backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by snorre.. on Apr 19 at 8:10 AM
If you haven't received a subpoena yet, please raise your hand

Microsoft is the latest in the long list of companies subpoenaed by AMD in it's anti-trust case against Intel. AMD alleges that Intel used its size and intimidation to force customers into using Intel only processors.  AMD specifically hopes to explore "Microsoft's decision to develop software for AMD's 64-bit CPUs, and the timing and schedule for development of that software," as outlined from the subpoena. Information Week reports:

A Microsoft spokeswoman said the Redmond, Wash., software maker is not a party to the lawsuit. "We anticipate that both sides will be seeking documents and other evidence from Microsoft and many other participants in the PC industry," the spokeswoman said. "We will work with the parties in this case to respond to reasonable requests for documents and information."

AMD will also hope to detail Microsoft's collaboration on co-branded advertising between processor companies, trusted computing partnerships and code optimizations.  Dozens of companies have already been subpoenaed by AMD in several countries.  Skype was just recently subpoenaed a few weeks ago after the company announced a new version of software that contains Intel-only optimizations.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The plot thickens....
By android1st on 4/15/2006 4:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
This was predictable. But will AMD go after Apple?

I'm curious to see if this case will ever be resolved. I certainly can't see AMD accepting a settlement from Intel, unless Intel settles in the form of a promise of some kind, which I'm not sure is possible... So I think it will be interesting to see what happens, not that I think this case will truly change anything.




RE: The plot thickens....
By Bonrock on 4/15/2006 4:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
When he introduced the first Intel-based Macs in January, Steve Jobs revealed that Intel had dedicated hundreds of engineers to helping Apple port the MacOS to the x86 architecture. AMD is much smaller than Intel and doesn't have the kind of resources to throw hundreds of engineers at a task like that. I suspect Apple chose Intel over AMD primarily for that reason.


RE: The plot thickens....
By ksherman on 4/15/2006 6:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
and i bet Mr. Jorbes got a preview of the upcomming Conroe processor and how it is giving the AMD preocessors the stick...


RE: The plot thickens....
By Zelvek on 4/15/2006 7:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
who is Mr. Jorbes? Considering as how the Conroe preformance ratings that were realeased were from an unreliable bias source, and seeing as how we have no clue how the Athlon processors of the same time will perform how can one come to such conclusions? I prefer to see more tangable comparisons that I known put the processors on an even playing feild not some performance claim by the company of the processor itself.


RE: The plot thickens....
By ksherman on 4/15/2006 8:17:37 PM , Rating: 3
Mr. Jorbes=Mr. Jobs... guess your not a homestarrunner fan ;-)

And I dont think the conroe benchmarks came from a biased source... they did come from Anandtech. Granted, everything was supplied by Intel, Anand did his best to determine if there was any foul play. Not to mention , the AMD processor WAS ocerclocked... Yes, the actaul benchies may be different down the line, but they souldnt be THAT far off.


RE: The plot thickens....
By Zelvek on 4/15/2006 9:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
well considering as how the benches were done by intel they do come from a bias source, Anandtech only reported on what they saw a trade show so they are not the source of the benchmark. sure the AMD was overclocked but only to 2.8 Ghz I've pushed the FX-60 to 3.2Ghz (still air cooled) and it was still stable. granted Anandtech did their best to establish the validity of the test but they could not see what the firmware was on the mobo. I am not saying the AMD is still king of performance but that it is far too early to by making such powerfull comments.


RE: The plot thickens....
By Saist on 4/16/2006 12:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
um.

no. the benchmarks came from Intel. Anand merely pushed buttons.

The result is that you have Intel riding Anand's credibility in order to promote their chips, and Anand is trusting Intel to actually have a product.

If I have to explain why trusting Intel at all is a bad idea, or go over any of the sneaky tricks they've pulled off before, then I would presume I was at THG and not Anandtech.

Put bluntly, having witnessed the 3rd party benchmarks that have been accomplished, it's fairly safe to say that Conroe is a bust, and that Anand should have pressed harder for some time with the systems outside of Intel's test chambers.


