AMD Sale to Dell Rumored 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."
Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Looking at probably independent sites (the tech report, tom's...), you have to get fairly high in the end for Intel platforms (ie, CPU+Chipset+motherboard) to be cost-competitive at a given level of performance, at that's for PCs heavily skewed towards the Gamer and Enthusiast market.
My feeling is AMD is competitive all the way up to, but excluding, the 5-10% of the market that can be called "high-end". They have OK and cheaper CPUs, better IGPs, cheaper MBs with about the same features.
The cheapest M-ATX A
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Do you understand that vast majority of the market in PCs is not:
1. Low power consumption market
2. High end market.
These two are small niches. Most machines in office space and homes are bought because they are:
a. Cheap.
b. Supported by vendor on a good warranty plan.
If dell can take all the markets by the two above by storm with this fusion, intel is going to suffer greatly. While the big profits are reaped on high end and low power, the real revenue stream is in the middle. AMD is hands down better in this
Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (Score:4, Informative)
> If you want the lowest power consumption for the performance, you buy Intel[...]
On newegg I see the following desktop processors:
35W:
Intel Celeron 430 Conroe-L 1.8GHz 512KB L2 Cache LGA 775 35W Single-Core Processor BX80557430 $43
45W:
AMD Sempron 140 Sargas 2.7GHz Socket AM3 45W Single-Core Processor SDX140HBGQBOX
1MB L2 Cache $38
AMD Sempron LE-1250 Sparta 2.2GHz Socket AM2 45W Single-Core Processor SDH1250IAA4DP 512KB L2 Cache $30
AMD Athlon II X3 400e Rana 2.2GHz Socket AM3 45W Triple-Core Processor AD400EHDGIBOX
3x512KB L2 Cache $100 (Currently out of stock.)
AMD Athlon II X4 610e Propus 2.4GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM3 45W Quad-Core Desktop Processor AD610EHDGMBOX $140 (Currently out of stock.)
Saying that Intel wins in low power appears to be too broad a statement.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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, th
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
If by "roughly as fast" you mean about 50% slower, then, yeah.
Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
the i7-920 is unfortunately for you (fanboy) a previous generation i7, and slower than the i5-2500, and even the i3-2100 in dual/single threaded (read games) tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the thread rather than spamming out dups of other people's comments and you'll see the sources for the benchmarks ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
So Dell will become the PC equivalent of Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because they're still under Microsoft's thumb as a Windows licensor.
Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Wow, that would be redonkulously analytical. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, what he's saying is that the comparison that the original thread starter made is that Dell would become like Apple's PC making division - ie, the part of it that designs the laptops, desktops and tower systems.
The part of Apple that designs the phone and iOS product line is irrelevant here, even if it does make more money. It doesn't matter what iOS is doing, Apple's original business is continuing much as it did 5 years ago, even with the switch to Intel.
Not that I necessarily agree that Dell buying AM
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung (Score:2)
crossing Dell and AMD (hybrids meme) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously Linux-like. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is they're both moving towards Apple's model. Could a real Dell-customized Linux desktop be far off?
If they truly are moving towards Apple's model, then it won't really matter if it's Linux or not - since you won't get root and shell anyway.
Extremely Risky, won't happen. (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
There is Inertia in the industry, but AMD gained a lot of market share when they had better processors and they lost it again when behind.
It would be a mistake to risk you PC business going exclusive. There is a definite Halo effect that sells processors.
Dell doesn't only sell Consumer machines. What about workstation class machines:
http://www.dvhardware.net/article46769.html [dvhardware.net]
[i]Jon Peddie Research reports Intel owned 99.9 percent of the processor market for workstations in Q3 2010. [/i]
Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dell sells support? Really? Have you ever actually dealt with Dell support at anything other than the corporate level?
"Support": I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that Dell doesn't sell performance, they sell service and support, right?
"You need to reboot your PC."
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.
"If that doesn't work, reinstall the operating system."
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.
"Thanks for calling Dell support - have a nice day."
Re:Extremely Risky, won't happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer consumers engaged the market in a race-to-the-bottom, and they won--a market of cheap crap that will last a year or two. They got what they deserved. They put all the mom and pop's that actually cared about the parts they used out of business. I have no respect for any consumer that buys a major brand COTS. Even with laptops the better stuff is a matter of finding a good whitebox chassis and pairing it with quality drives/memory. But (quality) local computer builders are mostly a memory, the few that are left are usually unscrupulous and compete in the same race-to-the-bottom with the addition of retail space overhead.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, AMD doesn't have any manufacturing facilities. They are a design show now.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the average intelligence of higher levels of management, if Dell buys AMD it's probably going o keep buying chips only from Intel
Unfortunately, I'm not kidding
Re:buying chips only from Intel (Score:2)
Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Some relief at last? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cue darth vader: (Score:3)
*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: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Dell will sell what it can sell. If there are people who will buy Intel, Dell will sell them Intel.
