AMD & ATI: The Acquisition from all Points of View
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 1, 2006 10:26 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
ATI's Position
Obviously ATI is also very excited about the acquisition, but from ATI's perspective the motivations for and benefits of the acquisition are a bit different.
ATI's goal is to continue to grow at a rate of 20% per year, but maintaining that growth rate becomes increasingly more difficult as an independent GPU manufacturer. The AMD acquisition will give ATI the ability to compete in areas that it hasn't before, while also giving the company the stable footing it needs to maintaining aggressive growth.
From ATI's position, it's NVIDIA that is left out in the cold as Intel is surely not going to support NVIDIA enough to be a truly great partner. ATI will have AMD, and Intel is content being fairly self sufficient, so unless NVIDIA becomes a CPU manufacturer, its future is bleak according to ATI.
Preparing for the Inevitable Confrontation with Intel
From ATI's standpoint, it's only a matter of time before the GPU becomes general purpose enough that it could be designed and manufactured by a CPU maker. Taking the concern one step further, ATI's worried that in the coming years Intel will introduce its standalone GPU and really turn up the heat on the remaining independent GPU makers. By partnering with AMD, ATI believes that it would be better prepared for what it believes is the inevitable confrontation with Intel. From ATI's perspective, Intel is too strong in CPU design, manufacturing and marketing to compete against when the inevitable move into the GPU space occurs.
Competing with NVIDIA is Tough, this Makes it Easier
It's no surprise to anyone that competing with NVIDIA isn't easy; the easiest time ATI had competing with NVIDIA in recent history was back during the Radeon 9700 Pro days, but since then NVIDIA has really turned up the heat and currently enjoys greater desktop market share. Not only does it have greater desktop market share, but NVIDIA also enjoys greater profit margins per GPU sold thanks to smaller die sizes. By being acquired by AMD, ATI gets a bit of relief from the competition with NVIDIA, as well as some potential advantages. Those advantages include the potential to build and execute better AMD chipsets as well as gaining greater overall graphics market share by shipping more platforms with integrated graphics (either on CPU or on chipset). Intel is actually the world's largest graphics manufacturer, since the vast majority of Intel systems sold ship with some form of Intel integrated graphics; through this acquisition, AMD can use ATI to do the same, which should increase ATI's overall market share.
Making Better AMD Chipsets
ATI has struggled to design, manufacture and execute a chipset that could compete with NVIDIA's nForce line. To date, ATI has come close but not been able to close the deal and it has been trying for years. In theory, with better access to AMD engineers and designers, being able to leverage AMD's IP (e.g. CrossFire implemented over Hyper Transport) and eventually being able to use AMD's fabs, ATI could design a truly competitive platform for AMD processors. As long as the product is decent, AMD would also be able to significantly increase sales by simply offering attractive platform bundles similar to what Intel does today. Whether the approach is more similar to Centrino where AMD requires that you purchase only AMD silicon, or more like how Intel does business on the desktop side where AMD makes sure that only its chipsets are available at launch has yet to be seen.
The Manufacturing & Design Advantage
Currently both ATI and NVIDIA have to turn to third party manufacturers to produce both their chipsets and GPUs. If this acquisition were to go through, AMD could eventually begin manufacturing some chipsets or GPUs for ATI. By manufacturing components in house, ATI would be able to enjoy a cost advantage over competing NVIDIA products (especially if ATI is simply using leftover capacity at older fabs that are awaiting transition to smaller manufacturing processes). ATI could potentially begin to release GPUs using newer process technologies before the competition as well, reducing die size and increasing clock speeds at the same time.
Manufacturing aside, there's also this idea that companies like AMD and Intel are better at designing silicon because they work on a more granular level with the design. There's far more custom logic in Intel's Core 2 Duo than in NVIDIA's GeForce 7900 GTX; ATI would gain access to AMD's entire portfolio of custom logic and may be able to implement some of it in its upcoming GPUs, giving ATI a performance and efficiency advantage over NVIDIA.
It Makes Financial Sense
Of course the actual acquisition itself is very beneficial to ATI's investors, as the deal is mostly cash and thus little risk is assumed on behalf of ATI investors. ATI's stock has been doing quite well since the announcement, and why shouldn't it? The #2 x86 microprocessor maker wants to buy ATI.
What about Intel Chipsets?
Currently 60 - 70% of ATI's chipset revenues come from Intel platforms, but ATI expects that number to decline significantly over the coming months. While the current 6 month roadmap won't change, beyond that ATI is not counting on incredible support from Intel so ATI will begin focusing its efforts on AMD platforms exclusively at that point. If Intel wants ATI chipsets, ATI will supply them. And if you're wondering, CrossFire will continue to work on Intel chipsets.
Keep in mind that when we say 60-70% of ATI's chipset revenues come from Intel platforms, that doesn't actually mean ATI is selling a ton of chipsets. ATI accounts for slightly less than 10% of Intel platform chipsets sold recently, and about one fourth of AMD platform chipsets. However, even though they sell a decent number of chipsets, the quality of ATI chipsets has been considered something of a distant third place, with Intel and NVIDIA in the lead. ATI could lose all of their Intel chipset sales and still come out ahead if they can become the dominant chipset for AMD platforms.
61 Comments
View All Comments
HopJokey - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
I beg to differ. It gets old after a while:(
Regs - Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - link
The distant future looks good. Though we yet to see any more green slides about new core technologies from AMD. It almost seems AMD will be making baby-steps for the next 5 or so years to try to compete with the performance Intel is now currently offering.For stock holders - lets just hope AMD can pull something off to gain revenue from other markets with the help of Dell and ATi. Their growing capital and recent acquisition need some definite profits to pay it off.
AnandThenMan - Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - link
I think it's fair to say the article has a very strong pro Intel and NVIDIA slant. For starters, it needs to be pointed out that ATI is actually the #2 graphic maker, not NVIDIA. Saying that NVIDIA is #1 in the desktop space is only part of the market, so why state it that way? Trying to make NVIDIA look good of course...And this:
This statement is just dumb. Unless the planet is destroyed by an asteroid, the deal is pretty much done. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the deal will not happen.
defter - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
The desktop market is very important market since most of the profits are made in the high-end desktop market.For example ATI has much bigger overall marketshare than NVidia (27.6% vs 20.3%) and has lot of presense in other markets (consumer electronics, handhelds). Still, NVidia has bigger revenue, meaning that ASP of NVidia chips is much higher.
If you look at profits, the difference is even bigger, during the last quarter, NVidia made three times as much profit as ATI. Thus high-end desktop market is definitely very important.
Here are some GPU market share numbers for Q2:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/2006073...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/2006073...
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
Most of the profits are not made in the high-end desktop market, in fact the very high end probably struggles just to break even due to the relatively tiny number of units shipped compared to development costs. Most of the money in discrete graphics is actually made in the low-end discrete graphics segment, cards like the 7300 and the X1300.
defter - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
This is like saying: "most of the revenue is made on $100 CPUs instead of FX/Opteron parts..."The revenue can be higher on the low end of the market. But GPUs like 7300/X1300 are selling at $20 or less, profit margins for those can't very high. High-end chips like 7900/X1900 are selling for about $100 and the margins are much higher. (Compare the die size between 7900 and 7300, the difference isn't THAT big).
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
Hey, I'm a skeptic and you can blame me for the comment. Still, until the deal is well and truly done we have a proposed merger. Government interference, cold feet, whatever other setback you want... these things can and do happen. Do I think the deal *won't* happen? Nope - no more than I think the deal *will* happen. If you had asked me three months ago when I first heard the rumors, I think I would have been about 90% sure it wouldn't happen, so obviously I'm less skeptical now than before.As for NVIDIA and Intel slant, the NVIDIA perspective is their view. That doesn't mean it's correct, any more than the ATI, AMD, or Intel perspectives. However, ATI is #2 for the same reason Intel is #1: integrated graphics, specifically on laptops, and again we're talking about the underpowered, mediocre kind that will choke on Vista's Glass GUI. Wipe out all of the low-end GPUs, and NVIDIA has a clear lead in the market. Not in performance, necessarily, but in mindset and brand recognition? Definitely. We are an enthusiast website, and so we're looking at the stuff that moves the market forward, not just what suffices to run office apps.
AnandThenMan - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
Being #1 in one market is not good enough anymore. NVIDIA NEEDS to be in the integrated graphics sector, the ultra thin mobile sector, the console market, the HD devices market etc. etc. This is where ATI is much more diverse than NVIDIA.
The article is about the implications of AMD/ATI and how it affects Intel, NVIDIA, and the whole industry. I understand what you are saying about the discreet enthusiest market, and naturally this is the most interesting and desirable segment we all like to talk about. But the merger is about much more than that. IMO, NVIDIA has to re-invent itself to be capable of taking on AMD/ATI. NVIDIA has come out and bragged about how they are not the "last man standing" but this is marketing spin at best. NVIDIA is on the record years ago as saying they want to "be where ever there is a pixel" but honestly, AMD/ATI is far better positioned to deliver this than NVIDIA IMO.
defter - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
Care to elaborate? NVidia is doing fine financially, why it NEEDS to be strongly present on those sectors?
NVidia has been in the console market since 2001.
Calin - Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - link
NVidia IS in the integrated graphics sector - if you are referring to the "enthusiast" integrated graphic sector