RE: The plot thickens....
By Lakku on 4/16/2006 1:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
So why should we disbelieve Anand and trust you? Perhaps you can discuss or show of what 3rd party benchmarks you speak of, but considering more then Anand had time to sit alone in the room with both computers to test them, albeit mostly with Intel supplied benchmarks, whose to say they aren't mostly accurate? They did test with a non Intel bench, and were even re-allowed to test with an updated BIOS after the outcry from the community saying it was essentially a devious test. Sounds like you love AMD too much to admit they may be on the losing end soon, because I think it absurd to think the largest semiconductor maker in the world would rest idle and not have the talen and resources to accomplish what they showed off. I will wait and see, but I won't be a bit suprised if what has been said true, turns out true.


RE: The plot thickens....
By snorre on 4/16/2006 10:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
Kindly ask yourself why Intel setup this comparison the way they did. They have never acknowledged any benchmark comparing their processors with AMD processors before, so why should we believe that there are no fowl play going on now?

1. The full specifications of the box the mysterious Conroe was benchmarked on was not disclosed.
2. Why didn't they run reproducible benchmarks, e.g. well-known and standard time demos?
3. The specifications of the box the AMD processor was benchmarked was sub-par - it should be very easy to beat.
4. Why did they overclock the AMD processor, and how do we know it was properly cooled and not throttling due to overheating?
5. How do we know the drivers and register were not tampered with?
Etc. the list of questions just goes on.

Intel is a very sly company and could easily have constructed this setup to make the Conroe look its best and the AMD processor look its worst. For instance, running constructed benchmarks that causes a lot of cache misses on the AMD processor, while fitting the benchmarks entirely in the Conroe's 4MB cache.

One recent example of dubious Intel benchmarking can be found here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30000

I don't buy the hype.


RE: The plot thickens....
By bighairycamel on 4/18/2006 7:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
3rd party benchmarks? Last time I checked, Quake 4, FEAR, and Windows Media Encoder were pretty standard benchmarks run in neary all CPU comparos.


RE: The plot thickens....
By snorre on 4/19/2006 8:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but all the time demos they ran were non-standard and thus the results are questionable to say the least.


RE: The plot thickens....
By Samus on 4/15/2006 7:17:55 PM , Rating: 3
No, your wrong. OSX was originally developed on X86 hardware. No porting was neccessary. Infact, porting was required in the opposite direction of what you are stating.

Remember, OSX development kits were always P4-based. Apple switched to the X86 architecture because developers requested it as 'the performance of devkits are far greater than that of G4 workstations'

Intel didn't do anything for Apple except supply them what AMD couldn't, low voltage CPU's in mass quantity. AMD (who I wish had won the bid) would have never had the output of ultra low voltage processors to supply Apple.

Tim


RE: The plot thickens....
By ksherman on 4/15/2006 8:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think the devolper kits were P4 powered... they were when Jobs announced the transition, those Developer kits WERE powered by the P4...


RE: The plot thickens....
By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel didn't do anything for Apple except supply them what AMD couldn't, low voltage CPU's in mass quantity

Actually, it wasn't the processors that Intel supplied so much as the platform. AMD could certainly have supplied Mac with the same ability in CPUs, but they just don't have the money/infrastructure/experience to supply the necessary platform for it.
You have to realise that for AMD, designing and building even a chipset is more expensive than a CPU!


This could hurt AMD in the long term
By hstewarth on 4/15/2006 8:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well AMD starts bring Microsoft in to court hearings, I would think Microsoft would pay less attention to anything that AMD does in its supports of its products.

Also I never too much care for this AMD-Intel thing. If I created a product and someone else pretty much copy the product and was selling it too as there own.

Just think it someone came out with XBox 360 clone, with same cpus and everything and can run the same games as the XBox 360, I would guess Microsoft would go out and sue them also.

Only good news about this whole competition is keeps the prices down and technology improving.




RE: This could hurt AMD in the long term
By Targon on 4/15/2006 11:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are several issues here when it comes to bringing Microsoft in. Microsoft HAD to know that they would be called on to testify since they are the only commercial OS developer that had to DECIDE what to support and what not to. Applications can't properly support 64 bit instructions if the OS doesn't support them. Microsoft knows that AMD is NOT saying that Microsoft is guilty of anything, but wants Microsoft to state how and why the release of the x86-64 version of Windows XP just happened to be delayed until Intel was able to release their own product.

Remember, AMD WAS wronged by Intel over the years, but the facts need to be brought out as a part of the case in order for them to prove it. The only way to do it is to have other companies state for the record what Intel promised them or threatened them with.

