On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:02:07 -0700, Clay Cahill
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:36:49 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill
wrote:

Never happen (IMO). Intel has no need for chipset design & foundry
(which is what AMD's move was partly motivated by) & NVidia now sees a
clear playing field for the super lucrative high end market that they
already excel in.

AMD needs chipset design and foundry... from ATI?? Where did you pull that
from?

Um... from ol' Hector himself (and a working knowledge of the
industry... WHere did you get your condescension on subjects you are
deficient in?). ATI's strong relationships with foudries = AMD getting
in on those relationships (rather than the already in a shambles
relationships they have) especially for non-proc products.

The only thing "deficient" here is your out of date info... and the notion
that AMD needs "relationships" with (more) foundries. You *could* at least
try to pay attention.

First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and

Yeah, poorly. THat's why they don't now... and maybe why they picked
up someone with a good trackrecord of supporting their own products...

Hmmm, somebody else with the voice of inexperience. The part they
incorporated into the CPU die certainly spanked you lot anyway.

Ruiz has already stated "there are no plans in the near future to combine
the manufacturing of AMD and ATI chips into an integrated foundry".

WHen has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

Wow, three on a stick.

Clay

--
Standard Disclaimer:
My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them...
So blame me for saying something dumb, not them.

Oh look - a genuine, authorized Intel troller!

--
Rgds, George Macdonald