[zueqhbyhp]

Dividend. No point in buying AMD.

[abOfU9nJ]

I was thinking that Apple being crazy about margins, AMD sounds like a good deal.

[Mjypksun]

I was thinking that Apple being crazy about margins, AMD sounds like a good deal.

But why?

They'd buy AMD only to kill off the entire market that buys their products?

Their CPUs aren't very good, and their GPUs merely competitive. They come with a lot of debt (IIRC), chronically poor management, and no real benefits for Apple.

If Apple wants the latest & greatest x86 CPUs, they need Intel and its process expertise. Buying AMD just means they may get slightly cheaper, more power hungry chips. As it stands now, Apple can play Intel & AMD off eachother for business if either one gets a better product.

It just makes no business sense for Apple to buy AMD.

[StincPriene]

But why?

They'd buy AMD only to kill off the entire market that buys their products?

Their CPUs aren't very good, and their GPUs merely competitive. They come with a lot of debt (IIRC), chronically poor management, and no real benefits for Apple.

If Apple wants the latest & greatest x86 CPUs, they need Intel and its process expertise. Buying AMD just means they may get slightly cheaper, more power hungry chips. As it stands now, Apple can play Intel & AMD off eachother for business if either one gets a better product.

It just makes no business sense for Apple to buy AMD.

This. Buying AMD really helps nobody in the end.

[Gremlinn]

AMD lacks processor technology because it lacks the funds to hire good people. The reason Intel stays ahead is because of the people who work there. Apple could never hope to get the kind of quality people Intel has working for AMD.

The only time AMD was ahead was because they hired a bunch of people who quit from a small processor company Intel bought (the name is escaping me at the moment). That's when they came out with AMD64 and a few other cool things. Since then, intel's caught up and surpassed them.

Also, it makes no sense to try to use AMD's expertise to make ARM cores...the ARM market is already pretty saturated as far as I can tell with Motorola and Texas Instruments and a few other companies already producing tons of new chips every year.

[Arkadiyas]

Actually, here's a list of the benefits I thought about:

1) Using AMD's expertise to design ARM cores

AMD has no expertise in ARM cores.

2) Pushing harder for GPU computing, integrate into OS X and iOS at core level Don't need to buy AMD for this, since Apple's GPU computing is implemented via OpenCL which is GPU-agnostic.

AMD is behind in process technology because it lacks the funds. Apple has the funds, and the ability to integrate vertically. This isn't even close to true. It takes 10+ years of concurrent research to get to things like Intel's 3D tri-gate transistors. Apple would need to fund AMD to an obscene amount for many years to get up to parity with Intel.

[arcalmanard]

Not to mention Intel deciding to go with Itanium for the first part of the 64 bit generation.

[Trissinas]

AMD lacks processor technology because it lacks the funds to hire good people.

Intel's R&D budget is much larger than AMD's. This said, I would be surprised if the difference between them was the engineers' salaries, rather than the infrastructure provided to them.

[Dapnoinaacale]

Intel would cease being market leader the moment someone came out with something cleverer than what they have, which is what happened when AMD got all those Alpha engineers. Furthermore, Intel has tons of competition--AMD's chips, SPARC, PowerPC, and ARM just to name a few.

Also Boris, it's painfully clear you know next to nothing about this stuff.

[Peterli]

Just stick to filosophy. I don't think you even know what a natural monopoly is.

Intel's processes are improving so fast that x86 will be better power-wise than ARM.

False.
At which point, you could call them a natural monopoly in the consumer-level chip markets. Very very false.

[Les Allen]

1. AMD is not Intel's only competitor. Not by a long shot.
2. You are hearing wrong with respect to ARM and power consumption. Also, consider your use of the term "brute force". I can't think of a less apt analogy.

[blogwado]

2. You are hearing wrong with respect to ARM and power consumption. Also, consider your use of the term "brute force". I can't think of a less apt analogy.

I meant die shrinks. Why is it wrong?

[amotoustict]

x86 has a lot of overhead ARM doesn't have. Intel's process advantage may make them marginally competitive, but they'll always be handicapped.

I get the point that the process advantage might never be enough, I was asking HC why it was wrong to compare a two-generation process lead to "brute force".