As for the comment about clones, while it is true that AMD processors were a direct copy, down to the micro code in the days of the 486 and earlier, AMD designed their chips(either themselves or by buying other companies) from the ground up starting with the AMD K5. At this stage, while the instruction sets may be compatable, the implementation is different so can't be called a "clone". If anything, AMD has re-invented the wheel in their processors, which is why the Athlon 64 and Opteron have been favored by technical people for the past three years.


RE: This could hurt AMD in the long term
By hstewarth on 4/16/2006 2:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
I believe if I remmeber correctly, AMD approach microsoft about 64 bit OS and Microsoft desired to not only have a single source for 64 bit and got demanded from Intel to support the 64 bit from AMD. Intel had developer similar technology long before but decided not to release it - they felt it was not that useful and also conflicted with Itanium chips.

AMD implementation is still a clone. the sample instructions that run on Intel machines will run on AMD chips. That is what they clone - not the cpu but the instruction set. If there instruction set was totally different then Intels - then it would not be a clone - like a PowerPC chip.

Anyway the 64 bit version of XP is a mute point - its largely not compatible with most devices and other things. 64 bit will not be fact until Vista. And that is only once large memory is available. 64 bit has not advantage to people with 2Gig or 3Gig of memory. 4G could be advantage - because the max 32bit windows can use is 2Gig and some cases with Windows 2003 Server - 3Gig - but only for applications that support the larger memory.


By hstewarth on 4/16/2006 2:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
One note: my statements on Microsoft, are my memory of stuff on internet of it - so it could be wrong. But is been know that during early days of Dos that Microsoft desired to seconds source the computers and got away from IBM ( also some where AMD came into picture - because there was dersired to 2nd source Intel chips ).


32-bit Windows limitations
By BikeDude on 4/16/2006 6:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're discussing the per-process limitations, not the OS limitations.

XP (SP2) is capped at 4GB since MS found that many drivers in the "consumer-space" aren't up to snuff. To underline this, nVidia recently (as of ForceWare 8x.xx) sabotaged their own drivers to become unstable as soon as addresses beyond 2^32 are encountered by their drivers. (nVidia originally added PAE support in ForceWare 5x.xx, but doesn't seem to bother testing this much now adays)

32-bit Windows 2003 Server OTOH can address more memory (MS says drivers from server-type hardware OEMs typically are of better build and quality). Even though each process is still limited to 2GB virtual memory space, the system cache will still benefit from a huge amount of physical memory.

The /3GB boot.ini flag should be available under XP too, so that isn't the difference.

Now, the interesting bit: PCI devices map their memory into the 4GB system memory space. So, if you have 4GB physical memory, you'll need to relocate part of that above the 2^32 border. With XP (SP2), you're therefore typically capped off at about 2.5-3GB. The rest is occupied by video card memory and other PCI devices you might have. (Device Manager will show you the details on this)

Also note that 32-bit processes (marked as large memory aware), will be granted the full 32-bit virtual memory space when running under 64-bit Windows.

As for AMD vs MS, I think it will be interesting to see what they find, although it has to be noted that even with the delays, MS didn't ship a feature complete OS (http://microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/...):
"Most of the features and technologies of the 32-bit version of Windows XP are included in the 64-bit release (exceptions include infrared support, System Restore, DVD support, and mobile-specific features like hot-docking)."

The lack of 64-bit device drivers won't be solved by another Windows version IMO. It requires time. More 64-bit drivers pop out every day independently of Vista's fluxating release dates. (I know Paul Thurrot advocates waiting for Vista, but all I am missing are drivers for my TV tuner and I'm ready to go)


RE: 32-bit Windows limitations
By johnsaw on 4/16/2006 8:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Most of the features and technologies of the 32-bit version of Windows XP are included in the 64-bit release (exceptions include infrared support, System Restore, DVD support, and mobile-specific features like hot-docking)."

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. That's for Itanium version of XP, that has since been discontinued.

AMD64 version is called X64, not "64-bit" :)


By Targon on 4/16/2006 3:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, Intel came out with an all new processor, the Itanium, which was going to be 64 bit without the burden of supporting the older design. Intel tried to do this with the Pentium Pro as well. Note that both processors have been considered a failure.

