Rumours only!!! Intel + Nvidia

[Redbeaver]

Or rather...speculation.......

 

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybri...omktNews&rpc=44

 

interesting to read, i guess...

[colfin22]

More info here:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/04/nvidia-in...artner=yahootix

 

Could be good news for conroe owners ie. official conroe sli support, but it'll be another monopoly, which isn't good news.

[dr_bowtie]

man if you bought stock in nVidia at 2.00 and sold for 30.00 you'd be rich if you owned abit of it.... man...so much for that..

[UncleDavid218]

An Intel acquisition of Nvidia wouldn't have that appeal because Intel already sells graphics chips

That's exactly why this isn't going to happen

[freakyGameR]

how about amd + ati?? rumors too??

[UncleDavid218]

It's a done deal

[freakyGameR]

is it a good/bad news u think??

sorry out of this topic..

[Angry_Games]

That's exactly why this isn't going to happen

this is untrue for the simple fact that Intel makes nothing but integrated graphics, and those integrated graphics won't play most of the high end games, or if it is lucky enough to be able to, the graphics performance is the bottom of the barrel...you are almost better to go back to something like an FX5200

 

Nvidia's ability to stay at the top of the gpu performance market, as well as making chipsets is why this would be a good acquisition for Intel (not for consumers though honestly).

 

They could not only compete to sell AMD chipsets, but they could perfect SLI on the Intel platform with the current and future generation cpu's, which are right now superior to any other on the market for consumers. They could also begin offering Nvidia integrated graphics cheaply and benefit from it by the fact that Nvidia's integrated solutions are much better than the Intel IGP's.

 

 

Ya always got to think of this in more ways than with just your heart, or from a single direction. You have to also think of this from the company's perspective (more market share, combined buying/mfg power, profits, etc), instead of from the consumer's point of view.

 

There's lots of benefits as well as pitfalls with Intel acquiring Nvidia. Intel/Nvidia would spin the info to make it look like a real good thing for consumers (and in a sense, it WOULD be a good thing as prices would have to match AMD's, and if anything, AMD has kept BYOC prices relatively low).

 

What you and I see from the consumer's point of view, is limiting choices, forcing us to purchase either AMD/ATI or Intel/Nvidia, and together those two companies, by having a virtual lock on the cpu, chipset, and gpu markets, could then begin price-fixing (don't gasp, this is a common occurance when there is no competition), or slow 'innovation', and competition is really what drives innovation.

 

I don't like the idea, but chumps like you and me, we ain't got no say in such a thing

[UncleDavid218]

this is untrue for the simple fact that Intel makes nothing but integrated graphics, and those integrated graphics won't play most of the high end games, or if it is lucky enough to be able to, the graphics performance is the bottom of the barrel...you are almost better to go back to something like an FX5200

 

Nvidia's ability to stay at the top of the gpu performance market, as well as making chipsets is why this would be a good acquisition for Intel (not for consumers though honestly).

 

They could not only compete to sell AMD chipsets, but they could perfect SLI on the Intel platform with the current and future generation cpu's, which are right now superior to any other on the market for consumers. They could also begin offering Nvidia integrated graphics cheaply and benefit from it by the fact that Nvidia's integrated solutions are much better than the Intel IGP's.

 

 

Ya always got to think of this in more ways than with just your heart, or from a single direction. You have to also think of this from the company's perspective (more market share, combined buying/mfg power, profits, etc), instead of from the consumer's point of view.

 

There's lots of benefits as well as pitfalls with Intel acquiring Nvidia. Intel/Nvidia would spin the info to make it look like a real good thing for consumers (and in a sense, it WOULD be a good thing as prices would have to match AMD's, and if anything, AMD has kept BYOC prices relatively low).

 

What you and I see from the consumer's point of view, is limiting choices, forcing us to purchase either AMD/ATI or Intel/Nvidia, and together those two companies, by having a virtual lock on the cpu, chipset, and gpu markets, could then begin price-fixing (don't gasp, this is a common occurance when there is no competition), or slow 'innovation', and competition is really what drives innovation.

 

I don't like the idea, but chumps like you and me, we ain't got no say in such a thing

I've read a lot on both sides of the story and it seems as though Intel has hired some engineers to develope graphics processors that will actually play games

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't like it, heck, I just bought a Core 2 Duo laptop (T7200)... but in my opinion it won't (Just my teenage opinion, you DO know more than I do... you're old )

[DuTcH]

well that

intel vs amd

and

nvidia vs ati

split woud be more like a canyon

pricing and specs would be 10 times as confusing as they are now

[freakyGameR]

if ati vs nvdia, amd vs intel, so

price competing between them.. (my 24 years old think)

[DuTcH]

if ati vs nvdia, amd vs intel, so

price competing between them.. (my 24 years old think)

 

eh??? this don't make sense what do you mean?