• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rumor: Microsoft is interested in buying AMD

What do you think of this proposed buyout?

Results are only viewable after voting.
wachie said:
But it is the BACKBONE!

Yes, they can fuck up Vulkan. And they can fuck Sony, Nvidia, Intel and Steam also, it all adds up.
Click to expand...

It doesn't add up at all. Microsoft is not in a position to pick fights and piss off partners. Those companies can hurt Microsoft just as much (if not more) than Microsoft can hurt them.
 
BlastProcessing said:
It doesn't add up at all. Microsoft is not in a position to pick fights and piss off partners. Those companies can hurt Microsoft just as much (if not more) than Microsoft can hurt them.
Click to expand...

Back channel deals e.g. MS buy AMD cut a closed door deal not to eat Intel's lunch in specific market segments and everyone's happy. Consumers remain none the wiser.

Any other chip partners of MS simply want their business and it's a non-issue IMO.
 
Kralamoonard said:
If this is true it could be a legitimate game changer IMO, simply because of the first paragraph in the second quote:

"The battle for video game console space is very strong. If Microsoft bought AMD, then Sony would be faced with a bad set of choices: put money in Microsoft’s pocket every time it sells a PlayStation, or try to create an entirely new platform by using technologies from Intel, Nvidia, ARM or Imagination Technologies....."
Click to expand...

The bolded is stupid. There is life outside of gaming man. If MS buys AMD, and they still offer the same reasonable deals to sony, why in the hell would Sony give a damn... Cmon now.

Sorcerer Supreme said:
Would Sony go Nvidia for PS5 if this happened?
Click to expand...

No. Nvidia is bad for consoles if history has any input on the matter.

bobbytkc said:
Being bought by MS is certain death I think. Just look at Nokia's mobile division.
Click to expand...

This is the only real concern IMO. Can MS keep AMD going? Or would they fuck it up even worse than it is.
 
Cipherr said:
This is the only real concern IMO. Can MS keep AMD going? Or would they fuck it up even worse than it is.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they got dozens, if not hundreds, of MBA's building models for every potential outcome of their choices.
 
Durante said:
ITT: people don't understand how Khronos standardization works.

Anway, I still have no idea why Microsoft would buy AMD. If anything, they seem to be cutting back on costly HW efforts in favour of a focus on services.
Click to expand...


With hololens and the elite controller I'd argue the opposite. MS seems to be doubling down on hardware.
 
As a stock investor: this makes sense, buying a key piece of hardware to mitigate future risk to your supply chain for phone, tablet, console, etc. And as someone pointed out above: gpus might factor into Microsofts cloud processing plans as well, and this way Microsoft can leverage its design to its need. But I mostly attribute this to some outsider fanning the flames (like when they said Xbox was going to be spun off).

As a consumer: this probably doesn't mean anything. AMD needs capital to survive or they are on their way out anyways. It's probably time for them to rebrand anyways as they are thought of as second best and a big investor like Microsoft would help them on this front.

As a console warrior: Microsoft gonna "game over" Sony. Wait I need more absolute adjectives than that to be a true warrior. Sony is Dead!
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
Back channel deals e.g. MS buy AMD cut a closed door deal not to eat Intel's lunch in specific market segments and everyone's happy. Consumers remain none the wiser.

Any other chip partners of MS simply want their business and it's a non-issue IMO.
Click to expand...

I am not sure there is a single segment where today's AMD could eat Intel's lunch. I also have no idea what Microsoft could realistically give Intel to make them cool with this. Microsoft would be spending a ton of money for the honor of entering a hostile negotiation with Intel where Intel has all of the leverage. All so they can get access to chips that don't compete.

It doesn't make much sense.
 
I need to learn to A: get my goddamn self in check when back home from the bar on NeoGAF and B: learn how to delete, not just edit. Sorry mods.
 
Cipherr said:
The bolded is stupid. There is life outside of gaming man. If MS buys AMD, and they still offer the same reasonable deals to sony, why in the hell would Sony give a damn... Cmon now.
Click to expand...
Actually it's not that stupid. MS would be privy to any concepts Sony has for their console because Sony would more or less need to detail them to MS in order to the the SOC spec designed and built. Which gives MS a heads-up in planning around a PS5 to make something even better.

