 processors, would be to forcefully take Intels FAB in Ireland and give ARM the legal ability to design x86 processors. That doesn't completely solve the problem, as alot of the technology that makes new ones work isn't patented, as they are protected "industry secrets", so there would be years of lag time in that solution, assuming ARM could even get the job done at all.

 

 

 

 

In either case, such a takeover would probably be more covert: Instead of Intel buying AMD, Intels share holders would likely start also buying voting shares in AMD. The two would remain separate companies, but basically be ran by the same people. There's still a risk of trouble, but mostly only for the individual shareholders. The businesses would be largely protected in such a scenario. That's not to say it is going to happen at all, just that that's likely how it would happen.

[LukaH]

i could see them buying out radeon, but amd as a whole seems like "an off season April fools joke".

[Silentprototipe]

15 hours ago, fasauceome said:

Intel is considering buying out AMD. 

[Thaldor]

2 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I still have to make the point that sometimes, it doesn't matter what some countries do or want. Both AMD and Intel are US based companies. Both are also the only suppliers of IBM PC Compatible processors. That means something huge: If Intel and AMD decided they didn't like the law in a country, they could stop selling processors in that country. That would absolutely cripple that countries academic, military, scientific, and government industries.

That's a huge amount of power to hold over a government, and would basically mean that, if pushed to that resolution and standing together, they could probably force any government to allow them to do anything they want. The only possible way for governments to get out of such a situation would be to write new law, purposefully violating their own patent infringement/copyright violation law, to allow another company (in this case, likely ARM) to continue making the products.

Or in other words, if Intel/AMD wanted, they could put the EU in a situation where the only way to continue an influx of new x86 processors, would be to forcefully take Intels FAB in Ireland and give ARM the legal ability to design x86 processors. That doesn't completely solve the problem, as alot of the technology that makes new ones work isn't patented, as they are protected "industry secrets", so there would be years of lag time in that solution.

You seem to forget that the EU still is the 2nd biggest market in the world after NA and followed by China. Losing it would be very bad to any company, at least after their investors hear about their decision (it really doesn't bid well if about fourth of global market share is lost because the company didn't want to negotiate or just simply bent the knee). Also that market share hole is big enough that ARM or Qualcomm or any semiconductor company (maybe even IBM would be interested to start consumer PowerPC again) with even slight interest in CPUs would gain huge investments and take huge risks to take it and and even start defensing it so Intel/AMD couldn't come back.

 

I'm not sure but the hit for the individual governments wouldn't really be that bad considering governmental hardware upgrade cycles are long and something like the newest and most powerful desktop CPU isn't really the thing they look for. Militaries are probably busy looking at mobile solutions (ARM) and scientific and academic are usually in mainframe and server markets where IBM with PowerPC is actually a choice.

 

x86 isn't the only path to go anymore and quite often it might even be hindurance with the needs to have backwards compatibility and other stuff. PowerPC is actually majority in mainframe solutions and it's not far that ARM would push through even when phones have moved to x86 CPUs. Not to even mention things like RTC CPUs, SoCs and other "unsexy" things that do they work in places where they are invisible.

[straight_stewie]

15 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

x86 isn't the only path to go anymore and quite often it might even be hindurance with the needs to have backwards compatibility and other stuff. PowerPC is actually majority in mainframe solutions and it's not far that ARM would push through even when phones have moved to x86 CPUs. Not to even mention things like RTC CPUs, SoCs and other "unsexy" things that do they work in places where they are invisible. 

I think you're underestimating the x86 server space market share, and the cost and lag time involved in completely switching architectures in an entire industry.

There are many viable options out there to build new systems with, but they are only viable when you build the new system, and really only viable for scientific computing and cloud computing, where everything is expected to be a custom, application and architecture specific software solution anyway. As far as replacing the PCs on the workdesks of government and industry employees goes, making the switch would also require respinning all of their software to run on the new platform, something that outweighs the cost of making the architecture switch in the first place.

I know my opinions are not widely shared, but I firmly believe that, for better or worse, there are certain companies who just won't disappear because they are too ingrained into how things work in the world. I believe this so firmly that my long-term growth portfolio is almost entirely based around these companies. These are companies like Lockheed Martin, Alphabet, Intel, Raytheon... Or in other words, businesses that first world governments and their militaries rely on to function. Alphabet is the odd-man out here, but I'm convinced they aren't going anywhere anytime soon because quite a bit of the world heavily relies on their products and services.

[JoeCoke]

10 hours ago, MoonSpot said:

 

Spoiler

 

[pas008]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Seeing as their integrated graphics are trash I would have to disagree. If they want to make gpus capable of delivering good gaming performance it will be extremely difficult to do so without infringing on nvidia and AMD patents. 

things I'm wondering

 

intel can still use any nvidia patent it used throughout their cross patent deal

making intel have more solid foundation on getting there especially with their larrabee stuff I guess was pushing raytracing then but amd and nvidia kicked that down then

amd intel deal was about chips not licenses

 

 

[goodtofufriday]

A rumor fabricated to shake investor confidence. 

 

All it is. 

[Acrain7]

M o n o p o l i e s, kids, M o n o p o l i e s!

