Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

nvidianews.nvidia.com

451–460 of 784 posts

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#451
post #169

Many various reasons for this but one perspective I am curious about is how much this is actually a defensive move against Intel, because nVidia knows Intel is busy developing dedicated graphics via Xe, and if nVidia just allows that to continue they are going to find themselves simultaneously competing with and dependent on a vendor that owns the whole stack that their platform depends on. It is not a place I would…

Nvidia could have bought a world-class CPU architects team, and build their own ARM or RISC-V chips (NVIDIA has an infinite ARM license already).

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that paying in new shares doesn't make the acquisition free. But the value of shares is an expectation of future cash flows. If that expectation is currently on the high side for Nvidia and on the low side for Arm then paying in shares makes the acquisition cheaper for Nvidia than paying cash. Nvidia is essentially telling us that they think their shares are currently richly valued. I agree with that.

Not necessarily. They could just prefer to be diversified. It can be rational to take a loss of value in the pursuit of diversification (depends on the portfolios of the stakeholders). They could also think their shares are valued accurately but believe the benefits of synthesis would increase the value.

How would any of that make payment in shares beneficial compared to cash payment?

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#453
post #22

This seems fair, as long as it stays true(regarding open licensing and neutrality). I've mentioned before, I think this will ultimately be a good thing. NVidia has the gpu chops to really amp up the reference implementation, which is a good thing for competition in the mobile, settop, and perhaps even desktop space.

No, what everyone thinks will happen is a pretend open ARM architecture and Nvidia CPUs dominating. Nvidia isn’t going to license the best GPU features they start adding. It’s an excellent deal for NVIDIA of course, I’m certain they intend to make the chips they produce much faster than the ones they license (if they even ever release another open design) to the point where buying CPUs from Nvidia might be they only…

That's not what everyone thinks.

NVIDIA already has an CPU architect team building their own ARM CPUs with an unlimited ARM license.

ARM doesn't give NVIDIA a world-class CPU team like apple's, amazon's or fujitsu. ARM own cores are "meh" at best. Buying such a team, would also have been much cheaper than 40b$.

Mobile ARM chips are meh, but nvidia doesn't have GPUs for that segment, and their current architectures probably don't work well there. The only ARM chips that are ok-ish are embedded/IoT at The UK appears to require huge R&D investments in ARM to allow the sale. And ARMs bottom line is 300million $/year in revenue, which is peanuts for nvidia.

So if anything, ARM has a lot to win here with nvidia pumping in money like crazy to try to improve ARM's CPU offering. Yet this all seem super-risky because at the segments ARM is competing at, RISC-V competes as well, and without royalties. It is hard to compete against something that's free, even if it is slightly less good. And chances are that over the next 10 years RISC-V will have much better cores (NVIDIA themselves started replacing ARM cores with RISC-V cores in their GPUs years ago already...).

Either way, the claim that it is obvious to everybody what the 3D-chess being played here is false. To me this looks like a bad buy for nvidia. They could have paid 1 billion for a world class CPU team and just continue to license ARM and/or switch to RISC-V chips. Instead they are spending 40 billion in a company that makes 300 million a year, makes meh-cpus, is heavily regulated in the UK and the world, has problems with China due to being in the West, have to invest in the UK which is leaving the EU in a couple of weeks, etc.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should learn to prevent the sale, period. Promises to retain some jobs (for ever? What happens if profits decline? What happens if the core tech is sold and ARM becomes a shell? Do the rules still apply?) address a tiny fraction of the problems presented by the sale of one of our core national tech companies.

I would have liked to see ARM remain owned in the UK. I think it's proven itself capable of innovation and organic growth on its own. But how can we evaluate the whether that will continue? What if ARM is not sold, and then (for whatever reason) stagnates, doesn't innovate, gets overtaken in some way, and enters gradual decline? Perhaps that's unlikely, but prevent the sale, period is feels too absolute.

Who is to say ARM was “owned in the UK” prior to the SoftBank acquisition?

Prior to that it was a publicly traded company, presumably with a diverse array of international shareholders.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#455

edge-AI! They're also building an ARM supercomputer at Cambridge, but server-ARM doesn't sound like a focus. I'm just hoping for some updated mobile Nvidia GPUs... and maybe the rumoured 4K Nintendo Switch. They say they won't muck it up, and it seems sensible to keep it profitable: > As part of NVIDIA, Arm will continue to operate its open-licensing model while maintaining the global customer neutrality that has bee…

> but server-ARM doesn't sound like a focus.

ARM doesn't have good server CPU IP. Graviton, A64FX, etc. belong to other companies.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#456

nVidia clearly wants to compete with Intel in data centers. But how does buying ARM help with that? They already have an architectural license. Right now, I can see nVidia replacing Mali smartphone GPUs in low to mid-end Exynos SoCs and the like. But it's not like nVidia to want to be in that low-margin area.

> I can see nVidia replacing Mali smartphone GPUs in low to mid-end Exynos SoCs and the like.

Replacing these with what? What nvidia gpus can operate at that power envelope ?

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i thought that would be low in investment world.

4 years, 8 billions. 2 B / year. I don't think that's low. And during this time Arm was also filling its owner coffers. The only real question here is if they filled the coffers at a greater 2B/year or not. My guess is they didn't. Now SoftBank has a lot of cash to acquire more shining toys.

i guess i watched too many tv shows where investors think anything below 50% ROI is low

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#458

nVidia clearly wants to compete with Intel in data centers. But how does buying ARM help with that? They already have an architectural license. Right now, I can see nVidia replacing Mali smartphone GPUs in low to mid-end Exynos SoCs and the like. But it's not like nVidia to want to be in that low-margin area.

> I can see nVidia replacing Mali smartphone GPUs in low to mid-end Exynos SoCs and the like. Replacing these with what? What nvidia gpus can operate at that power envelope ?

Lower power versions of what they put in Tegra / Switch? Or perhaps they can whip up something in 1-2 years. I'd be astonished if nVidia doesn't take any interest in smartphone GPUs after this acquisition.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#459
(Nvidia - ARM) - Nvidia >> 40 Bn

Only about 50% is gaming and nascent divisions like data centres can get a big boost from the acquisition.

We only connected Nvidia with GPUs, perhaps AI & ML. Now they are going to be a dominant player everywhere from consumer devices, IOT, cloud, HPC & Gaming.

And since Nvidia does not FAB its own chips like intel, this transformation is going to be pretty quick.

If only they go into public cloud business, we as costumers would have one other strong vendor to choose from.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, Apple is already straddling the line (and imho way past it) on anti-comp laws.

I'm not defending Apple, just thinking that can't we say this for many of the biggest tech firms? They are way past the line on anticompetitive business.

Yes, Apple is not alone in this. Google is another example, and they are very aware of this and are acting very carefully
Post reply on HN