Which could end up hurting Sony and benefiting MS. Also the "fair prices" doled out to Sony or other companies still look mighty expensive when you yourself don't have to pay the license for the tech,....given that you own said tech.
 
Revengineer said:
I disagree very much. Look at how well Microsoft has listened to feedback for the XOne from the first reversal on resold games. I think Microsoft has demonstrated that they are willing to study the environment and design features that make sense for the end user, not their marketing team. If this translated into GPU design and manufacture, ATImight be able to better compete with Nvidia.

If nothing else, Microsoft has many magnitudes more assets to put towards ATI than AMD has. Seems like a win/win to me.
Click to expand...

AMD isn't owned or run by ATI, wtf are you saying?
 
This intense company-wide feud that some here think exists between Microsoft and Sony is completely overblown.
These are huge corporations. They are just as much bed buddies in some market segments as they are competitors in others.

Surmising that if this AMD sale were to happen that Sony goes on a spending spree to acquire 'gpu & cpu company to be named later'...just so they don't pay Microsoft money....overstates their respective gaming divisions.

Sony wouldn't adopt a knee-jerk mindset; the companies would make the money work. And as I would like to see AMD compete with Nvidia again - an influx of R&D money could help - this deal may not be a terrible thing (if it happens).
 
Holycow, please be true.

Microsoft acquisition would be the best thing to happen for AMD.



This company really needs some cash to catch up with Intel. And Microsoft really need hardware division to complement it's software division.
 
Nirolak said:
To give some examples, Intel owns Havok physics, but develop it to run on every platform despite having no console presence.

ARM owns Enlighten, a lighting middleware used by a ton of games, and still spends a lot of time developing the console version.

Sony sells cameras to almost all their competitors phones.

Microsoft released Microsoft Office on Apple devices before Windows mobile devices.

You don't spend $2 billion on a hardware company and then shut off all of their business. The goal is to improve the company that's making parts that are highly relevant to their future business objectives. They can pour in a lot of money and get better mobile hardware for their entire devices line while also selling those parts to others if they become the industry leader.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. I was aware of Sony selling camera parts to other smartphone manufacturers, but not about Intel & Havok.
 
Larogue said:
Holycow, please be true.

Microsoft acquisition would be the best thing to happen for AMD.



This company really needs some cash to catch up with Intel. And Microsoft really need hardware division to complement it's software division.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I doubt this is how MS would intend to use the acquisition.
 
How exactly does Microsoft save so much money a year if they buy AMD? There is still a cost to create the silicon and AMD thinks good business is to make 100 million in 5 years off a console.

If that is the goal and it matches up with XB1, then Microsoft would save 20 million a year after spending ~ 2 billion on AMD, they would end up needing 100 years to make back that purchase from savings on XB1 at that rate...

I'm fine with speculation but base it in reality please. This deal could happen if Microsoft has goals that AMD would fill but considering that Microsoft's surface is exclusively Intel ATM afaik and this makes less and less sense.
 
A hololense specific APU would be interesting. Not sure what else would make sense in the short term. Perhaps x86 windows phones that can double as desktops when attached to HDMI?
 
Microsoft's history in hardware is embarrassingly bad, the only reason MS can get away with it is they have the eternal gravy train in Windows and Office revenues. They are good at obfuscating their years of massive losses in hardware on their financial statements. But their history of hardware products would make any shareholder livid about how much money MS has literally piled in a warehouse and set on fire. Anyone who thinks MS would know how to manage an acquired AMD is really completely unaware of MS's history.

- Xbox
- Zune
- Danger (Kin)
- Surface
- Nokia (Windows Phone)
 
Bizzquik said:
This intense company-wide feud that some here think exists between Microsoft and Sony is completely overblown.
These are huge corporations. They are just as much bed buddies in some market segments as they are competitors in others.
Click to expand...

what market segments are MS and Sony buddies in?

I am clearly not a Forbes 500 CEO, but all of my reading suggest to me the battle for capitalistic market share involves pride and competitiveness which drives these powerful people.

So many examples of the top of corporations wanting to destroy rivals. It creates a culture, might not spread to joe blow of 50k + super,

BUT It's a real thing and it's how capitalism works
 
That could be interesting depending on what Microsoft is after. Ideally for consumers it would be reinvesting into x86 chips, APUs, and hybrid designs (x86 + ARM + GPU). But that would sour relations with Intel, which is a huge partner with Microsoft. Realistically you'd see Microsoft scavange IP, invest into GPUs but with focus on giving an advantage to Xbox, and devices like Surface. I could see Microsoft investing enough R&D into AMD's x86 to get the IPC of AMD's designs 20% slower than what Intel has because that wouldn't annoy Intel too much, it would hit the demands of the mainstream, and it wouldn't make the ROI/takeover ratio sour.

Then again if Microsoft is visionary with the long term they could be trying to aquire patents and talent to go beyond silicon. In 10 years we sure as shit won't be using today's x86 or ARM processors - whoever gets chips running on optical transistors, Graphene, or whatever is next is going to dominate all areas of compute (enterprise and consumer, hardware and software), because whoever gets that will have apps/hardware running 100x the competition for lower cost. 'Internet of things' apps both for practical reasons (daily medical scans) and vanity.
 
teh_pwn said:
That could be interesting depending on what Microsoft is after. Ideally for consumers it would be reinvesting into x86 chips, APUs, and hybrid designs (x86 + ARM + GPU). But that would sour relations with Intel, which is a huge partner with Microsoft. Realistically you'd see Microsoft scavange IP, invest into GPUs but with focus on giving an advantage to Xbox, and devices like Surface. I could see Microsoft investing enough R&D into AMD's x86 to get the IPC of AMD's designs 20% slower than what Intel has because that wouldn't annoy Intel too much, it would hit the demands of the mainstream, and it wouldn't make the ROI/takeover ratio sour.
Click to expand...

The biggest elephant in the room is Microsoft's decades long symbiosis with Intel. It has always been Intel makes the PC hardware, MS makes the PC software. An acquisition of AMD with MS keeping AMD's traditional x86 business would make MS a direct competitor to their most important business partner going back to the very beginnings of the personal computer. This is one reason I think an MS acquisition of AMD, were it to occur, would result in MS immediately divesting themselves of AMD's x86 business to another buyer. The problem is that nobody wants to buy an x86 business. x86 has been stagnant for a decade and Intel dominates that market with an iron fist. The infamous x86-x64 cross-licensing agreeement has no monetary value to speak of since neither Intel nor AMD pay each other to use x86 and x64, all that matters is that it exists and serves as a bulwark against AMD ceasing to be. There was talk of Samsung buying AMD but God knows Samsung wants nothing to do with x86, they would probably strip AMD down to the GPU business and use cut-down AMD GPU IP for it's Exynos ARM SoCs.

The other issue is what exactly MS would even do with AMD's assets, AMD has no competitive products in any markets they serve and MS is as entwined with Intel as the United States is with China. If MS wanted to go after ARM again, AMD has no ARM products of any kind and their first attempt at a custom ARM SoC in K12 has no guarantee it will be competitive with the likes of Qualcomm Snapdragon and Samsung Exynos which have been around for years. MS has no use for a GPU business, they and Sony don't even design the things but license designs for use in consoles. There's just nothing that AMD has which MS can feasibly use in the short or long term for products they have or will have in the future. And Nadella is no Ballmer, he's not likely to piss away money on stupid things like Danger and Nokia. For that I think MS shareholders can be thankful at least.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Microsoft's history in hardware is embarrassingly bad, the only reason MS can get away with it is they have the eternal gravy train in Windows and Office revenues. They are good at obfuscating their years of massive losses in hardware on their financial statements. But their history of hardware products would make any shareholder livid about how much money MS has literally piled in a warehouse and set on fire. Anyone who thinks MS would know how to manage an acquired AMD is really completely unaware of MS's history.

- Xbox
- Zune
- Danger (Kin)
- Surface
- Nokia (Windows Phone)
Click to expand...

What? Both Xbox and Surface are huge success. With Surface Pro's being best portable computers I've ever used.
 
justgames7604 said:
Arent they already doing that?
Click to expand...