[BLLDoesTech]

16 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Yes.

 

A monopoly isn't defined as illegal until it has committed predatory or exclusionary tactics against that market.

 

The Sherman Antitrust in the US would make this interesting but I doubt illegal as this protects from price gouging to ensure no competition, etc.  Think of all of the new CPU companies wanting to enter the market soon - I know Ive read about a few.  

 

Do I think they will?  Ive seen some crazy ish in business.  Own a few, and work for Uncle Wardaddy himself (one of his many companies) and the things that get pulled off...to ensure revenue......boy the definition of ethics is STRETCHED.  Anyways not impossible at all, but I hope not myself.

I would think, although legal, it wouldn't be a smart move on Intel's part. I don't think AMD would want to sell, they are doing better than Intel. Intel would surely rather deal with a competitor, than with being regulated as a monopoly.

ARM is still out there as well. Windows and macosx showed that they can port their operating system to ARM so people may switch to ARM if prices are good and the company develops desktop processors.

If Intel acquires AMD they may become "fat, dumb and happy" like other companies have after acquiring large companies. Intel doesn't need that, they need to keep innovating to stay ahead instead of falling behind. Intel needs AMD to act as a shield against anti-trust laws.

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, BLLDoesTech said:

I don't think AMD would want to sell, they are doing better than Intel

Oh definitely not. The 14nm shortage isn't just because of low supply, it's also high demand. everyone wants some Intel CPU in their life apparently, be it an office PC, gaming desktop, laptop, or server CPU

 

The main reason I could see this working out is a stall on the 10nm node producing awful yields. 

[Taf the Ghost]

21 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

Oh definitely not. The 14nm shortage isn't just because of low supply, it's also high demand. everyone wants some Intel CPU in their life apparently, be it an office PC, gaming desktop, laptop, or server CPU

 

The main reason I could see this working out is a stall on the 10nm node producing awful yields. 

14nm supply problems for Intel are due to being 2+ years late to moving their highest volume parts to 10nm. Add in that their yields have never been great on 14nm and a huge chunk of the server market had to upgrade Haswell systems in a hurry because of Spectre/Meltdown, you have a supply crunch as a result.

[MoonSpot]

57 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

  Hide contents

 

 

-----------------------------------------

Sure ARM is a thing in the server space, but how robust is it really?  They're power efficient but when you need to do robust heavy lifting, are they even considered?

I can see the case for intel buying AMD with the justification that ARM is out there and a bunch of mental legal gymnastics touting the line that it wouldn't be a monopoly, but it seems like taking a moped to an F1 race and acting as if it belongs there.  Plus it doesn't address the consumer market concerns.

[yian88]

"sharpening bayonet sounds" 

Over my dead body, join me to revolution. Shinzou wo sasageyo!!! for no-monopoly market freedom!!!

I hope Su stays strong and market rules prevent it.

"If you cant beat them, purchase them. " Intel 2019.

 

 

 

Totally not trying to start another bob and the tank army trend against Intel...

[Wh0_Am_1]

14 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Theres only 3 players in the x86 market with the third realistically non-existent. ARM only competes with Android and chrome books etc. 

Not for long, they have already made their presence known in the Ultrabook segment (with Windows 10) of the laptop market, and they plan to continue to expand that presence much further.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

they have already made their presence known in the Ultrabook segment

As nothing more than a shotty joke.

 

5 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

they plan to continue to expand that presence much further.

 

*Stolen from Silentprototipe*

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Not for long, they have already made their presence known in the Ultrabook segment (with Windows 10) of the laptop market, and they plan to continue to expand that presence much further.

Windows 10S is garbage

[Wh0_Am_1]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

Windows 10S is garbage

No running a full version of Windows 10, (why would you mention Windows 10 S that is only used a student version anymore, or an attempt to take the battle to chrome)

[Guest]

Just now, Wh0_Am_1 said:

No running a full version of Windows 10, (why would you mention Windows 10 S that is only used a student version anymore, or an attempt to take the battle to chrome)

It’s not really a full version, it’s really just RT with x86 emulation. You wouldn’t get near WINE performance even.

[Wh0_Am_1]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

It’s not really a full version, it’s really just RT with x86 emulation. You wouldn’t get near WINE performance even.

Indeed it still needs work, but Microsoft is still investing rather heavily in R&D for ARM. What, do you think that an OS with roots as old as Window's and it's complexity can be easily transferred to a new platform? 

[DildorTheDecent]

This has to be one of the oldest rumours of all time.

[AngryBeaver]

18 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You have to think about it from a money perspective. Intel won't gain enough from acquiring AMD to justify not being able to sell to the EU. At the end of the day businesses care about profit and keeping stock holders happy. The situation where the EU restricts the sales of their products in the EU would hurt both of those. 

That is true, but when it comes to a situation like this trying to enforce that ban would hurt them just as much if not more.

 

It would by no means be a long term thing as they would not have an alternative means to provide this tech.

[Sauron]

23 hours ago, fasauceome said:

Again, I have to know, is it even legal?

I don't think so, they'd have to license x86 to another company and even then I don't think buying their only competitor is legal.