I thought people might want to see this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/30/amd_to_dump_ati_brand/



Wow

Not entirely unexpected but, still, like, you know...

From an Apple user POV - I'd imagine pretty much means we're stuck with nVidia for the foreseeable future.
Can't see 'Processor from Intel, graphics by AMD' on the Apple site, really.

Ho hum.

I can see why they'll do that with Bulldozer. At the moment they wouldn't want to tarnish their GPU's with their CPU's reputation, but when their new architecture comes out they should be competative again. That means the AMD brand will no longer be inferior to ATi.

TBH I didn't like ATI cards in the pre-AMD era, so this change won't bother me - I have no attachment or loyalty to the ATi brand.

I do, however, love AMD products.

Oh God I hate PR speak, wtf does customer-centric branding mean?
Are they going to hide the tech behind bland pseudo-futuristic titles like 'phenom', 'centrino' or 'iGraphics'?
AMD couldn't get less interesting with their press-releases if they tried, and ditching their only cool brand because they don't know what to do with it shows that they don't care less about the PC Gamer fanboy market, which has been the driving force behind PC tech reputations for the past 15 years.

That said the era of a seperate GPU is coming to an end, so maybe this is the first taste of it, it seems people would rather buy ready made systems than upgrade and build themselves - the luxury PC market is evolving and it's becoming mainstream, no one cares who makes the engine, they just care about the badge on the bonnet.

I would imagine that they are concentrating in end users rather than middle men and box builders. Though unless you have a decent product it will get you nowhere.

Possibly. the average "end user" doesn't understand the difference. You don't, generally, look at a car and go "I'll buy that, because it has a Bosch EFi and telematics from Magneti Marelli... Having 2 different brands in the same device (processors) is only going to confuse them more. They need to build a single strong brand.

With the integration of the graphics chips into the processor and more onboard graphics, it means that there is only one name on the packaging, that is easier to market. Intel has won a lot of custom through the Intel Inside logo, people see that and buy it, regardless of what is inside - again, they wouldn't know a Celeron from a Core i7, they are both "Intel", that is where the understanding stops.

Yes for integrated graphics you are right. Though AMD did have a good reputation for cheap decent processors. I actually went out and changed from an Intel to AMD years ago when I had a PC.

The problem is, discrete video cards account for something like 20-30% of the market - which is why Intel is the market leader in graphic chips, with over 60% market share.

Why exactly? It doesn't strike me that Apple is that bothered about stepping on Intels toes. Apple will choose whichever supplier can provide the best products for their needs at that particular moment in time. Plus there have been fairly recent sightings of high level AMD bods at Cupertino.

I think it would be a shame to loose the ATi brand but I guess that's just the way things go. It's kind of a surprise that it's lasted as long as it has.

Er, doesn't some of the iMac range use AMD cards?

Yes, as does the new Mac Pro. However they are all labelled as ATi, there is no mention of AMD.

That I can accept. Most people simply do not need a separate graphics card unless they do CAD film editing or play games. All office work can be done with a integrated chip.

I have never really been interested in games but I am aware that graphics cards are amazingly fast to what they were five years ago. The games of five years ago looked pretty amazing to me.

Just how necessary is a cutting edge graphic card for today's games? If I bought a decent PC say costing an iMac priced £1000 - £1300 just how crappy would my gaming experience be?

Or if I ran Windows on such an iMac whose insides include an ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 512MB just how poor would my gaming be?

Just wondering as I have no interest in games other than chasing the odd ball of string.

CC, monitor size (and therefore resolution) comes into the equation. Whilst a good graphics card can play the notorious Crysis at 1680x1050 (average 20-22" monitor) if you want to play at 1920x1200 or more with full detail and AA and AF enabled you need to be on that cutting edge of graphics card still.