AMD filed a suit against Intel way back in 2005 alleging among other things that Intel had conspired with major PC OEMs to keep AMD out of the marketplace. The case is set to go to trial in 2009 and some new documents filed this month shed more light on AMD’s accusations against Intel.
EWeek reports that new documents submitted on May 1 by AMD include over 100 pages detailing the myriad of allegations AMD had against Intel. The document claims that Intel has used its market position with OEMs to dominate the market ever since IBM introduced the first personal computer using a version of the Intel 8086 processor.
Part of the allegations AMD has leveled against the chip giant is that Intel abused its dominant position in the market by offering deep discounts to OEMs and by punishing OEMS who considered using a second chipmaker.
In its defense, Intel filed a counterargument -- that is also over 100 pages -- where it claims that the chip market is competitive and that accusations from AMD are only an attempt to make up for years of producing inferior products.
In all somewhere between 150 million and 200 million pages of documents have been introduced by both AMD and Intel so far. The core allegation by AMD is that Intel used relationships with vendors like Dell, HP, IBM, Acer and Gateway to exclude AMD by offering the OEMs special treatment if they only bought Intel processors.
AMD cites an example of this practice in action when it claims Gateway suddenly phased out AMD in July of 1999 and cancelled the launch of a machine using the AMD Athlon Processor. The documents related to this action are heavily redacted to protect trade secrets and AMD alleges Intel has used the protection order to shield its practices from the public.
Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy said that the redactions are to protect Intel trade secrets and AMD is merely using the latest filing to drag more witnesses into the case. Naturally, Intel says that AMD has not been able to offer processors with the capabilities required by the top PC makers and its lack of market share is due to that fact alone.
quote: Where would AMD be today if Intel didn't play dirty?
quote: Really if you look at the entire lifetime of the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon X2 until the Core architecture, AMD had a product that was as fast or faster than Intel's.
quote: Where would AMD be today if Intel didn't play dirty?
quote: Really if you look at the entire lifetime of the computer starting back in the 70's when Intel invented the first processors, yes, you will see a brief 5 year period there AMD was the performance leader.
quote: Don't get me wrong, Intel's made major steps and if I were to build a high-end machine these days I'd go core2 all the way. But I have no doubt in my mind that there is something very suspicious about this whole situation.
quote: Don't be ignorant. These mere "five years" are the exact period of time that this entire case has to do with.
quote: The document claims that Intel has used its market position with OEMs to dominate the market ever since IBM introduced the first personal computer using a version of the Intel 8086 processor.
quote: This case is not about just those 5 years. Reading comprehension is your friend.
quote: It is obvious that the rating system simply becomes a measure of the ratio of AMD to Intel supporters reading the article.
quote: How can you NOT find it incredibly suspicious that, faced with a better performing and value-minded product, almost none of these OEM's bought and sold AMD chips?
quote: Intel has magically managed to maintain control of the market despite an, at times, inferior product.
quote: however I have to say that the overall platform taken as a whole was somewhat weak prior to the introduction of the nforce chipset -- critical stability is demanded by the corporate buyers, which represent a huge market, and Athlons didn't make a conclusive case in the server market either.
quote: AMD hasn't had a business/server solution until the release of Opterons.
quote: Second, AMD's chips were never considerably faster than Intel's until the Prescott/Athlon 64 era
quote: Until that time, PC OEMS's had to open up new PC lines just for AMD chips that were equal/slightly faster than an Intel platform. What is their incentive to do that?
quote: If you need any more proof of how significant this is, look at the market share numbers for graphics processors. Intel is still #1, not ATI or nVidia. Intel selling PC manufacturers entire platforms is huge to the PC OEMs selling to corporate America.
quote: The large OEMs did not sell AMD because they didn't have to. No large customer demand, no large performance gains.
quote: But there was customer demand, at one point in 2006 AMD held almost 80% of the desktop market in the United States..
quote: AMD Grabs Over 80% of Desktop PC Sales in the Retail Market
quote: I think you forget the original athlon reached 1Ghz before intel, and they also introduced DDR memory too.. this was long before the athlon XP and the nforce2 chipset.. I found the platform stable, and since the chip ran at 200FSB with DDR memory instead of 133FSB and SD memory, it was much faster too.
quote: accusations from AMD are only an attempt to make up for years of producing inferior products.
quote: but the argument makes sense.
quote: AMD can't beat them on the open market, so they drag Intel to court.
quote: but please do not defend Intel and their illegal tactics.
quote: Just the fact that this is going to court
quote: All I want to see is good old fashion competition, which in the end is a good thing for everyone.. including yourself..
quote: That isn't proof at all. We have a HUGE problem in this country with fraud lawsuits. I'm not saying this is one for a fact, but we still don't KNOW that Intel broke any laws. Its " pretty obvious " to you because you want to believe it, nothing more.
quote: Competition at gunpoint isn't good for anyone though. Court rulings and legislation designed to prop up and push inferior products isn't competition.
quote: Here is a question that you and others on the AMD bandwagon aren't asking : If Intel swayed, forced, pushed - what have you - OEM's to only offer their CPU's
quote: *shakes head* Its called kickbacks.. Intel probably said we will offer you money to exclusively support our product, but if you don't we are going to pull the oem pricing deals that companies like Dell were receiving. If you really think Dells 'superior operating margins' were really the reasons for all of their profit discrepancies you might aswell stick your head in the sand right now.. They probably made more money off of these kickbacks then they would have selling amd cpus.. you wanted a reason, this one certainly seems plausible..
quote: That's ok, let this guy think what he wants. Lets see if he can explain this. Yes, you Reclaimer, you explain this to me. Why did Dell sell only Intel cpu's at a time when A64 was equal to or beating the P4s, but then turn around and start selling AMD cpu's when core and core2 were released, hmmm? Especially in light of the fact that they had less incentive than ever to sell AMD cpu's since obviously core and core2 are much better, right? I bet he can't give a rational argument for that folks.
quote: Really if you look at the entire lifetime of the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon X2 until the Core architecture, AMD had a product that was as fast or faster than Intel's. So Intel's counter argument that AMD's claim is due to them having an inferior product is baseless.There's no denying that Intel's current Core 2 architecture is, in most instances(but not all), faster than AMDs. But this lawsuit isn't about the current situation, its about the situation in the past.
quote: I also don't see any issues with what Intel did, if they did it. "Sell only our products and we'll give you a discount on the cost." Sounds like pretty normal business practices. "If you sell other ppl's products, those selling only our products come first." Again, sounds pretty normal to me.
quote: If you were a true AMD supporter, you would tell people to buy AMD anyways. The only way AMD will have a chance to do any good is with money, they can't make money if you tell everyone to go Intel.
quote: XP was slated to run as a 64-bit OS, but due to pressure from Intel, XP went back to a 32-bit OS.
quote: I think you've got your story backwards, it was Intel who was preparing to move to an exclusively 64-bit market prematurely. They spent much R&D developing & patenting every aspect of the Itanium long before the software world was prepared for it. Part of the reason that AMD's Athlon64 architecture was so successful is because it can natively perform @ 32bit or 64bit, giving customers the option to move forward at their own pace, where as Intel's architecture had to use emulation to carry out 32bit commands.
quote: No, I hate the ipod for the simple that fact that a few years ago I got my iriver with a 20GB HD for just $270, it came with a built in radio, and could be used as a external harddrive right out of the box. At the time a 20GB ipod was going for almost $400, had no FM radio, and could not be used as a external harddrive.
quote: Intel abused its dominant position in the market by offering deep discounts to OEMs and by punishing OEMS who considered using a second chipmaker.
quote: If Dell had sold Athlon XP's / Athlon64's on mass during the time it was clear those chips were better... Then perhaps AMD would have made more then enough money to dump into R&D, if they had been given that chance I know AMD would have came up with something that would beat the Core2 into the dirty.
quote: I believe AMD was first to put the memory controller on the chip itself...
quote: I'd also like to point out that AMD seems to have little problem selling it's CPUs without brainwashing everyone, wheres Intel on the other hand makes sure that every other commercial says "Intel inside". If Intel is so much better why must they flood the world with "intel inside" bs??
quote: If Intel has nothing to fear, then why don't they pump a few billion into AMD and see what they do with it?
quote: IMO, AMD is trying to look towards the future, all Intel cares about is how much money they make and if it wasn't for AMD, we would all be running crappy P3/P4's and games like Crysis would not be possible.
quote: Whats to say Dell wouldn't have gone with Intel anyway ? After all Dell has traditionally always offered a heavy Intel bias in their products. You guys act like suddenly Dell would of went with AMD if not for some unprooven " dirty " business practices. Bullcrap. And excuse me but are you working in AMD's R&D devision ? Because you sure seem to have some kind of foresight about their could of would of been future products.
quote: How many times are you guys going to bring this up ?? Yes, they did that. We get it. Relevance to current discussion plz
quote: This logic got a +5 rating ? Its called ADVERTISING ! Maybe you have heard of it ? I love the highlighted question.. sigh you poor child. Why ? Because they can AFFORD to and studies prove advertising works. Duh?
quote: Was this actually a joke ? You can't be serious. Hell while we're at it why doesn't MS pump just a " few " billion into Apple and see what they can do ? Great idea !
quote: Backwards thinking to the extreme of stupidity. If Intel made garbage there wouldn't be all " that money " for them to care about. And your also wrong. IBM came out with dual core CPU's for servers and research years before AMD or Intel. In fact, IBM develops or authors most of the technology we take for granted, not Intel or AMD.
quote: Thats simple, If Dell was planning to go with Intel anyways, why would they switch to AMD now that AMD sucks compared to then? I don't need to work in there R&D to know that they could come up with something better....You can have faith in a all mighty being called God but can't have faith in a company that has proved they can do it?
quote: You do know there is a such thing as to much? Once again you missed the point, if Intel has nothing to fear then word of mouth should be more then enough. Funny how it's been working for AMD so far.
quote: Well since MS did in fact do that years ago, why not? I guess you missed that point as well...