To some extent. Currently Hololense is using an unreleased Intel atom chip. I would think being able to use AMD's more powerful mobile GPUs would help with the processing potential for the device. The upcoming Windows 10 phones will be using Qualcomm chips. Which means any Desktop mode would just be a glorified Windows RT machine as you wouldn't be able to run x86 apps. An AMD based phone solves that problem. These scenarios aren't likely, just interesting possibilities.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
The biggest elephant in the room is Microsoft's decades long symbiosis with Intel. It has always been Intel makes the PC hardware, MS makes the PC software. An acquisition of AMD with MS keeping AMD's traditional x86 business would make MS a direct competitor to their most important business partner going back to the very beginnings of the personal computer. This is one reason I think an MS acquisition of AMD, were it to occur, would result in MS immediately divesting themselves of AMD's x86 business to another buyer. The problem is that nobody wants to buy an x86 business. x86 has been stagnant for a decade and Intel dominates that market with an iron fist. The infamous x86-x64 cross-licensing agreeement has no monetary value to speak of since neither Intel nor AMD pay each other to use x86 and x64, all that matters is that it exists and serves as a bulwark against AMD ceasing to be. There was talk of Samsung buying AMD but God knows Samsung wants nothing to do with x86, they would probably strip AMD down to the GPU business and use cut-down AMD GPU IP for it's Exynos ARM SoCs.

The other issue is what exactly MS would even do with AMD's assets, AMD has no competitive products in any markets they serve and MS is as entwined with Intel as the United States is with China. If MS wanted to go after ARM again, AMD has no ARM products of any kind and their first attempt at a custom ARM SoC in K12 has no guarantee it will be competitive with the likes of Qualcomm Snapdragon and Samsung Exynos which have been around for years. MS has no use for a GPU business, they and Sony don't even design the things but license designs for use in consoles. There's just nothing that AMD has which MS can feasibly use in the short or long term for products they have or will have in the future. And Nadella is no Ballmer, he's not likely to piss away money on stupid things like Danger and Nokia. For that I think MS shareholders can be thankful at least.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your pessimism regarding Microsoft hardware outlook, this is a great post and makes me reconsider this deal's perceived advantages. I really wonder though, is this deal just to good to pass up? That's why AMD are getting all these looky-loos, they all see a "cheap" acquisition that just needs a little vision.
 
Kralamoonard said:
If this is true it could be a legitimate game changer IMO, simply because of the first paragraph in the second quote:

"The battle for video game console space is very strong. If Microsoft bought AMD, then Sony would be faced with a bad set of choices: put money in Microsoft’s pocket every time it sells a PlayStation, or try to create an entirely new platform by using technologies from Intel, Nvidia, ARM or Imagination Technologies....."
Click to expand...
Sony isn't trying to bring down Microsoft though. The amount of money in MS's pockets isn't a concern.
 
I don't know about long term hardware strategy, but if the OP is right and AMD is worth 2 billions, and purchasing it would let MS spare 1 billion a year, then it seems like a great deal for them.
 
This cannot be a good thing for the industry. I can see the possibilities for Microsoft. Going back into hardware for PC's using AMD chipsets... having ATI graphics tech at their fingertips.... but it would completely fuck up the balance in the industry.

force all the other players to either make their own chips or stick them with Intel, Nvidia, etc.

I hope a private party steps in and stops this.

fucking america and their love for duopolies and oligopolies.
 
alexandros said:
This doesn't sound like something the new "mobile first, cloud first", "software and services" Microsoft would do.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this acquisition is not on strategy. MS stock would get fisted and Satya's credibility would be questioned.

Given AMD's market cap hasn't changed in a couple years, I could see this as a Ballmer-era remnant and nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Disney may be interested in acquiring Epic Games at some point, it’s claimed
Rumor Business 
3
161
LectureMaster replied
Microsoft to announce 15% layoffs on 5/6, gaming division impacted
Rumor  2 3
115
556
wolffy66 replied
There is no Prototype project in development
Opinion Rumor 
3
153
Mr Hyde replied
Intel’s Answer to AMD X3D Leaked: Nova Lake “bLLC” CPUs Pack Up To 38% More Cache Than Ryzen 9950X3D2
Rumor 
43
351
Playboi Carti replied
Microsoft has reportedly eased the pressure on its Xbox gaming division
Opinion Rumor Business  2
82
497
Cert.in.Death replied
Top Bottom