AMD came along and decided to come up with 64 bit extensions to the old x86 instruction set. Microsoft was mostly on board with this, but told Intel that they would NOT support a second 64 bit instruction set from them(Microsoft already released an Itanium version of Windows as I recall). So, Intel was forced to make their own clone of the AMD instruction set.

There was a lot of speculation about if/when Intel would support AMD's 64 bit extensions in Pentium 4 chips, which is what you may be thinking of.


By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD implementation is still a clone. the sample instructions that run on Intel machines will run on AMD chips. That is what they clone - not the cpu but the instruction set

Hmmm...you mean AMD64 (later "cloned" by Intel)? :)


By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well AMD starts bring Microsoft in to court hearings, I would think Microsoft would pay less attention to anything that AMD does in its supports of its products

I doubt that...I don't know if you know this, but Microsoft brought AMD into it's OWN antitrust suit as well.


Surprise, surprise
By Griswold on 4/15/2006 5:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Doesnt come as a surprise, seeing how MS conveniently "had to" delay the XP 64bit edition until Intel was ready to launch their EM64T enabled parts - coincidence? I dont think so. Would it had made much of a difference for AMD? I dont think so, considering all the problems XP64 still has due to lack of widespread driver support. Is that a reason to allow such behavior? Definitely not.

Either way, MS could turn out to be the big image loser here. They either will be busted as Intels butt-buddy or have to admit that they couldnt handle the problems they faced with a 64bit desktop OS, which lead to the delays which lead to the, for Intel, convenient release date.

Booo-urns!




RE: Surprise, surprise
By mark2 on 4/15/2006 8:44:28 PM , Rating: 3
Intel's 64 bit enabled extensions have been present in desktops since 3/2005, in the 6XX series. ALL desktops in retail have pretty much been 64 since 1/2006. Itanium and Xeon are 64-bit already, aren't they? So, the only thing left in Intel's stable that ISN'T 64 bit is their laptop product, a processor from a different development path. And why isn't it 64 bit? Many good tech reasons, like laptops don't generally have power for 1.5+ GB of addressable memory. So, Intel was probably forced to convert before any software was generally available to the consumer public jus cuz AMD was marketing the heck of 64 and all the available hype-ware that was available.


RE: Surprise, surprise
By Topweasel on 4/15/2006 11:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
The Debate is not about Intel having 64bit ability. Its about whether Intel convinced Microsoft to delay XP 64bit till Intel had their 64bit compatible hardware. Microsoft started development in 2001 and projected the release to early 03 and then mid 04 and then late 04 then within a month of the First EMT64 CPU released it. AMD is trying to prove this isn't an accident.


RE: Surprise, surprise
By defter on 4/16/2006 9:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
Why people think that there is a conspiracy behind Microsoft's delays?

Did you forget that Microsoft also delayed other versions of Windows including Windows for Itanium, Windows 2000 and Vista?

Do you think that AMD was behind the delay of Windows for Itanium?


quote:
Microsoft started development in 2001 and projected the release to early 03 and then mid 04 and then late 04 then within a month of the First EMT64 CPU released it.


First EMT64 CPU was released in June 2004, months before Windows for AMD64 release: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20...


RE: Surprise, surprise
By Topweasel on 4/16/2006 10:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First EMT64 CPU was released in June 2004, months before Windows for AMD64 release: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20...


Actually the first desktop CPUs the 600 series PIVs where released only a month and half proir to the release of windows XP 64bit (the desktop OS).


RE: Surprise, surprise
By Griswold on 4/16/2006 6:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
You didnt get it. Its about MS delaying XP-64 until Intel had their EM64T parts ready for launch.


Did I miss something?
By SunAngel on 4/16/2006 12:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Would someone bring me up to speed on the AMD/Intel confrontation?

I just purchased my first AMD Athlon 64 processor. I like it very much especially the Cool 'N Quiet feature, but I also like my previous Intel Pentium 4. My Pentium 4 was faster, albeit used more power.

So, am I to assume AMD is crying foul over it inability to grab more marketshare? What specifically is Intel doing to impead AMD?

Do anyone have a clue why Microsoft keeps getting away with its monopoly? If any one or company should have a complaint it should be against Microsoft for its increasing heavy-hand against software developer by buying patent-holding firms and threating to sue anyone remotely coming close to developing an app that comes close to patent. Anyone know the answer to this?




