Nvidia loses 10 million GPU order due to Linux refusals - Page 2

IcE · 07-01-2012, 10:09 | posts: 7,006 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Can't wait for the newest graphic company to join the mix, AY EM CHEE based in Shenzhou.

Xzibit · 07-01-2012, 10:32 | posts: 4,383 | Location: Europe

sykozis · 07-01-2012, 16:06 | posts: 13,506 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillin

Doubtful.

All they would have had is slightly higher brand recognition and market penetration, but they didn't have the manufacturing power at the time to complete the order for a single OEM like Dell, forgot about adding HP and others to the mix.

AMD was filling orders for Emachines, HP, Compaq, Acer and NEC.... And, Intel's behavior cost AMD billions of dollars that have heavily impacted their R&D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMaclane

While Intel did bully OEM's it still wouldn't have changed much. AMD got lucky with A64 they caught Intel dropping the ball with netburst and manged to squeeze in one or two generations of chips with better performance.

Also AMD would have been totally unable to supply the large OEMs due to their limited manufacturing capability. Once Intel dropped netburst and took on the aggressive 'tick-tock' development cycle AMD was back in the rear seat.

AMD played their success badly, the equisition of ATI was a good idea (and the results are showing now) what lacked was the R&D in CPU (phenom was not going to beat conroe on paper) as well as a crappy manufacturing policy.

As usually....your post isn't even half accurate. AMD managed to outperform Intel from the release of the Athlon processor in 1999 until the release of the Core 2 series in 2006. The original Athlon competed against the Pentium3. There were 5 generations of Athlon processors that competed against and outperformed the Pentium3, Pentium4 and Pentium-D processors.

AMD had no problem supplying the "large OEMs" at the time as they supplied Compaq, HP, Emachines, NEC and Acer.

R&D takes very large quantities of money. When you lose, literally, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS....R&D drops off.....

Stukov · 07-01-2012, 17:12 | posts: 4,829 | Location: South Dakota

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

AMD was filling orders for Emachines, HP, Compaq, Acer and NEC.... And, Intel's behavior cost AMD billions of dollars that have heavily impacted their R&D.

As usually....your post isn't even half accurate. AMD managed to outperform Intel from the release of the Athlon processor in 1999 until the release of the Core 2 series in 2006. The original Athlon competed against the Pentium3. There were 5 generations of Athlon processors that competed against and outperformed the Pentium3, Pentium4 and Pentium-D processors.

AMD had no problem supplying the "large OEMs" at the time as they supplied Compaq, HP, Emachines, NEC and Acer.

R&D takes very large quantities of money. When you lose, literally, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS....R&D drops off.....

Pretty much this. What Intel did was use their market position (monopoly power) to prevent a competitor with superior product from gaining market share. Had AMD not been screwed by Intel you would have likely seen AMD reach 30-50% of the market share by the end of the 2006 time frame AND with that revenue dumped into increase of manufacturing plants (to keep up with demand), but also into R&D, thereby minimizing the threat of C2D and Intel's resurgence.

At least without certain AMD top executives screwing it up, but none of that was possible with Intel's illegal business practices (to which the consumer got screwed).

We would have much better and cheaper processors today if it wasn't for Intel's illegal practices.

alanm · 07-01-2012, 18:26 | posts: 4,981

Well they sued and they won. $1.4 billion was it?

sykozis · 07-01-2012, 18:35 | posts: 13,506 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanm

Well they sued and they won. $1.4 billion was it?

They filed suit then settled for $1.4B + cross-licensing agreement before they ever made it to court.

Lane · *Last edited by Lane; 07-01-2012 at 21:10.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcE

Can't wait for the newest graphic company to join the mix, AY EM CHEE based in Shenzhou.

Forget it, GPU you can find in SOC are ten years behind AMD or Nvidia .

This is not tomorrow you will find a PowerVR who is able to bring 4.78Tflops of SP and 1.08 DP Tflops. ( the 7970 who is most powerfull gpu never build in term of SP and DP performance. Raw performance if you like it better. )

We watch with some amusement the war ATI/Nvidia, but you need understand both companies have an extreme knowledge in computing graphism ... 15 years of work and R&D, no other companies get it. Even Intel have make the hard experience of it when trying with Larabee and their other gpu to enter the competition...

Chillin · 07-02-2012, 06:51 | posts: 5,905 | Location: Chilling

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

AMD was filling orders for Emachines, HP, Compaq, Acer and NEC.... And, Intel's behavior cost AMD billions of dollars that have heavily impacted their R&D.

No.

eMachines, Acer and NEC accounted for less that 5% of the computer market in 2006, HP (16%) had very limited AMD models (and therefore supplies) so you can maybe add another 1% or 2% to your assumed top number of shipping systems with AMD. Dell alone in 2006 had 16% of the market, there was no way in hell that AMD was going to be able to supply other OEM's and Dell; any other talk is revisionist history.

Stukov · 07-02-2012, 10:27 | posts: 4,829 | Location: South Dakota

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillin

No.

eMachines, Acer and NEC accounted for less that 5% of the computer market in 2006, HP (16%) had very limited AMD models (and therefore supplies) so you can maybe add another 1% or 2% to your assumed top number of shipping systems with AMD. Dell alone in 2006 had 16% of the market, there was no way in hell that AMD was going to be able to supply other OEM's and Dell; any other talk is revisionist history.

You are totally missing the point, had Intel NOT abused their market position, when the Athlon system first came out, they would have made MORE money to put into increase manufacturing capacity. You are quoting production numbers of a cash-strapped AMD as the result of Intel's monopoly practice. Given more money, thereby increasing manufacturing capacity, AMD would have been able to fill more orders, thereby getting even more money, which would have been also dumped into R&D helping AMD hold the market position it had. (Assuming AMD executives didn't eff it up.)

It isn't that hard to understand.

RavenMaster · 07-02-2012, 12:11 | posts: 401 | Location: UK

Sorry but after trying Linux i came to the conclusion that it sucks more donkey balls than anything else in the world. Go Team Green!

alanm · 07-02-2012, 12:12 | posts: 4,981

I look forward to the day when or if AMD gets bought out by some huge mega-bucks corp like Samsung or Apple. And see them go all out by building their own fabs and shovelling billions to their R&D dept. And ultimately see the CPU division have the same heated rivalry with Intel as their GPUs do with Nvidia.

Denial · 07-02-2012, 12:21 | posts: 6,351 | Location: Above Earth in a Big Rocket Ship

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavenMaster

Sorry but after trying Linux i came to the conclusion that it sucks more donkey balls than anything else in the world. Go Team Green!

Uhhh, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanm

I look forward to the day when or if AMD gets bought out by some huge mega-bucks corp like Samsung or Apple. And see them go all out by building their own fabs and shovelling billions to their R&D dept. And ultimately see the CPU division have the same heated rivalry with Intel as their GPUs do with Nvidia.

Samsung and Apple already have their own processor design divisions. It would most likely get bought by someone who doesn't. I would also like to see this happen though. It would definitely shift things up, because currently the people in charge at AMD aren't really doing anything.

IcE · 07-02-2012, 20:20 | posts: 7,006 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavenMaster

Sorry but after trying Linux i came to the conclusion that it sucks more donkey balls than anything else in the world. Go Team Green!

It just requires effort to use properly, which is an inconvenience. Certain distros like Ubuntu are getting quite good though.

lucidus · 07-02-2012, 20:32 | posts: 3,272 | Location: UAE

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanm

I look forward to the day when or if AMD gets bought out by some huge mega-bucks corp like Samsung or Apple. And see them go all out by building their own fabs and shovelling billions to their R&D dept. And ultimately see the CPU division have the same heated rivalry with Intel as their GPUs do with Nvidia.

Hmmm .. Return of Big Blue to the PC industry?

sykozis · 07-02-2012, 22:57 | posts: 13,506 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillin

No.

eMachines, Acer and NEC accounted for less that 5% of the computer market in 2006, HP (16%) had very limited AMD models (and therefore supplies) so you can maybe add another 1% or 2% to your assumed top number of shipping systems with AMD. Dell alone in 2006 had 16% of the market, there was no way in hell that AMD was going to be able to supply other OEM's and Dell; any other talk is revisionist history.

Yes, HP had very few AMD based models, which has been proven to have been as a result of Intel's threats of delayed or limited shipments. Compaq, on the other hand, had several AMD based models from 1999 until their bankruptcy and subsequent buyout by HP. Compaq was "punished" by Intel for offering a line of AMD based systems (which has been proven). Dell refused to sell AMD based systems as a result of financial benefits they received from Intel (also proven fact). Had Intel tried to compete through legal methods, AMD would have been in a better financial position and would still own their own fabrication plants (which are now known as Global Foundries). Keep in mind, Intel was tried and convicted of Unfair or Illegal marketing practices in other countries....so, to claim that Intel's actions (which started in 1999) didn't negatively effect AMD's position would be completely false.

The Chubu · 07-03-2012, 02:12 | posts: 2,535 | Location: Look out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavenMaster

Sorry but after trying Linux i came to the conclusion that it sucks more donkey balls than anything else in the world. Go Team Green!

To put it simply, the more you know about OSes, the more you like it. So there.

IcE · 07-03-2012, 03:38 | posts: 7,006 | Location: Toledo, Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

Yes, HP had very few AMD based models, which has been proven to have been as a result of Intel's threats of delayed or limited shipments. Compaq, on the other hand, had several AMD based models from 1999 until their bankruptcy and subsequent buyout by HP. Compaq was "punished" by Intel for offering a line of AMD based systems (which has been proven). Dell refused to sell AMD based systems as a result of financial benefits they received from Intel (also proven fact). Had Intel tried to compete through legal methods, AMD would have been in a better financial position and would still own their own fabrication plants (which are now known as Global Foundries). Keep in mind, Intel was tried and convicted of Unfair or Illegal marketing practices in other countries....so, to claim that Intel's actions (which started in 1999) didn't negatively effect AMD's position would be completely false.

AMD could have avoided spinning off their own plants had they not acquired ATI when they weren't financially able to.