What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
156 Comments
- xtardox, on 10/12/2007, -16/+293imagine that
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50Who the hell said anything about integrated graphics? I said chipset.
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52I love integrated graphics, especially when you can still put a pci-express or agp card in the machine and replace the on-board stuff. Obvioulsy I'm not a gamer. Also it's nice for rack mount systems so I don't have to get a PCI video card (nobody makes AGP risers)
- b0wl0fud0n, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46If it's true, it'll be more fuel to the fire in the current AMD lawsuit against Intel for anti competative practices.
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020436,39205927,00.htm - invader, on 10/12/2007, -20/+58umm.. because intel's integrated graphics are "uber teh lame"
- Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38I've always liked nVidia graphics and AMD CPUs.
- danhillmoses, on 10/12/2007, -11/+45I feel bad for the 17 people with ATI chipsets.
- mayhemt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37With all this takeover & *****, we linux fanboys have to wait for 1 more year (atleast) for better support on AMD64 RADEON drivers... ;-(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31So what does this mean? We're locked into Intel-Nvidia and AMD-ATi combos? This is exactly what I feared!
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Hrm... I wonder how this will affect Apple. The MacBook Pro currently comes with an ATI graphics card. I'd assume that the replacement for the G5 would have been planned with ATI graphics, too. This AMD/ATI merger is may draw a lot more industry lines than I initially though.
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30It would be funny if AMD bought nVidia too.
- nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"If it's true, it'll be more fuel to the fire in the current AMD lawsuit against Intel for anti competative practices."
No, no it won't.
Intel has every right to pull the license, as the license would essentially give AMD the right to use Intel's bus protocol (and Intel DEFINITELY doesn't want users plugging AMD processors into their Intel boards, they got rid of this after the Pentium era and they don't want to go back to that).
Furthermore, AMD could actively degrade performance on their Intel products (which they could spin to say it's something wrong with Intel's chips), which would again be very bad for Intel.
It'd be like Intel making chipsets for AMD products. Now which sounds more anti-competitive to you? - Pseudo98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26"Oh, ATI you bitch"
Catfight! - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23When will people realize The Inquirer is not The National Enquirer?
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+36Hahah, that has to be the best comment I've read in a long time. Kudos to you. Sometimes the simplest of comments are the greatest.
Well, I think we all saw this coming. Why would Intel stand idle when they have their own chipsets anyways? But still, I'm waiting to see what the shareholders and the government have to say about the AMD/ATI merger. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22things are getting sour down in the silicon valley... next thing you know, gaming performance when you combine an ATI card with an Intel chipset will be crippled.... thanks to efforts from nVidia
- anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14this isn't going to end well
- Xsecrets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"Man, I would love to see nvidia make chipsets for both AMD and Intel at this point because they like they might become the major player in the chipset market now that ATI has gone one-sided."
Nvidia does make chipsets for intel computers. I'm typing on a system right now that has an intel 775 proc on a nforce4 based motherboard. - Olain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It just means that Intel will not be making MB's with ATI chip-sets built on-board. You can still buy a ATI video card and plug it into PCI/PCIE/AGP with no problems. A few of the server motherboards had built in ATI video cards.
- Deinonych, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Huh? AMD's logo is green.
- Everen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Thinking worst-case, this has the potential for creating two larger, divided houses. AMD + ATI and possibly Intel + NVidia, as we all know. The implications for gamers might really suck.
I wonder if games may come needlessly crippled, al a Skype and the conferencing thing with Intel. 'Sure, you can conference up to XX with a P4, but not with an Athlon.'
Whatever performance gaps exist between ATI and NVidia could potentially worsen with needless crippling, based entirely on product detection.
"Oh, you have an Athlon 64 X2 and a GeForce 7800? Well, we'll just leave a couple of these speed improvements disabled."
or possibly
"Oh, sorry. You have both an Athlon 64 X2 and a Radeon X1900? Hmmm... We're going to have to take you down a peg or two for this game."
Again, this is thinking of a worst-case scenario. Cross thy fingers. - ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11NVIDIA was probably too expensive for AMD.
- supanaturalhigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I know the AMD/ATI merger is real... I meant the actual Intel withdrawal.
- crex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Awhile back I had a Radeon 9800 Pro that had a history of working fine in my old ASUS motherboard that had a VIA Chipset. My roommate has bought a nForce2 chipset and raved about how great it was, since he has a degree in computer engineering I trusted him, I got nForce2 when I upgraded my motherboard to get SATA support. Everything else worked fine in the new motherboard (RAM, CPU, etc, etc) but the ATI Card was constantly kicking up trouble. I now run a GeForce 6600 on that NForce mobo and have the 9800 Pro back on the old VIA as a backup / guest computer and the card runs fine. To this day I'm not sure if I should blame nVidia for making their chipset not playing nice with ATI Video Cards or if I should blame ATI for writing crap drivers that conflicted with something.
- yoda133113, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I doubt this will fuel the anti-competitive practices thing. Intel just isn't going to let their DIRECT competitor (and just about their only real one in the PC processor business) make money from their processors. For Intel to continue to let AMD make chipsets for thier processors would be stupid business.
- kurtergad87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What would be Nvidia's interest in an alliance? AMD/ATI is a bad deal for Nvidia, so they are most likely very happy that Intel is messing the whole thing up.
- n0sferatu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Yeah-Yay Catfight!!!" - Kramer
- likwidtek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11ATI has always written crap drivers.
- micro506, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14I've always liked ATI graphics and AMD CPUs.
...yay? - DesolataX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So what will happen with the nForce chipsets... They have mostly been for AMD. Will Nvidia Partner up with Intel?
Stay tune for next weeks episode of "Digg: The TV Series" - b0wl0fud0n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10There are multiple companies producing Intel chipsets. ATI is merely one of many. It isn't the chip manufacturers that are choosing which chipset to use, but rather the computer manufacturers. AMD would never be able to degrade Intel's performance when using their chipsets because if that were true, people would just use a different company's chipset....
- DarkLaughingMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, when I first heard the rumors I didn't think this was going be good..it's going limit my choices even more during my next PC building..
- Kosterfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Now since AMD owns ATI why would nVidia want to make a deal with them? It would be making a deal with their main competitor...
- furo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The company has been hinting at moving GPU tasks back onto the CPU for a few months now.
This is where the rubber really meets the road. Gamers have known for quite some time now that games are GPU-bound, not CPU-bound, so adding CPU power to a system, which is often cheaper, makes little to no difference. If Intel can make this work for real, and continue to build speed, as well as bus efficiency, for reasonable prices, AMD/ATI will have to counter.
This ultimately means very good things for the gaming community, but I think it will result in more proprietary configurations. Buying an off-the-shelf video card that will work in either CPU environment might get trickier if there are unique off-load techniques for Intel and AMD. Geeks won't care, but it's just one more thing to confuse the average consumer and push them into the OEM space or paying stupid amounts of money to a place like Comp USA for a simple upgrade, rather than dabbling in self-upgrading. I hate nothing more than to see places charging $50 to snap in a $35 DIMM.
-Furo - PhonicUK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Something of a shame this whole thing for me. As a linux user I'm an AMD64 + nVidia fanboy. ATi's drivers just plain suck and their control panel doesn't nearly have the same range of features. And has anyone actually seen a Quad Crossfire setup?
- colol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"SEC letting the #2 and #3 graphics chips makers combine into a #1 company? You wish."
What SEC have you been paying attention to? They haven't exactly been stopping large mergers. Adobe ate Macromedia, America West ate USAir (and is considering another buyout), and JPMorganChase and Citibank have been allowed to swallow up just about every smaller player they've encountered, even those as large as Bank One.
The SEC's been about as analytical as the USPTO as of late. If news broke tomorrow that the SEC approved a merger of AMD and Intel, I'd hardly be surprised. - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"because if that were true, people would just use a different company's chipset...."
...like nvidia's chipsets :)
Man, I would love to see nvidia make chipsets for both AMD and Intel at this point because they like they might become the major player in the chipset market now that ATI has gone one-sided. - joelsp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wow, I guess this means that Apple will be going back to Nvidia graphics then as well?
I am still trying to figure out how AMD thought this buyout was a good idea. So confusing. - iamcanman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@UltraKill
Where, exactly, are you seeing that Intel dropped the license on the AMD site, hmmm?
I'm not seeing it on the North American site, or any of their European sites... nor on ATI's for that matter.
Provide a link please. - UltraKill, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Nope, its the real deal. Check out AMD website. This is crazy :-O!
- nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"It would be funny if AMD bought nVidia too."
SEC letting the #2 and #3 graphics chips makers combine into a #1 company? You wish. nVidia wanting to merge with ATi? Even LESS likely (the two companies have been long sparing companies).
Furthermore, AMD is taking a HUGE risk on ATi; if nVidia kisses AMD goodbye, it's quite likely it could take them months to recover (though at least they'll have a mode for recovery in ATi, however bad that mode may be).
It should be noted though that Chipzilla will never buy nVidia, simply because it has a competing graphics company already, and nVidia would never accept the terms of the deal (which would basically equal firing nVidia staff, when nVidia's more profitable than ATi.. not a good idea). - Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The article suggests that Intel has been hinting at putting Graphics processing back onto the CPU. I think AMD is trying to beat Intel to the punch and put a well known name on it. I would much rather buy an AMD processor powered by ATI graphics then an Intel processor powered by intel graphics.
- FireStrife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow Intel was quick bout that. Now I await nVidia's response to this.
- thegreyfox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Will we see Macs using AMD, sooner then later?
- ontain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm guessing that there might be no future nvida motherboard support for AMD soon too.
- scramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I will stick with Nvidia after my recent experience trying to get accelerated graphics working under Ubuntu. I will never, ever buy another laptop with ATI graphics.
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"they like they"
My apologies: "they look like they"
Stupid limited edit time on digg :( What happened to our 5 minutes of comment editing time? :'( - count_z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Duh.
Intel doesn't want to share it's roadmap or proprietary information with AMD. ATI (or anyone with a chipset license) would need to technical details about Intel's upcoming processors and they'd also likely have release date information.
Prior to the merge ATI would be under NDA, but now that ATI is AMD (or vice versa), that doesn't really apply. - kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5mmmm, that AthlonFX besides that ATI card on amd.com looks really tasty, nice job amd =)
- brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not likely. It would be like Intel paying AMD to make chipsets for them... that would be uh... anti-anti competitive.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is