Part of our Throwback Thursday initiative, where we 're-publish' popular articles or those are pertinent again. This happens every weekWhy do these ancient articles keep popping up in my "new" RSS feed? Was there an update somewhere?
Part of our Throwback Thursday initiative, where we 're-publish' popular articles or those are pertinent again. This happens every week![]()
The only reason they needed saving was because AMD bought them in the first place.and years later turned out to be the one thing that SAVED AMD. THAT was hectors vision and reason why he bought ATI in the first place, he knew AMD needed graphics. And yet, the short term thinkers at AMD at the time fired him because of that purchase. In Hectors mind, he knew long term that purchase would save the company, and it did just that. Sad they fired him, he was back then their only true visionary.
Compaq was affordable but difficult at the same time. Pre-installed software that gave them large discounts, but also propertary hardware, difficult to fix let alone repair, because compaq had it's own standard(s) in regards of hardware. Motherboards often not ATX compliant, or boards that had their own layout, power delivery and such. Also it was a horror for games since it most of the time was shipped with integrated graphics or cheap add-ons. Very rare you'll find a good GPU inside of it.
I bought a compaq laptop one day, a nefty 2000 euro, which had a mobile pentium 4 at 2.4Ghz inside of it, but a quite slow 40GB HDD that ive replaced myself with a larger, 120GB one. One day the board cracked, likely due to bad solder joints, filed it for warranty, got told "You replaced the harddrive with a non compaq so your warranty is voided" and that was that lol. Gone 2000 euro.
In other words, it's like today's Dell!!.
That why I never cared for either company.
The only reason they needed saving was because AMD bought them in the first place.
That isnt vision, that's blind luck.
The only reason they had to "stay afloat" with fusion APUs was because the ATi acquisition left them in a terrible state, something you guys refuse to acknowledge. Sacrificing your core business to waste 2.5 BILLION (the amount they wrote off) and having to sell your HQ to stay afloat is not "good business" it is sheer idiocy. Had they instead invested a portion of that money into CPU development instead of buying ATi, AMD would have been able to go toe to toe with core 2, and wouldnt have lost its dominant position in consumer workloads, and could have kept making inroads into datacenter applications. The K9 and K10 cores would not have been 1-2 years late to market, and frankly bulldozer would not have happened.the AMD vision are called Fusion initiative, by integrating both CPU and GPU in one package. it what helps them stay afloat in early 2010s by providing both Sony and Microsoft chips for their console.
AMD knows where the market are going, knows what to buy, and successfully sell their products. that's not blind luck, that's business.
Yeah. And not acquiring them would have CERTAINLY killed AMD, so it was the lesser evil choice.AMD' acquisition of ATI almost killed them off too