Re: (Score:3)
if Dell were to buy AMD, intel just lost their biggest customer
According to Wikipedia, Dell is only third in market share in the PC market, with 11.5%, behind HP (19.8%) and Acer (18.5%). So, they'd lose a big customer, but not their biggest. It's not clear how big a customer Apple is - some of their stuff, like the Apple TV doesn't show up in the PC market. It's also worth noting that Intel makes a lot of things other than CPUs (e.g. SSDs), which Dell may continue to buy even if they're shipping AMD chips.
The real win for Dell would be outside the PC market, in
Re: (Score:2)
Well Apple TV 2 of course switched to ARM. I guess your emphasis is on "products like".
Re: (Score:2)
Why Would They Do That? (Score:2)
Can they actually do this ..? (Score:5, Interesting)
There might be something similar going on with ATI vs nvidia as well. =/
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Intel is competing against ARM manufacturers now.
Apple? (Score:2, Redundant)
The problem... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 deskt
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with PowerPC was that no one except Apple was shipping PowerPC desktops. The idea, originally, was that IBM would sell PowerPC PCs running Windows at the low end, PowerPC workstations running AIX at the high end. Apple would sell PowerPC computers running MacOS. Other PC makers would sell PowerPC computers running Windows. They'd use a common hardware reference platform so that you could run any PowerPC OS on any vendor's hardware, and they could keep costs low by sharing chipset and CPU dev
Re: (Score:2)
Bad idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Speculation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor ATI (Score:2)
Bad enough it was bought by AMD but to wind up being owned by Dell? Blech.
How about Linux support ? (Score:2)
Its about Storage (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
AM3 does not support DDR2. AM2+ does. AM3 CPUs can be used in AM2+ boards. This means that the on die controller is not used in that instance.
This is not going to happen, but if it did... (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The phone is the future anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The desktop will be replaced with cell phones on a docking station. Or at the very least, thin clients.
There's no benefit to using a cell phone in a docking station rather than a cheap thin client. There are a heck of a lot of disadvantages of using a cell phone in a docking station rather than a cheap thin client.
OK, you could carry all your work around on your phone so you don't need to access it remotely from the thin client, but again, what company in their right mind wants all their employees walking out of the building with their work in an easily lost, easily stolen phone?
Unsubstantiated rumor (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no overlaps in the product lines of Dell and AMD, so there are zero anti-trust issues from a legal point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
It doesn't make sense for any PC vendor. IBM maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
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.. (Score:3)
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 di
Re: (Score:2)
Or Apple. Not very likely since Apple has such a close relationship with Intel but it would allow Apple to have complete control of their stack. The new CPUs from AMD do seem to be very competitive with Intel right now.
Of course Apple could also decide to go after Microsoft full force. Now that they have the app store on the mac I could see them deciding to create a mac mini plus with a slot for a video card and a desktop speed HD. Price it at $399 or $499 and start really building market share not to menti
Not *ANY* (Score:2)
That would be very odd... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
(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.
Rumors (Score:4, Interesting)
excellent (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Most likely just a rumor (Score:2)
..but, doesn't Dell make shitty computers? (Score:2)
I wont buy AMD if it is sold to anyone. (Score:2)
if amd gets sold to anyone, i will start looking for an alternative that did not whore itself out to rabid bloodsuckers, but still run by their initial founders and vision holders.
Checkmate: Intel (Score:2)
Well, this is obvious:
As Dell is already to be known as being in Intels pocket,see teh voluntary payment of over $100 Million regarding the lies about disclosing the payment of rebates.
Intel could not buy AMD as it would get blocked, and the PR optics would be horrible
This provides a clean exit for all concerned.
Intel controls Dell, which controls AMD
Intel gets the AMD GPU tech and some patent licenses.
They spin the AMD parts as the low end in desktops.
Dell gets an insurmountable lead over HP , at least unt
Boring (Score:2)
Apple should buy AMD instead, if only for the comedic effect on the tech press and comment boards.
Re: (Score:2)
If AMD's quality is reduced to Dell's level generally following a buyout I'll be forced to switch loyalties too.
Re: (Score:2)
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"
OMG! OMG! OMG! (Score:2)
Uhm, no. There are lots of other things that Dell could do with AMD, aside from commit suicide.