RE: Did I miss something?
By NateSLC on 4/16/2006 2:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the link to the original complaint AMD makes against Intel. You will need to copy / paste it into the address bar and remove any %20 that appear.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl...

Also, I'm curious as to what speed your P4 was and what speed your new A64 is.


RE: Did I miss something?
By NateSLC on 4/16/2006 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind about that %20 thing. It looks like they're allowing long URLs here now.


RE: Did I miss something?
By hstewarth on 4/16/2006 11:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
Very interesting document. AMD started out x86 because ( IBM not Microsoft ) desired a second source of cpus which by the way Intel designed the instruction set that all x86 compatible cpus.

Its also interesting to see own chart - its looks like AMD didn't really change Intel pertcentage over years ( 85% to lower 82% ). But decrease the other venders to almost nothing. To me AMD is making a monopoly of 2 vendess ( AMD and Intel ) more likely by not allowing other venders in it.
This is based on their own document.

AMD desired is reduce Intel effectiveness in hope to raise there pertcentage of the market.

Also by bringing so many companies into this dirty law suit, they are are not helping the industry but actually going to hurt. I would expect companies don't like going though legal stuff. Just my opinions.


RE: Did I miss something?
By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:37:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very interesting document. AMD started out x86 because ( IBM not Microsoft ) desired a second source of cpus which by the way Intel designed the instruction set that all x86 compatible cpus

Actually, AMD started out as a supplier for Intel...


RE: Did I miss something?
By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:44:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD desired is reduce Intel effectiveness in hope to raise there pertcentage of the market

Hmmm...I guess it's how you look at it. AMD's goal is to increase competition by preventing Intel from using it's huge marketshare to threaten companies. For example, when HP agreed to join AMD in their Opteron launch, Intel had a quiet word with them and they pulled out at the last minute.
The head of HP at the time stated publicly that Intel "had a gun to my head" and that they could not afford to see shipments of necessary Intel parts "get delayed" mysteriously.


Freaking AMD
By CoreGamer on 4/16/2006 9:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
AMD needs to stop complaining like a little kid whenever Intel Scores one...Conroe has been in the works for some time, and Im sure it will outperform anything amd can throw out at the time conroe is launched, Intel has been hiding its bag of tricks behind its back and watched how AMD slowly started taking the market back, now Intel is pulling better processors so AMD starts sueing everyone because they arent being treated "fair" by other companies




RE: Freaking AMD
By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD needs to stop complaining like a little kid whenever Intel Scores one...Conroe has been in the works for some time

Ummm...this suit was filed before ANYTHING was known of Conroe (June of 2005), so no...this has nothing to do with Conroe at all.


RE: Freaking AMD
By SonicRulesAll on 4/17/2006 2:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you don't seem to get it. AMD wants the market share to be free and open so the consumers have a CHOICE. If AMD wins this, smaller companies like VIA will have a chance to go mainstream and hold more than 1.4% of the market share. I think it would be cool to have more of a choice than 2 companies. Why not more? EX: There is more than one brand of soap to choose from at the store. Heck, there are more than 2 stores to buy that soap from! Also, when there is a truly competitive market, greater products and better technology come from the companies because they know they have to work for it! I think AMD is tired of Intel’s bullying. This has basically nothing to do about "whose processor is better."


Intel & AMD
By crystal clear on 4/15/2006 7:54:49 PM , Rating: 1
AMD does realize the strong grip of Intel over the industry & how tough it is to operate under such conditions.All sides will spend millions $ over pricy law firms & PR firms- this goes till the case lands up in the supreme court.These law firms then broker an out of court settlement.Then the battlegrounds switch to E.U. again a long drawn out battle.
AMD should follow the proven method of how to fight Intel-With good products,like it did till now.




RE: Intel & AMD
By Tim Thorpe on 4/15/2006 8:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean "until now?" Last time I checked, AMD's product offerings were on par with Intel.


RE: Intel & AMD
By Viditor on 4/17/2006 1:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD should follow the proven method of how to fight Intel-With good products

You are missing the entire point/goal...
AMD is far less interested in a financial settlement than they are in preventing Intel from continuing their "illegal" style of rebate program. If Intel were to cancel that program, AMD would settle in a heartbeat!


Slightly OT ;-)
By shteve on 4/16/2006 6:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Intel reverse-engineered the 64bit instructions that AMD created, so who's cloning who now?

http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_abstract.asp?...




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki