backtop


Print 132 comment(s) - last by Adonlude.. on May 15 at 5:35 PM


  (Source: Sevens Heaven)
AMD and Intel have filed in the area of 150 million pages in the legal battle so far

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.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I think AMD has a case
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 11:35:48 AM , Rating: 5
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.




RE: I think AMD has a case
By SilthDraeth on 5/7/2008 11:54:45 AM , Rating: 5
True.

And playing the "What If" game:

Where would AMD be today if Intel didn't play dirty?


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By Adonlude on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By Ryanman on 5/7/2008 3:16:35 PM , Rating: 5
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.


Don't be ignorant. These mere "five years" are the exact period of time that this entire case has to do with. 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? It's similar to a lot of the witch hunt accusations in buisness nowadays about sexual and racial discrimination. Why would any company, focused on profit and performance, choose anything but the best bang for their buck?
The answer is there must have been something to nullify that loss of profit. You could argue that the non-techincally literate give Intel more brand recognition, but that's not signifiant enough to explain the complete shunning of all these OEM's toward AMD.

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.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 3:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
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.
Thank you, nicely put, Intel owns the performance crown right now and with good reason, they have a better product, but I too find the entire situation very suspicious indeed.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Adonlude on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: I think AMD has a case
By xti on 5/7/2008 4:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This case is not about just those 5 years. Reading comprehension is your friend.


And the case isn't about the 30-40 calendar years either. Those 5 years represented many more figuratively as far as competition goes, and what happened across those 30-40 years will probably be shown to have been extra active in those 5 years.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Also by going back as far as 30 years, AMD can claim that this is not a new mentality for Intel, and that they have had hostile business practices since their inception. This would be no different than a prosecutor in a murder trial putting up a witness to show that in the past the defendent had engaged in violent behavior.. Most of AMD's suit has to do with practices within the past 5-6 years before the suit (i.e 1999-2005)


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Adonlude on 5/7/2008 8:08:06 PM , Rating: 1
Gotta love the downrating when commenting on Intel VS AMD articles.

It is obvious that the rating system simply becomes a measure of the ratio of AMD to Intel supporters reading the article.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By spluurfg on 5/8/2008 4:26:22 AM , Rating: 3
It happens on Apple threads to the extreme.

I think people use the rating system to voice their agreement/disagreement, rather than judging on relevance/appropriateness/etc. I think if you disagree, a reply with your reasoning would be most helpful -- it's a discussion after all: there will be people who don't agree with you and even people who are honestly mistaken.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By BarkHumbug on 5/8/2008 8:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is obvious that the rating system simply becomes a measure of the ratio of AMD to Intel supporters reading the article.


Or it could be that you're just posting crap. If AMD as a subcontractor thought they could improve and do a better job than Intel at designing the x86 processors I would think less of them if they didn't try and make it on their own. It's just good business sense.

Just for the record, I have nothing against Intel. I'm currently looking to build my next computer with an Intel C2D processor and I'm loving the fact that they are dirt cheap because of COMPETITION.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Adonlude on 5/15/2008 5:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
So if you invent something you think it is ok for someone else to come along and use your intellectual property to make money at your expense? Thats a load of BS.

Just for the record, my Intel stock is up $1 today. I'm loving the fact that I am making money for lack of AMD's COMPETITION.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Phynaz on 5/7/2008 5:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
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?


Because AMD was capacity constrained and couldn't produce the chips to meet demand?


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Sahrin on 5/7/2008 7:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
This would drive up prices; which it didn't. (Until A64, AMD has never had price parity with Intel).


RE: I think AMD has a case
By seamonkey79 on 5/7/2008 8:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Capacity constraint only raises prices when you cannot go elsewhere to get the product. AMD's problem is that they not only cannot provide the chips, they also cannot make people pay more for them, which keeps them (AMD) from being able to build new/larger fabs with which to produce more CPUs so that they can provide the chips.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Sahrin on 5/8/2008 8:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
If you can go somewhere else to get it, then it's by definition not a supply issue.

If AMD makes the top performing chip and can't supply enough, you can't go to Intel to get parts because Intel's chips don't perform at the same level.

Think about it like the Prius when it came out. Toyota never actually raised prices, they made the same cut the whole time - and you could go to any dealer in the world to get one. The catch is, that because supply was constrained, dealers raised prices. Not Toyota. But the market itself (that is, the buyers and sellers) agreed on a higher price due to the increased demand and limited supply.

Law of supply works ceteris paribus; which isn't how the world works, I understand. But when we are talking about tens of millions of units being sold, other factors are quashed by the basic laws of economics - because at those scales the basic rules are the only ones that have any effect.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Sahrin on 5/7/2008 7:51:36 PM , Rating: 5
You've got a pretty warped impression of how AMD began. I'm pretty sure that Intel and AMD settled the x86 patent case-series out of court, for one thing. Intel wouldn't settle a patent dispute with a major competitior to be generous.

Second, AMD started out as a second source for 80x86 processors; however over time they developed independent engineering. This is true of all parallel manufacturing businesses - someone had to be first. The catch is, Intel has magically managed to maintain control of the market despite an, at times, inferior product.

That's what's puzzling AMD and the EU and the DOJ.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 8:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel has magically managed to maintain control of the market despite an, at times, inferior product.


Brand recognition. Huge advertising and P.R budget. Consumer ignorance. OEM contracts. Etc etc. I mean, theres really nothing magical about it.

The P4's might have been technically " inferior " but they still performed well enough to make the benchmark sites sing their praises constantly. I remember you could not go a week without reading some " Omg we clocked a P4 to 6 GHZ, check these benchmarks " on hardware sites. Combine that with a huge ad campaign and their catchy MHZ=performance strategy and its really no mystery at all how they were outselling AMD.

In a perfect world the best overall product would always dominate its perspective market. But, alas, thats not the case. Look at Bose. Huge brand recognition and market control from an overated overpriced low quality speaker company.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Sahrin on 5/8/2008 8:16:40 AM , Rating: 3
...You just made AMD's case for it. This is AMD's argument except instead of saying "despite the fundamental laws of the market NOT being observed, they weren't and everything was still fine" AMD is saying "the guy with the knife standing over the body is guilty."

Market forces DO Bear out - that's why we still teach the basic principles of economics in school. The fact that they didn't speaks to some outside influence, which you yourself (and Intel, for that matter) readily admit. The case is not over whether there was a mitigating factor, it's over whether Intel's "mitigation" was illegal.

In the EU, the answer is probably yes. In the US, depending on whether AMD can produce a smoking "Dell taking a check in its nicoteine-stained fingers," the answer is maybe no. The US generally takes a dim view of protectionist cases, because every attempt to interfere with the market ultimately fails - be it from regulation, or Intel trying to protect its monopoly position by paying off tier 1's with '<s>massive bribes</s> marketing co-op,' thus there's no point in getting involved in the first place.


By daInvincibleGama on 5/7/2008 10:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
x86 is an instruction set, not an architecture. While it is true that AMD used to manufacture chips for Intel, it is also true that AMD's original Athlons were completely different, yet fully compatible. Considering that x86 is an open standard and that more than just AMD make x86 chips, it's unfair to say AMD was born from stolen technology.

Besides, in the semiconductor industry, reverse engineering is common, but not all that useful. The sheer pace of it keeps anyone that has to reverse engineer and then figure out a fab process for it AFTER the competitor brings it to market from competing effectively. To prove this, just look at AMD's and Via's R+D funding.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2008 12:56:32 PM , Rating: 1
You may want to rethink that. They didn't start out as a second source for Intel, IBM asked them to do this.

1982
At IBM's request, AMD signs an agreement to serve as a second source to Intel for IBM PC microprocessors

AMD was created in 1969. They were around long before making CPU's for Intel.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_...


RE: I think AMD has a case
By spluurfg on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 12:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
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.
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.

Intel will get screwed by this in some way, whether it be in the states, europe or somewhere else, in the end this lawsuit will probably be a good thing for AMD, and for us the consumer..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 12:14:55 PM , Rating: 3
I used a Via chipset in my original 1.33GHz Athlon (non XP) and it was rock solid. Only thing unstable about that PC when I got it was Windows ME which was quickly replaced with XP when it was released.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Drexial on 5/7/2008 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
AMEN. I had a 1GHz overclocked to a 1.33 that has been stable for YEARs... Perhaps I should change that to HAVE not had, I am still using the machine as an internet box. Its got 768MB of SDRAM, 30 Gig Maxtor, and a sony CD Burner that have been running solid for 7 years.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By eye smite on 5/7/2008 12:36:15 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, Intel has always been a dirty company. It should be obvious how they strong armed OEM's, look at Dell that was exclusively Intel. Then when these investigations and lawsuits started, all of a sudden Dell started offering AMD cpu's in their products. I wonder why that is, if anyone can offer an alternate explanation I'm willing to listen. I really don't see it any other way though. There have been several OEM's in the past that offered only Intel when AMD was more than competitive enough to warrant building systems around their cpu's. My last intel cpu was a pentium 133 MMX, and I won't buy another intel product as long as someone else is making a different cpu, be it AMD or VIA or whoever.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By BSMonitor on 5/7/2008 12:53:47 PM , Rating: 1
Dirty? Strong Armed?

First, AMD hasn't had a business/server solution until the release of Opterons. And even then, the numbers of chips available were relatively small. As demand grew for them, so did AMD's market share. AMD still is strong in markets for 4+ processor servers.

Second, AMD's chips were never considerably faster than Intel's until the Prescott/Athlon 64 era. 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? Not to mention the fact that by opening to AMD chips, you are relying on at minimum 2 manufacturers for parts. Nvidia/whomever for chipsets and AMD for processors. Intel on the other hand has been providing entire PC platforms since the original P3 days. The biggest mistake AMD made was selling off their chipset department.

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.

Hence AMD's need to buy ATI. Platforms sell in the business world, not processors.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 1:38:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMD hasn't had a business/server solution until the release of Opterons.
What does this have to do with the desktop market oems?
quote:
Second, AMD's chips were never considerably faster than Intel's until the Prescott/Athlon 64 era
I have already stated this is untrue, the original athlon was considerably faster than any of Intels offerings until the P4 was released.
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?
uhhhh price, need I say more? Why do you think AMD is arguing?
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.
Although some of what you are is true, you can not peg Intels dominance in the integrated graphics department for the only reason they can release more expensive and inferior CPUS for a matter of years without losing much more marketshare then they should have.

Although an entire platform is a good thing for OEMs, it is not a reason to exclusively support one manufacturer, especially when the unsupported manufacturer is selling chips at a cheaper price, with performance on par or greater. OEMS like Dell are out there to make money, you would think at least offering AMD cpus will increase their profits.

Now if this was one OEM that decided to do this, but all the large OEMS did not sell AMD chips for a matter of years. Dell did not start selling AMD cpus until 2006 almost 2007, thats 4 years(and thats if you only include the Athlon XP which for quite some time time had a superior platform and CPU with the nforce2 platform) that AMD had a comparable if not better CPU, at a cheaper price. If that makes sense to you, then so be it, but I am not going to buy it, not for a second.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Spivonious on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 2:23:50 PM , Rating: 3
Dell was at the time the biggest OEM in the world, please do not tell me that opening another line in which all the computers are custom built anyways would hurt them... PLEASE!
Dell was in bed with Intel, this is why they are currently under investigation. Just because Intel can bury their competition with millions of pages of bs does not make them innocent. Welcome to corperate america =P


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 3:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The large OEMs did not sell AMD because they didn't have to. No large customer demand, no large performance gains.
But there was customer demand, at one point in 2006 AMD held almost 80% of the desktop market in the United States.. Dell is a business, their goal is to make money, I think many of you are forgetting this, regardless of what other reasons you have to support Intel.. You also forget Dell is still under investigation in Europe, and they recently had their offices raided.. I really doubt it was to say hello..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Spivonious on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 4:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
By making that assumption you are making yourself look like a fool. Did you call Dell and say you wanted exclusively Intel CPUS? did your friends parents, neighbors? A stupid comment deserves a stupid response. I don't see how you can control 80% of the market and not have demand. What makes your comment even more pointless is that Dell started offering AMD cpus when their demand was at their lowest in years (after conroe was released)..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Spivonious on 5/8/2008 1:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Please show me a link that says AMD ever had 80% of the market. Perhaps among the enthusiasts for a few years, but those people aren't customers of Dell.

I didn't call Dell firstly because I build my own machines, and secondly they already offered Intel PCs.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By eye smite on 5/7/2008 7:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
I offer you the same chance to explain as the rest of the posters here with blinders on. Why did Dell not sell the A64 when it was matching or beating the P4s, then started selling them when the core and core2s came out. Especially when from a business standpoint there was less reason than ever to sell AMD cpu's. I'm betting he can't explain this either.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Spivonious on 5/8/2008 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Because the general public knew nothing about AMD. Dell has consistently used the AMD brand as a budget line in their system configs.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By ats on 5/7/2008 8:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But there was customer demand, at one point in 2006 AMD held almost 80% of the desktop market in the United States..


I'm not even sure that AMD can supply that much product. As no time has AMD's market share hit 80% of the desktop market.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 11:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Really?
quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1120
quote:
AMD Grabs Over 80% of Desktop PC Sales in the Retail Market


RE: I think AMD has a case
By tanishalfelven on 5/8/2008 2:21:50 AM , Rating: 1
80% market /=/ 80% PC Sales


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 9:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
There is a direct correlation between the two.. I was not talking about marketshare..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By eye smite on 5/7/2008 7:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. Dell did not sell AMD when the A64 was matching or beating the P4, but all of a sudden they started selling AMD cpu's when core and core2 came out. Are you missing that point? I think you are. Can you possibly, by what you've reasoned out here, explain why Dell would all of a sudden start selling AMD cpu's at a time when there was less incentive than ever to do so. Geez, I bet he can't.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By JPForums on 5/8/2008 10:02:01 AM , Rating: 1
For an OEM, you sure have an odd outlook on how things work. Perhaps you're a very small, less known OEM.

First, you have to make a new assembly line for every significantly different PC you sell. A new case, different board, or even a change in PSU can sometimes require different tooling to assemble efficiently.

Second, dealing with the processor section of Intel and the motherboard section of Intel is like dealing with two different companies save one thing: Intel can offer bundle deals. The boards don't ship with the processors preinstalled. They don't even ship from the same place and thus don't arrive at the same time. An oversupply of processors doesn't negate the possibility of a shortage of Intel or even Intel based boards. This situation occurred in the not too distant past. Can anyone remember how ATI filled in for Intel in the lower end section when they had their shortage? So from an OEM standpoint, the only advantage to going all Intel is bundle deals. Product stability is a moot topic as you have to run the same tests on both the Intel and alternate boards and stable boards can found in both areas. Generally speaking, as an OEM, you want to keep several manufacturers in the books in case of issues or shortages with one. That is unless, you make the boards yourself, as many larger OEMs do.

Third, while some OEMs do use tier one retailers for their boards in some designs, it is much more likely that you'll find a lower tier manufacturer or an in-house board. Foxconn boards are quite prominent at OEMs. They are also very cost effective. You might want to look into them.

So the choice to support a single AMD system in their lineup only really costs the OEM a single Intel system. Unless you only have a very small number of models in your line this isn't very difficult to do.

I do have to agree with you comments on performance (at least with the PIII). The Athlons didn't give enough extra performance over the PIII to out-weight the uncertainty in supply for mainstream systems. It wasn't really until the Athlon64s came out the the benefits outweighed the risks in the mainstream. However, OEMs could have offered budget models based on the pre-Athlon64 Athlon lineup given their lower price. In fact, barring the events that Intel admits to, this is a very likely scenario as they would have had a relatively safe approach to integrating AMDs chips into their lineup. As it was, some OEMs had growing pains as they sought to jump from no support to immediate mainstream support of the Athlon64 chips.

I also agree that AMD wasn't suitable for the server/workstation market until the Opteron. In my opinion, they didn't reach parity until the nForce Professional 2000 series hit the market. However, this really doesn't prevent say Dell from offering an AMD based business system as most businesses don't use server/workstation parts for their standard word-processor and email machines. Look through Dell's/HP's business line of computers. Most of them aren't based on Opterons/Xeons. Only the workhorse computers need those parts.

So I must ask, how big of an OEM are you?
How many systems do you ship per month? (Rough estimate)
It would be interesting to contrast business practices based on the size of the company.
Also, a name would be nice as just stating "I'm an OEM" makes you sound like a teenage poster that has no experience in the industry and just wants to sound important.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Spivonious on 5/8/2008 1:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the well-written and well-thought-out reply. Just wanted to clear up something. When I said "I'm and OEM..." it was purely hypothetical. I have built a few systems for friends and family but don't pretend to be a business.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By JPForums on 5/8/2008 2:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that. I missed the hypothetical part.

I just thought I could add to the discussion by contrasting the inner workings of smaller OEMs (which I mistakenly believed you to be) to that of larger ones. I thought it might give some insight as to why AMD was offered in some OEMs long before others.

Also, I meant no offense with the last comments. I just thought more information would help show where you're coming from and I wanted people to give due credit to your end of the discussion.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By eye smite on 5/7/2008 7:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
You know, thank you captain obvious for those points. I think I asked for an alternate explanation as to why Dell did not sell AMD cpu's at all during a time when they were on par or beating the P4s, then all of a sudden started selling them when the core and core2 came out, obviously when there was no incentive to do so. I was referring to Intel's strong arm, dirty business practices to cut deals with OEM's to sell Intel cpu's only. THANK YOU, for completely missing that point and failing to offer another explanation.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2008 1:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Dell offered them due to them acquiring Alienware which sells AMD along side Intel.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By spluurfg on 5/7/2008 12:42:10 PM , Rating: 3
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.


You're absolutely right WRT athlon reachign 1ghz first, but it's the introduction of DDR on the t-bird that really started to show serious AMd's dominance from a performance standpoint. However, DDR was introduced on the AMD 760 chipset, and AMD stopped making chipsets after that for a while -- I personally found more issues on my AMD system versus my Intel systems, and while a small sample size is of course no clear indicator, I think the general concensus was that Intel offered a more stable platform, significantly aided by the fact that they always produced own-branded chipsets during that crucial period.

Now I'm not trying to say that Via's KT133 chipset was weak or that problems were everywhere, but that minor difference in stability (which I am conjecturing, not substantiating), does make a big difference for corporate sales.

certainly not disputing that the Athlon was the superior proposition at the time, but merely stating that in my opinion, Intel still maintained a platform stability advantage during those crucial times, and that OEM's would need to consider platforms as a whole.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By spluurfg on 5/7/2008 12:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, sorry I meant KT266... the Via DDR chipset.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 3:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
The Via KT266A chipset is the one that really set them apart because it improved performance a good percentage. The KT266 had some flaw with it.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By wookie1 on 5/7/2008 1:24:52 PM , Rating: 1
Which product did AMD have to compete with the 8086? Did Intel strong-arm AMD out of the IBM PC? When was AMD founded again?


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 1:44:53 PM , Rating: 5
IBM forced Intel to have a secondary manufacturer of x86 chips when they first signed their contract. That secondary manufacturer was AMD ;) They made chips for Intel until Intel broke their agreement in the late 80's, AMD filed for arbitration, won the right to continue to use Intel chips throughout the 486 series. Basically, Intel created their own competition, and we would probably still be using pentium 3's if not for AMD =P. The Athlon really kicked intel into gear, the P4 was basically an interum fix, it was never designed to go as far as it did..


By StevoLincolnite on 5/8/2008 12:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
Actually we would have gone from the Pentium 2 to the Pentium 4 Architecture, the only reason for the Katmai and then coppermine to exist was because of AMD's competition at the time, forcing Intel to release more faster chips in order to compete, the Tualatin was more of a Die Shrink test for the Northwood than anything else.
Its also worth of note that AMD was faster than Intel, until Intel moved the L2 cache on-die giving it a performance edge, until AMD did the same, Plus the Duron trounced the Celeron in almost every benchmark because of the Larger Front side bus, and cache. - Thus I laughed at anyone who bought a Celeron at the time, although they were a good overclocker.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Topweasel on 5/7/2008 1:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
8086 is where AMD got started, they entered the X86 market at the behest of Intel and IBM to be an extra supplier for the 8086. Later AMD produced 286's and 386's where known to be the better versions and faster overclockers. As AMD and Cyrix got bigger Intel was frightened that people would stop buying the Intel ones and would only buy the other two's. Thats why Intel tried to find legal ways to kick the companies out producing the Clones. Rather then become better then them they made a move that could easily and almost instantaneously lost thousands and thousands of Americans jobs.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Spivonious on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By DOCDAT1 on 5/7/2008 3:06:12 PM , Rating: 3
I've had various AMD based computers all the way back from the KT133 chipset and never had more trouble than my friends with Intel based computers...


RE: I think AMD has a case
By spluurfg on 5/8/2008 8:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
To be anecdotal, sure, I had that AMD K6 ssytem that lasted for however many years, but overall I had fewer problems on the several Intel systems I built compared to the several AMD systems I built.

However, my AMD 760 systems had very few if any issues. I just feel that designing chipsets in-house tends to give a quality control advantage.

Granted I have no statistics whatsoever to back this up, so maybe the reality is that the third party AMD chipsets were more stable than the Intel chipsets... I am just somewhat skeptical of this.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
accusations from AMD are only an attempt to make up for years of producing inferior products.
No that is what the athlon was for, making up for the years of making inferior intel 286, 386 and 486 processors =P. Without competition we could still be below the 1ghz barrier(which AMD happened reached first)..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By defter on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By Parhel on 5/7/2008 12:36:59 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe baseless is the wrong word, but at the very least Intel's argument dodges the real question.

Of course AMD was more successful when their product was superior versus when it was inferior. But, the question is whether AMD could have been far more successful if their competition weren't using illegal and unfair tactics.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
I do think AMD is blaming Intel a little too much for their current misfortunes, but their counteragument does seem pretty baseless to me.. For a good 5 year period AMD had a better CPU for a better price than Intel. Yet even at their peak in 2006, they had only barely surpassed intel in worldwide marketshare(not the US) in the desktop market, and for a short period of time at that.

This means Intel was still chugging along with a more expensive and inferior desktop CPU, yet as soon as Intel gains the advantage, AMDs market share falls back to under 20%.. I know a lot of this has to do with product recognition, as in the corperate world, many people still trust Intel over AMD, but I really doubt this is the only reason, I do believe Intel was playing unfairly, as we all know something happened with OEMS like gateway and Dell..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Topweasel on 5/7/2008 1:27:07 PM , Rating: 5
Hold on, Did you look at when this was Filed. 2005 At almost the Peak of their growth and before Intel even thought that the Netburst was going to die. This is when AMD was at its most profitable time and even said by AMD that just because we are having success now we are still running into issues related to Intel tactics and certainly has put them in a situation where they weren't more successful and a true competitor.

Maybe they saw this happening to them 3 years ago and wanted an advanced start so that maybe money would come back to them in time to keep them going till their next breakthrough. The nice part about this is the case is being handled while their is a company affected and still alive. Look what happened to the Bells after their split up, they still wasn't a true competitor and they all just waited out the injunctions to gobble each other up.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By defter on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: I think AMD has a case
By Topweasel on 5/7/2008 2:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it goes back to almost 99 with the Athlon, with a small gap when AMD was competing with the Barton against the Northwood and even then only at the very end was it anything but almost equal. Even now AMD while not maintaining the max performance of the Core 2 Duo produce several CPU's priced at or below Intel's CPU's at the same relative performance level.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By defter on 5/7/2008 3:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
No it doesn't. When Northwood was released in January 2002 it took a performance lead and the lead got quite big quickly. By the time Barton was released about a year later, Northwood was already at over 3GHz.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Topweasel on 5/7/2008 9:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thats my point the The point they were equal with the Thoroughbred and Thoroughbred B but as Northwood was released ramped up it started to leave the Throughbred behind but Barton was its main competitor.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By HighWing on 5/7/2008 2:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the argument makes sense.


For the argument to make real sense Intel would have to prove that AMD continually made inferior products, over the whole course of time line this case is dating back to. However, bench marks and user base clearly points out that this argument does not hold any ground. And can only further prove AMD's case if they can show a loss when AMD had better benchmarks at the time.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By siberus on 5/8/2008 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 1
The Athlon Xp also bested the P4 Willamette


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Khato on 5/7/2008 12:54:52 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, that's not the counter-argument, at least not all of it. As has already been pointed out, the 'inferior product' commentary is targeted towards the platform as a whole as well as supply chain. AMD most definitely did botch this earlier on with the Athlon, and once they had everything else straightened out, they were selling everything they could make. Really, the whole thing back then about staying price competitive with Intel when they had a faster product was a superb example of stupidity - charge more when you're selling everything you can make. But instead they squandered their temporary lead, and are now hinging their survival on these lawsuits. Unfortunately, due to how much money/jobs the EU has tied up in AMD's Dresden fabs, they're actually taking the idiotic claims seriously. And you can bet that if they somehow go any further in the NY fab, then that state's investigation that started shortly after the fab-courting began will find some way or another to help them out...

On a humorous note - I bet those thousands of quad cores AMD 'sold' for $1 each to the Shanghai Supercomputer Center were all above cost to manufacture. They get around that little problem of 'selling' below cost by having some other part of AMD (likely marketing) 'pay' the actual cost of the processors.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: I think AMD has a case
By Topweasel on 5/7/2008 1:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
All I have to say is the biggest motherboard manufacturer had to release the best AMD Athlon Motherboard in a white box. Why? Because Intel just prior to the release of the Athlon announced a chipset shortage and threaten to "not be able to hit demand" to companies that released AMD based motherboards.

People need to stop ignoring the Fact that AMD filed this during their most successful period of time both financially and competitively. The whole idea behind it was not only where they still being held up by Intel at the time, that the constant issues that would considered illegal and would fit in an anti-trust case, created a situation that by the time this came out and intel laid off they did not and could not have had a good enough infrastructure to really compete.

The way Intel is built unless AMD was able to match half of Intels production and be almost twice as fast at or less then Intels prices before they could compete with intel due to the fear of losing vouchers, limited supply, and if your a smaller company being completely cut off.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 1:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD can't beat them on the open market, so they drag Intel to court.
Just the fact that this is going to court, and the european union has had Intel under investigation for a number of years does not back up what you are saying. Regardless of what you may think, it is pretty obvious that intel swayed OEMS like Dell to only sell Intel CPUS. Whether or not they can prove it is a different matter, but please stop telling AMD to man up, I think you just need to open your eyes.

Obviously AMD can't blame their current situation on Intel, they don't have a product that can compete, I will be the first to admit this, but please do not defend Intel and their illegal tactics. All I want to see is good old fashion competition, which in the end is a good thing for everyone.. including yourself..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 3:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but please do not defend Intel and their illegal tactics.


I love how in the fanboi's mind its already a far gone conclusion that Intel actually DID anything illegal. I have not seen one shred of evidence or proof of that matter.

quote:
Just the fact that this is going to court


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:
All I want to see is good old fashion competition, which in the end is a good thing for everyone.. including yourself..


Competition at gunpoint isn't good for anyone though. Court rulings and legislation designed to prop up and push inferior products isn't competition. I believe in our capitalist consumer driven market. In your own words you admit AMD currently can't compete with the latest Intel offerings. Well, is it a mystery why they are in this situation ?

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, then why aren't the OEM's the ones filing lawsuits ? If they were forced to pay different rates if they offered AMD products, why aren't THEY the ones taking Intel to litigation ??


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 4:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
I love how you think I am an ATI fanboy just because of my opinons of the business practices of Intel.. I do not favor either company, as long as there is competition between the two..
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.
Even if you totally discount AMD's lawsuit, why is the european union going after Intel aswell? Obviously there is no hard proof, but between the OEM scandels, AMD suing intel, and the EU investigation it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out Intels business practices are not exactly 'friendly', although that is an understatment in my opinion.

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.
You obviously don't get it, AMD is never going to be able to compete with a company that has a gross income at least 10x higher than that of its closest competitor and at the same time is using unlawful business practices. Its kind of like David and Goliath, but in this case, its more like giving Goliath an machine gun =P.
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
*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..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 4:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
ps.. the classaction suit against dell was not AMD's doing, the suit had to do with Dell inflating its profits.. Must be coicidence though, as the 3 different suits all relating to Intels business practices are obviously a bunch of conspiracies set to take down Intel... <\sarcasm>..


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 6:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
I do respect your opinions. I just don't like playing the speculation game this much.

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..


I mean, don't you think your speculating just a BIT much ? Sure this is plausible, but it just makes me think your an AMD fanboi when you want to go out on a limb this much to condem Intel without any hardcore facts being put out in the open yet.

Look AMD had their day. The only reason AMD even exists is because they stole - ooops - sued Intel for the X86 design anyway. This lawsuit strikes me as being entirely hypocritical and they are just plain whining now. I just want to see proof. Not collateral evidence.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By eye smite on 5/7/2008 8:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
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.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 8:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
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.


I don't know. I don't work for Dell. Do you ? There is no " rational argument " by either of us to be made because we don't know the facts or the truth of the matter. And, no offense, but I seriously doubt you do either.

I have seen you ask this exact question to others about 4 times now, and have been shot down or ignored every time. An inability or refusal to follow your line of ( and I'm being kind ) 'logic' by DT readers is not an admission of guilt by Intel

I see what your getting at. Congrats. Cooincidental " evidence " all wrapped up nice and neat with a bow on it to support your conspiracy theory.

Why did Mc Donalds bring the MCRib back right around the time beef stocks started to go down back in '06 ?? OMG those dirty bastards were just trying to inflate the market !!! I'm smart now just like you eye smite !


RE: I think AMD has a case
By eye smite on 5/7/2008 8:20:31 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articl...
AMD Japan Files Suit Against Intel
Online staff -- Electronic News, 6/30/2005

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/AMD_files_antitrust_la...
AMD files antitrust lawsuit against Intel in US federal district court Wednesday, June 29, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8386156/
According to the complaint, Intel has forced major customers such as Dell Inc., Sony Corp., Toshiba Corp., Gateway Inc. and Hitachi Ltd. into exclusive deals in return for cash payments and other deals.

According to the FTC, Intel threatened to withhold information about future chips from three vendors--Digital Equipment and Compaq Computer (which are now part of Hewlett-Packard) and Intergraph--unless those companies agreed not to sue Intel over any potential patent violations. The FTC says such strong-arm tactics were against the law when practiced by a company as dominant as Intel.

Another complaint involves the European joint venture Fujitsu Siemens Computers (Holding), which was once a mainstay for AMD's desktop business, with AMD chips powering over 30 percent of Fujitsu Siemens' consumer PCs, according to the complaint. In early 2003, Intel offered Fujitsu Siemens a "special discount" on its Celeron processors. Fujitsu Siemens accepted the offer in exchange for hiding its AMD computers on its Web site and removing references to AMD-powered products from its retail catalog.

Shall I go on, or would you like to dismiss and debunk all this as well? Let me just put the search in here and let you read for yourself......

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=amd+files+sui...

Now, go ahead and live in denial if you like and don't research this yourself. Call me a fanboy if you want, that seems to make many of you feel better. It would be more accurate though to call me an Intel Hater, and would desperately love to see this company fall flat on it's face. There is no ethics at Intel, just like with the Intel fanboys. Haha. :-)


RE: I think AMD has a case
By afkrotch on 5/7/2008 3:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
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.


Last time I checked the old P4s spanked the Athlon XPs and Athlon 64s in encoding and multitasking, while the Athlons were better at your office apps and games.

Even during the days of the Athlon and P3, they were pretty much neck and neck. Only real difference was cost.

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.

If I produce candy bars. Around 500,000 a year and I sell them to four companies. 2 of the 4 sell only my candy bars (we'll call them A & B), while the other 2 sell multiple types of candy bars (C & D). A wants 200k and B wants 300k, while C wants 50k and D wants 50k, who do you think I should give first dibs to? I can give B, C, and D what they want and leave what is left to A or those who only sell my candy bars get first dibs.

The way I look at it, A & B get first dibs as they only sell my products and I want to keep it that way. C & D can wait.

Go into most restuarants and you'll notice they only serve either Pepsi or Coke, but not both. Why? Discounts.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By omnicronx on 5/7/2008 4:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
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.
According to the lawsuit this is not what they think happened.. This was not an exclusivity deal like we see everyday, what 'apparently' happened is Intel offered kickbacks to only sell their products, and if the OEMs refused, they said they would cut the discounts that they were receiving. This is illegal.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By larson0699 on 5/8/2008 2:32:33 AM , Rating: 1
IN THE PAST are the key words here. Why would you highlight the K7 era?

Intel is wisely covering their collective ass with statements like this. If they were to call AMD's offerings inferior and AMD the whiner on those grounds, I would without hesitation agree in regard to everything UNTIL K7. I do believe that Intel acted unfairly toward their competition (and as such should be made to compensate for it) BUT OTOH I also believe that (anytime after AMD got a hold of x86) ANY market situation, fair or not, would have played out the same for them and the AMD of today would still be AMD as we know them.

I understand that Intel had all the resources, capital and market share alike, but neither was AMD losing $600M+ a year like they did AFTER their peak with K8. They were well in business and well equipped to innovate as Intel did MANY times over the '90s. But what did they do?

When Intel changed the name of their product line to something they could copyright, AMD went lone ranger and FINALLY started wording their chips 6 years later. Followed late, but followed.

When Intel implemented new instructions, AMD adopted them, name and all. Intel makes its copyright known. "Recognize, bitch!" All of a sudden: "New AMD K6 with MMX*. * MMX is a trademark of Intel Corporation."

Did Intel even blink an eye at 3DNow?

Intel brought us Slot 1, the platform they had all to themselves. AMD hung around with the old socket for a few more years before migrating to their own exclusive platform. They didn't follow Intel's every step, but you KNOW where they got their inspiration. And if you know your gorillas, you know they don't always want to be followed. They did SO much to push AMD out of their playground, possibly in hopes that AMD would re-emerge in their own and be truly independent and competitive. In that light, I can respect their motives and the resultant actions.

Nothing, however, justifies excluding others in the market. It is really up to AMD to front their case with full force if they're to expect any compensation for the troubles they can actually attribute to Intel's aggression.

To me, it seems they're not the litigators that they are chipmakers, and this will pass with little influence. Hopefully a message like that would be clear enough to inspire them to innovate once again. They're the little engine that could--they just haven't since 2003!!

A.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By shuyin on 5/8/2008 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
I remember the days of the Athlon 64 dominating the pc gaming scene, right up until Core 2 came out. So many gaming rigs proudly wearing the AMD 64 logo.

I think though Intel claims AMD has inferior products, Intel has always been better able to market their products then AMD which is why they still did so well despite the Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 days.


RE: I think AMD has a case
By PrezWeezy on 5/8/2008 7:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I don't think it's illegal to offer discounts to people who buy your product. You have the right to set the price for anyone who you are selling your product to and the right to change it based on the volume of chips you are selling. I think if Intel plays it based on volume then it would be ok. They can offer a bigger discount to Dell because they sell millions of chips, where as Gateway sells less, and when Gateway starts selling AMD they are selling even less Intel chips, so they can raise the price up. It may be dirty, but I'm not so sure it's ilegal.


What about...
By 325hhee on 5/7/2008 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 3
AMD was very ready to come out with the first fully functional 64-bit designed chip. XP was slated to run as a 64-bit OS, but due to pressure from Intel, XP went back to a 32-bit OS. I remember reading articles about the new renovation in bit processing, and the future of all OSs taking advantage of 64 bit. And where do we stand now?

Vista launch was horrible, the OS was not ready. NOW, the OS is stable, and I'm loving it. But if it weren't for Intel, we'd be running a 128 or 256 bit CPU now. I'm an AMD fan, and a supporter of them, but today I will tell people if they're going to build a computer, they're better off with an Intel Chip. I had high hopes for Phenom Tri and Quad cores, but the hard real world numbers don't lie. AMD had a good plan, it just didn't pan out for them.

I may be a die hard AMD fan, but I'm not afraid of the truth, Intel has the lead. I just hope AMD's new card coming out in Dec, is going to reinvent the vid card market. I hope it's not an off shoot of the 4800's that's coming out at the end of the month, just doesn't seem too interesting.




RE: What about...
By DragonFire on 5/7/2008 2:59:47 PM , Rating: 3
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.

I agree that Intel is better right now but will Intel be better come tomorrow if AMD were to die today?

The biggest problem with all this is that everyone thinks Intel is better based on numbers. So what if Intel gives you 160FPS in Half-Life 2 and AMD only gives you 140FPS...So what if the video takes an extra 20 mins to encode on an amd system compared to Intel... It doesn't mean AMD has a sucky product back then or now.


RE: What about...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 3:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
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.


Thats nice. But those of us in the real world that value our money aren't just going to throw cash at an inferior brand based on principle or loyalty alone.


RE: What about...
By StevoLincolnite on 5/8/2008 12:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
You would be surprised, I know some tech junkies who would buy AMD because they simply do not like Intel, everyone is different I suppose, but AMD did have the best upgrade path on the Socket A platform where all you really needed was a new Bios update, to get the latest chip to work.


RE: What about...
By darkpaw on 5/7/2008 3:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if a chip at the same price takes even a few minutes longer to encode something then it is a sucky chip. If a chip took 20 minutes longer and was less then half the price, it's a very sucky chip.

If I wanted stuff to take longer, I'd still be running a 1ghz system.

Sure there is no difference between 120-140 fps, not one bit. There is a pretty big difference between 25-28 fps and 32-35 fps, which a better processor can show.

If AMD's chips had been $40-50 less then Intel's, they'd be worth buying, but they're not. In fact, the Q6600 I just bought (which was my first non laptop Intel chip since the P3 days) was $40-50 cheaper then the AMD chips it beats.

Oh, and I'm still pissed about AMD bending over S939 customers (but thats a different story).


RE: What about...
By mvpx02 on 5/7/2008 3:08:16 PM , Rating: 1
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.


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.

It was because of this that the Itanium never was as successful as Intel had hoped (I believe the AMD fanboys went as far as to call it the "Itanic")


RE: What about...
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Itanium was also never to be a consumer level processor. It was designed and built to be in supercomputers. Hence the over $1000 price tag.

And when it was finally released, its performance was also terrible. Nor did it even have 32-bit emulation at release, that was added later.


RE: What about...
By 325hhee on 5/7/2008 4:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
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.


Microsoft was ready to go beyond a 32 bit OS, but they were bed fellows with Intel, and because of Intel's Snafu, MS decided to just go with the 32 bit OS for XP. That's when things really started to get ugly with AMD vs Intel. AMD was successful and started to manufacture the CPUs, for the 64 bit OS, and it did have some XP compatibility issues. Which also gave it bad scores vs Intel. AMD had to release a patch so it could run smoothly on XP. The only reason AMD really went into full production of the Athlon 64 was MS said XP would be 64 bit and take full advantage of a 64 bit CPU.

As we can see almost 10 yrs later, we still really do not have a native 64 bit OS. Vista 64 is as close to one as we have for the home user/gamer. I run MS for soley games, and progs aren't written for 64 bit native support, they're all still 32 bit, and well, we're suffering for it.


RE: What about...
By bfellow on 5/7/2008 5:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is most ridiculous opinion. If Microsoft went with 64-bit without 32-bit support, then 90% of the entire world would be dead without 32-bit driver support for hardware.


RE: What about...
By Quiescent on 5/9/2008 8:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see anywhere of how you can install 32bit drivers on a 64bit OS. For the longest time until last year, Lexmark still didn't have 64bit drivers, and thus you could not use a Lexmark printer for XP 64bit.

If you install drivers enough, you'd know, going to the website to do so, that it lists the OS you wish to install the drivers on.

Perhaps I am missing something here?


RE: What about...
By Lightnix on 5/7/2008 6:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not that releasing an exclusively 64-bit version of Windows XP in 2001 when most people had 256-512MB of RAM would have A: Been totally useless. And B: Almost completely dropped legacy apps.

Then, they did bring out a 64-bit edition of XP Pro with terrible driver support that nobody wanted! Only now, as you say, almost 10 years later, are we actually finding any use for 64-bit OS's as RAM is affordable enough to get 4GB+ of the stuff.


150 million pages?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 5/7/2008 12:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
I find that number quite disgusting personally. I get that we "need" to have hard copies in court, but 150 million pages is ridiculous.

They'd better recycle all that.

And no, I'm not an environmental nutcase. I just think that using that much paper should really not be allowed.




RE: 150 million pages?
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 12:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'd feel more sorry for the sucker that gets to read it all.


RE: 150 million pages?
By Connoisseur on 5/7/2008 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, they are saving the environment. if this were a traditional review, they would've probably printed many times that amount and discarded most of them. Fortunately, many companies and law firms are wising up and using electronic discovery and computer forensics rather a traditional paper review. It allows them to take a population of potentially BILLIONS of pages and whittle them down much faster to the relatively small relevant population.


RE: 150 million pages?
By Denigrate on 5/7/2008 1:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Just lost my boss to one of those companies in KC.


RE: 150 million pages?
By Parhel on 5/7/2008 12:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
It must be electronic . . . it can't all be printed.

If it were printed that would be around 750 pallets of paper, assuming it were stacked ideally or the same way blank paper is shipped from the manufacturer.

750 pallets would fill a small to medium sized warehouse. In reality, it would probably be double that many pallets.


RE: 150 million pages?
By System48 on 5/7/2008 12:33:36 PM , Rating: 5
Must have been electronic, everyone's worse nightmare, the 150 million page PDF.


RE: 150 million pages?
By Fraggeren on 5/7/2008 7:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how funny that sounds?
Read it slowly.. "150 million page PDF"

Wonder how many pages the blue print for a penryn fills!?


RE: 150 million pages?
By siberus on 5/8/2008 4:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how many computers would crash just trying to open that file xD


RE: 150 million pages?
By Quiescent on 5/9/2008 8:07:48 AM , Rating: 2
I can see that one organization... What is it called? Greenpeace? just gasping to start a lawsuit against using too many pages of paper in lawsuits like this! Hahaha!


By ScythedBlade on 5/7/2008 4:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
For the failure of most of the people on technology sites, as well the people who fail to see why Apple is so popular despite overpricing their products by nearly twofold: There's one main reason why Intel was better than AMD.

They had advertisements ... and AMD didn't. Ask people ... how many of them had heard of the Intel ringtone ... Plenty ... Heck, even very few of us know AMD's sound ... if they had any.

For the normal consumer, which is the market for most of the personal computers, Intel was the recognized brand. Why would OEMs choose it? Because Intel advertised their brand, and using Intel processors basically let them ride the wave that Intel built on ads...

Heck, that's why Apple is so successful. They market products, although pretty crap for the price (or rather good products at 2* the actual price) ... but the normal consumer thinks its better than the 800 dollar computer we enthusiasts build.

To sum it up, "better" is based on consumer's opinion. Therefore, 'brand recognition' was what made people perceive Intel as the better choice, not their performance. As for OEMs, it was a better option. People would probably pay the extra 100 dollars or 200 dollars for the brand, even if it didn't perform well ...




By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 6:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah Apple is like Bose. People actually assume Bose makes good products. Why ? Advertising. For years, YEARS, I just assumed Bose was synonymous with " audio quality " until I started researching the products.

Bose makes pure CRAP and yet has a huge market segment in the audio market.


By Emily on 5/7/2008 9:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
I can't comment on other Apple products, but I definitely feel that a lot of people hate on iPod because it is popular. There are legitimate reasons to pick alternative players but my impression is that there are many people who buy iPod for being an iPod, but also many who hate iPod for being an iPod. I can't comment on current players or even the recent iPod (though I am put off by the fact that they just had to make it difficult for people to rockbox their players), but while I had no interest in the iPods, I found the 5G to be competitive with other well regarded players at the time: I spent time with the 5G, iAudio X5 and Creative M:Vision and found that none of them dominated over the others. Even narrowing down to just sound quality (subjective to a large extent), it is close (IMO the X5 edges headphone out, but the iPod wins with a headphone amp).

I can't bring myself to defend Bose products though (not found anything I liked so far for what they are charging), other than say that their QuietComfort headphones doesn't lie as far as comfort is concerned. But I'll stick with my AKG/Grado headphones along with my Shure E500 IEM :)


By DragonFire on 5/7/2008 10:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
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.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
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.


I know its off topic, but hey, thanks for the Iriver tip. I have been looking into a new MP3 player but have put it off because I stubbornly refuse to buy Apple. Could you plz tell me the model you bought ? I checked their main page and I'm very impressed with their product lines. Why in the hell have I not heard about this company sooner !? Argh !


By DragonFire on 5/9/2008 4:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
The model I have is the H120 which they no longer make, however you might find one on Ebay. Did I mention it also comes with a cool remote control? Something else I believe the ipod doesn't have. Cnet review @ http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/iriver-h120-20...

Also, you can load modded firmware on the device, something else I don't think you can do with the iPod.


By Emily on 5/10/2008 10:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
I was a fan of the iRiver H120 too. I have little interest in an FM radio so I give no extra point, but I did appreciate the fact that I could hook it to an external DAC via the optical out (it's the only player I've used that allowed this). But I felt that the iRiver took a step back with the H340 when they dropped that feature (I've not looked at their newer players so I am not sure if that has changed). On the other hand, iPods have mostly seen improvement over the years (though it took them long enough - for something as simple as 'gapless'), and these days they do not command as much of a premium (ignoring 'Touch'). Now if they could throw in an Optical-out and parametric EQ... [somehow I am doubtful, not much demand for those AFAIK]


What exactly does AMD hope to gain?
By Carter642 on 5/7/2008 12:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just wondering what AMD would get out of this if they win. The court can't force OEMs to carry AMD products. At the moment AMD isn't fielding a compeditive product so it's unlikey that OEMs are just going to pick up their products on merit. I realize that when AMD filed this suit the situation was different with Intel being on the back foot performance wise.

If AMD is awarded damages I can't see it being more than half a billion dollars and in their current state AMD would burn all that cash in a quarter. Even a billion dollar award wouldn't be a major blow to Intel's long term finances.

What sort of enforcement would be enacted in the event of an AMD win? About the only thing that could happen would be for AMD to take Intel to court again anytime they think that Intel is being shady for more damage awards.




By adiposity on 5/7/2008 1:03:31 PM , Rating: 3
They should force Intel to give AMD one of their next-gen fabs that AMD could have built if they hadn't been squeezed out for so long.


By Integral9 on 5/7/2008 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
But still, a truck load of cash is better than not having a truckload of cash any day of the week.
Anyways, if AMD wins, I'd expect a congressional investigation into Intel much in the same way Microsoft is/was investigated. Probably government oversight, if the company is deemed a monopoly (having more than 80% of the business) then the govies will have to decide whether not to allow the monopoly to exist. If allowed to exist, there will be government regulations and oversight. If not, the company will be broken up.

I doubt a win would give AMD a free pass on cases against Intel. That be like saying a man guilty of murder on trial for another murder would always be convicted.


RE: What exactly does AMD hope to gain?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2008 1:11:41 PM , Rating: 1
Good question. What exactly would be the end result of this lawsuit ?

Wording like this bothers me :

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.


Apparently thats illegal now ? Who knew. A much larger company uses its much larger market share to maintain profits. Wow thats just crazy, obviously they should be sued ?

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.


Again, if I make a product who the hell are you to tell me what discounts I can and can't offer ? And to who I can or can't offer them to ? This is just rubbish !

I know a lot of you guys like to hate big evil companies like MS and Intel, and root for the little guy. But I don't see how this could be good for ANYONE. More competition ? Uhhh no, this wouldn't give us more competition. If anything this lawsuit is based on the idea that if you compete you should be punished. Thats its wrong or unfair somehow.


RE: What exactly does AMD hope to gain?
By Topweasel on 5/7/2008 1:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
Its not what they did but how they did it. Again going to a company and either threatening supply or basically dumping by lowering your prices till the the other company agrees to not deal with your competitor is illegal specially if your deemed the have a controlling amount of the market and especially if your deemed a monopoly (whether literal or figurative.


By Warren21 on 5/7/2008 3:07:31 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. These weren't just discounts and persuasive memos. They effectively shut AMD out of OEMs like Dell (for a long time) by THREATENING to strain supply of chips, lowering prices for staying Intel-only, etc.

God only knows how much more expensive a Dell Intel box would've been had Dell carried AMD when they were the performance leader. However as soon as this lawsuit appeared and Core 2 came out, it was 'time' to carry AMD? Coincidence? I think not.


Keep it simple
By DragonFire on 5/7/2008 2:50:46 PM , Rating: 5
Some of you are making this more complex then it needs to be. Someone pointed out that AMD's marketshare went down because the Ahtlon 64 can't compete with Core2. Ok fine with me but your missing the point here.

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.

I believe AMD was first to put the memory controller on the chip itself... oh gee, look what Intel plans to do... I also believe AMD was the one to push 64-bit cpus into the market while Intel was saying there is no need, we now have software companies coming out with more 64-bit sofware then before because of AMD's push.

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??

If Intel has nothing to fear, then why don't they pump a few billion into AMD and see what they do with it?

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.




RE: Keep it simple
By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Keep it simple
By DragonFire on 5/7/2008 10:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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:
How many times are you guys going to bring this up ?? Yes, they did that. We get it. Relevance to current discussion plz

It seems we must bring it up again or you would have understood my first point.
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?

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:
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 !

Well since MS did in fact do that years ago, why not? I guess you missed that point as well...
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.

Really? So why does Intel try to claim everything was there idea?


RE: Keep it simple
By pmcjury on 5/9/2008 11:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
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?


Maybe amd finally started getting some name recognition, maybe dell decided that the company had matured enough to where they could be a reliable supplier. Maybe dell just saw this coming and was trying to save it from looking bad.

The better question is if dell really was getting kickbacks why would they give it up.

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.


No one ever said intel has nothing to fear from AMD. AMD can make some good chips given the money and time. Intel does advertise like crazy, AMD doesn't. This is becuase it works. If word of mouth has been working so well for AMD why haven't they taken over more of the market. Word of mouth works, but it will never take the place of a good avertising department.

quote:
Well since MS did in fact do that years ago, why not? I guess you missed that point as well...


MS giving money to apple is not even a close comparison to Intel giving AMD money. First of all MS owns a very large part of apple, becuase of that MS giving apple cash is like taking a $20 out of your left pocket and putting it in your right. What your suggesting would be like MS giving cash to Sun or Novell.


And maybe AMD would be competing...
By utaka95 on 5/7/2008 12:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
on a higher level if they hadn't been screwed outta market share. I started building my own machines because P4's all felt so slow compared to homebuilt Athlon machines.




By Swamp on 5/7/2008 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
you know Intel did that. Another company going to take market shares from them, of course they are gonna pull crap like that. Just like what Internet Explorer did with Netscape Navigator.


Manufacturing Capability
By snowwons on 5/7/2008 3:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
There are many reasons this might have played out the way it did, from blatant hardballing by Intel, to vertical manufacturing easing support issues for OEMs. But I have to believe, Intel’s manufacturing capabilities probably played a large part also. The first thing that comes to mind when you are talking about Dell is their lean manufacturing. They want the least amount of inventory on hand requiring timely and reliable shipments from their OEMs.

AMD had a few problems when they were on top with getting out their processors. Now throw into the mix three to four different vendors (AMD / VIA or NVIDEA / Motherboard OEM) any of which could shut down your line with a delayed shipment. This operational advantage for Intel probably played a part in their decision making.

Matt




By garagetinkerer on 5/8/2008 3:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm... You do make an interesting point. However, i know someone who erstwhile was working for Intel(although not in the management). Now, when the case was originally about to be filed, in the year 2005. I spoke to the person about the same, where Intel was supposed to have had offered kickbacks or issued threats to tag along the Dells, HP's and the Compaq's of our world. The answer was as nonchalant and unashamedly to the effect of, "So what?". Make whatever of the same you will...

All i'm saying there's something wrong. Yes, i know of idiots who still buy P4's. Yes you've read that right. Advertising sells and everything. I acknowledge that. However, there was indeed something fishy about Intel's dealing with OEM's with regards to AMD.


I shall explain to idiots, and AMD, why....
By Joz on 5/7/2008 9:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Allow me to explain why large companies used Intel over AMD:

TV adds.

Everyone knows who Intel is, and what Pentium 4 ment. And thanks to the Mhz race add compaigns, Intel pulled ahead with an inferior chip.

Thank you Intel's Israel division for giving us Core!




By StevoLincolnite on 5/8/2008 1:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
You mean Pentium M* Then Intel saw the light and made the Israel Team release the Core 2 :)


AMD has a case I think
By KenRico on 5/8/2008 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
Please correct the following dates and details, so here goes:

MS settled with IBM concerning its "Anti Trust" practices from back in the WARP/W95 days about a year ago. Without admission of wrongdoing, it cost MS $760m to squeeze out its last real comepetitor on the OS side. In todays world I think MS generates that figure in about 2 weeks.

I remember the #1 mainboard mfg. releasing the Socket-A mainboard in a whitebox, and am amazed how Intel can operate so like MS all these years without the "taint".




RE: AMD has a case I think
By KenRico on 5/8/2008 11:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, SLOT A mainboard...<ducking>


Intel Monopolises!!
By Hotdog3c on 5/8/2008 11:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think that many of you have your facts wrong! Just travel down to your local library and do a bit of reading, and you will see the REAL truth, look for a book called Inside Intel, This will give you all the facts about how intel has tried to own the cpu market, it also tells how they not only tried to stop AMD but also Motorola and a few others, just remember that if AMD goes bust then Intel could set whatever prices for cpu's they want!




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles
The Intel vs. AMD Legal Battle Outline
April 22, 2006, 7:05 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki