backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 39 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Apr 24 at 1:21 PM
AMD's case against Intel thus far

Ars Technica has published an article that describes some of the possible outcomes of the antitrust lawsuit that AMD filed on Intel last year.  AMD is doing its best to try and prove that Intel did indeed prevent companies from using AMD CPUs.  If AMD successful, companies that currently only use Intel chips may begin to start using AMD products in the future.  Ars Technica reports:

This could lead to lower prices for computers, particularly those using high-end chips. However, as companies like Dell are already free to use threats of leaving the Intel roost to gain lower component prices, the savings for the consumer will probably end up being fairly modest. In the long term, however, healthy competition in the x86 processor market requires that both Intel and AMD are able to compete on a level playing field. The antitrust trial will, in theory, help make that possible.

The article also highlights some of the successes and processors AMD offered after Intel sued the company over a dozen years ago:  bringing 64-bit computing to the x86 market, K5, K6, K7, Opteron and Athlon chips.  If you're looking for some more background information about the lawsuit filed last year, please read the coverage at Ars Technica and CNET.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Intel sued AMD?
By Regs on 4/22/2006 7:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Did I read that right? Whoa. Now thats some healthy competition!




RE: Intel sued AMD?
By jkostans on 4/22/2006 7:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been?


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Zelvek on 4/22/2006 7:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was the other way around?


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Goty on 4/22/2006 7:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Intel sued AMD some time ago, this just an update on the antitrust suit that ws filed by AMD last year against Intel.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By smitty3268 on 4/22/2006 7:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
Long ago, Intel sued AMD for using their x86 architecture. It ended up being settled out of court - I believe AMD agreed to pay a yearly fee and that Intel could copy for free any features that AMD created. Which is why Intel could copy AMD64 but AMD may have had difficulty if Intel had come up with it first.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/22/2006 8:45:42 PM , Rating: 1
I believe the agreement was over SSE/SSE2 instruction set which Intel invented.

Intel created the 8086/8088 architexture, then led to 80286 and 80386 and 80486. That is where the AMD mess came into action. AMD decided they didn't want just be second source - but actually be competitor. Intel kept there designs and Amd started theres.

Basically the AMD chips maybe different phyically designed but they support the same logical instructions that was original Intel logic. Basically this means that even the newest AM2 chips can run the same programs that ran on the orginal 80386/80486 or even 8088 that Intel created.

I believe that Intel did have 64bit extension Yamhill before AMD had but they found it was not that useful. Atleast not until memory prices go down.

This whole lawsuit stuff is really stupid. AMD is just burning bridges in hopes to change something legally so they can get more market share. Really bad business practice.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Goty on 4/22/2006 8:48:57 PM , Rating: 3
Getting more market share is bad business practice? Since when?


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By TomZ on 4/22/2006 9:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
Getting marketshare through lawsuits is bad business practice.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By patentman on 4/23/2006 5:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, getting more market share is only illegal under the antitrust laws if intel did something in violation of the sherman act or the clayton act (there maybe one or two other acts, e.g. the FTC act that they might violated, but thy are not antitrust statutes per se.)

I haven;t read the case, so I am speculating, but its likely that AMD is arguing that intel 1) is a monopolist using unlawful tactics to extend its monopoly in violation of section 2 of the sherman act (note: you do not have to hav 100% of the market to be a monopoly under the sherman act); 2) is engaged in an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade (spcifically an unlawful exclusive dealing contract) in violation of section 1 of the sherman act (which means AMD will have to show that Intels agreement foreclosed at least a part of the relevant market from a significant competitor, and that the probable outcome of this agreement is to raise prices above competitive levels or otherwise injure competition (note: competition does not equal competitors). They could argue a lot of things.

But the short answer is, gaining more market share can be bad business practice if it is anticompetitive to do so.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Trisped on 4/24/2006 12:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the complaint is pretty much that Intel is using their market share to prevent competition. If you read the pdf where AMD files the case they list things such as incentives given to companies who sell a certain number of Intel chips and the number is different for each company (read discrimination). They also point out the drop in AMD chips on the market even though it is well known that their chips are better, fast, and cheaper then Intel equivalent. There is some other stuff too. It is a really easy article to read so I suggest everyone check it out.

As for Intel suing AMD as I remember that was Intel trying to gain a complete monopoly of the x86. I forget who originally developed it, IBM or Intel, but IBM owned it. In keeping with IBM business practices, they hired both Intel and AMD to supply them with chips, so both had a fair right to manufacture the processors. Intel sued them in an attempt to kick them out of the market. That is the way I remember it, correct me if I am wrong.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Trisped on 4/24/2006 1:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and the 64 bit thing...
Intel had the first 64 bit processor, I think it was one of those business only processors. The problem was that it didn't work or was not completely compatible with the x86 chips. AMD went another path and made a 64 bit extension for the x86 architecture. When AMD's solution came out it basically stole the floor out from under the Intel chip because the AMD chip was compatible with most hardware and software already in the market where the Intel chip was not (sure there were some changes needed like socket enhancements and re-writing software to take advantage of the new abilities with Win XP64, but they could still run old programs in an emulation mode and most of the hardware was still usable, where Intel's was not.)
I believe the resolution was that Intel licensed AMD's 64 bit command structure so there would be one set of commands in the market instead of 2. That doesn't mean they implemented the instructions the same way, just that the commands to do the job were the same. An example would be McDonald's and Burger King. Both make hamburgers, but each do it differently.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Samus on 4/22/2006 8:58:16 PM , Rating: 5
hstewarth, practically everything you said is false. in other words you're full of shit.

to begin with, and i'm not going to waste much time on your comments, but Intel sued AMD and Cyrix over MMX licensing.

source: http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/1997/0,4814...

secondly, if you truely believe intel plays fair, you need to open your eyes. its about as common sense as 9/11 being a government coverup.

third, intel directly copied x86-64, which they had the right to do for the same reason amd can copy everything intel does. they license to eachother.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 1:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Intel and AMD both began with Fairchild Semiconductors. In the late 60's, three unhappy employees from Fairchild left the company to strike out on their own...they were Jerry Sanders III, Bob Noyce, and Gordon Moore. Noyce and Moore founded Intel in 1968, and Sanders founded AMD in 1969.
In 1971, Intel introduced the world's first CPU...the Intel 4004.
The first "Personal Computer" (kit) was the SCELBI in 1974 and used the Intel 8008...
The first successful PC was the Altair 8800 (made by MITS) at the end of 1974, which used the Intel 8008 and the 8080...this was followed in 1976 by the Altair 680b which used the Motorola 6800 CPU. The first IBM PC (5100) was also in 1975, but the price tag was 4 times that of the Altair and it didn't do so well at this point.

Now that the history is out of the way, I must say it's fairly irrelevant...while I appreciate the fact that Henry Ford invented the assembly line, I still think my BMW is a better car...:)


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Targon on 4/22/2006 9:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yamhill was the rumored chip that would add 64 bit extensions to Intel's chips I believe, but Intel refused to admit they were working on it until they had it ready.

Intel didn't want the AMD64 instruction set to catch on, so they didn't admit they were working to add the new instructions to their own processors. Once Intel was ready, they called AMD64 their own instruction set and called it the EM64T instruction set.

Now, while Intel may have had the right to add the AMD64 instruction set to their chips, I wonder how much right they had(and have) to claim it's THEIR instruction set. They can only claim it's their own implementation, but AMD came up with the new instructions.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/22/2006 10:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yamhill was the rumored chip that would add 64 bit extensions to Intel's chips I believe, but Intel refused to admit they were working on it until they had it ready

Yamhill began around the time that AMD64 did (late 1990's), but Intel cancelled work on it before it was anywhere near complete and spent their money on Netburst and Itanium instead.
Remember that at that time, the industry did whatever Intel told it to do (memory standards, bus standards, etc...). By changing the standard to IA64 (Itanium) on all chips (as they were intending to do), they could basically cut AMD out of the CPU business altogether (IA-64 isn't part of the cross-licensing deal). Even when AMD64 was announced (Yamhill was dead by then and the AMD64 design was ~2 years old), Intel believed that servers would never use it and that desktops wouldn't want it. Opteron sales convinced them that they were WAY wrong so they quickly reverse-engineered AMD64 and 2 years later included it in their own designs.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By NullSubroutine on 4/23/2006 3:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
i dont believe that they reversed engineered it, they probably got a licence for it (i think with some sort of a techonology trade, perhaps like sse3)

the 64bit extentions really wasnt the main reason for the amd-64. the original x86 instruction set had errors and flaws that have been worked around since its inception. amd fixed those errors and then also added 64 bit to compliment the future x86.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 12:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i dont believe that they reversed engineered it, they probably got a licence for it

They did both...reverse-engineering taught them how, and the license made it legal for them to do so. The one thing that ISN'T in the license (AMD64 is actually freely available through the x86-64 consortium) and that Intel isn't allowed to do is create cHT (Coherent HT) links. These are the links that lead directly to the CPU cache and are different than those used by the HT controllers. These are why Intel must use CSI rather than HT for cache coherency...


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/22/2006 9:45:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I believe the agreement was over SSE/SSE2 instruction set which Intel invented


No...AMD was a vendor of x86 chips for Intel and had a license to produce them. After a few years, they began making their own design and Intel tried to sue them for patent infringement and retroactively nullify their license (AMD also counter-sued Intel).
The case was settled out of court with a full cross-licensing deal between Intel and AMD many years ago.
quote:
I believe that Intel did have 64bit extension Yamhill before AMD had but they found it was not that useful.

No...never happened.
quote:
AMD is just burning bridges in hopes to change something legally so they can get more market share

What bridges are they burning? There isn't a single company that they've subpoenaed that wouldn't be ecstatic with to equal companies that compete rather than a single monopoly to deal with. They all know that AMD is perfectly correct to do so, and they all would have done the same damn thing...excellent move on AMD's part.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 1:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well the companies that they are bringing into these stupid lawsuits - companies don't like dealling with these legal things - so they like not deal with AMD on this stuff

I'll put it this way...if you were a company and had a choice between "dealling with these legal things" and reducing your costs considerably by helping to create a duopoly instead of a monopoly, which would you choose?
Competition does nothing but help (considerably) the cost situation for all of the companies that have been served...
As to the hassle, that's WHY they all have legal departments and you can bet that they go through much worse on a daily basis.
quote:
I just know some time in the past 2 years or so Intel and AMD has licences agreement with SSE/SSE2 instruction - how much it deals with this - who knows

SSE/SSE2/SSE3 are all a part of the Intel/AMD cross-licensing agreement and have not been in dispute...


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By stmok on 4/23/2006 1:13:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
by hstewarth on April 22, 2006 at 8:45 PM

I believe the agreement was over SSE/SSE2 instruction set which Intel invented.


And I believe this is your second post in the news section that is full of nonsense. It looks like you're suffering from "I reject your reality and substitute with my own" syndrome.


quote:
by hstewarth on April 22, 2006 at 8:45 PM

I believe that Intel did have 64bit extension Yamhill before AMD had but they found it was not that useful. Atleast not until memory prices go down.


What the hell?
"Not that useful"?
"Before AMD"?

What have you been smoking?
Because I would definitely want to avoid that!

Even before "Yamhill", Intel was working on the original 786 design. (replacement of the Pentium III). Ironically, this was identical in concept as today's AMD64 CPUs. (a 32bit CPU with 64bit capability).

They cancelled it in favour of Itanium (an expensive 64bit monster with poor 32bit performance). They then re-initiated the 786 project, but stripped off the requirement for 64bit extensions and changed the basic design. This became, as we know today, as the Pentium 4. Effectively, the Pentium 4 was designed by the marketing dept of Intel. (compromise everything to be able scale high in speed. Which makes you look good against the competition).

What makes it even odd (read "ironic"), is that they threw EM64T onto it later on. Effectively, they could've just stuck with the original 786 project, and they would've ended up with a result that is gonna be the same as the upcoming Conroe/Merom, but at a far earlier time. (So yes, Intel's history indicates that they seriously f**ked up in their decisions!)...And when the 90nm process become a disaster for all processor manufacturers (massive leakage), the Pentium 4 took the reputation of being the most inefficient CPU.

EM64T (what was referred under the codename "Yamhill"), was Intel's re-implementation of AMD64 extension. The "Yamhill" project was essentially an experimental idea to provide Intel a choice in case AMD64 become popular to use. (since AMD64 offers a nice bridge between 32bit and 64bit without compromising on 32bit performance...As well, it was far more affordable compared to the Itanium). Result? It did become popular for those building affordable clusters. (Universities, research labs, etc and any other party looking for a low-cost 64bit solution).

Effectively, this forced Intel's hand, and they had to put EM64T into the Pentium 4 (and Xeon) to compete. Previously, Intel only offered two paths: 32bit (Pentium 4) or 64bit (Itanium)...You'd either had to pick one or the other. There was no "bridge" between these two technologies. This is what AMD hoped to address with AMD64 CPUs. (and it did).


If you've actually bothered to study both EM64T and AMD64 programming material, you realise Intel just took AMD's 64bit docs and implemented it into the Pentium 4. (So your statement isn't just wrong, its plain bullshit you've pulled out of your butt).

Its not a complete direct copy of AMD64, as some of the functions cannot be done in hardware on the Pentium 4. As a result, they had to be emulated in software. This is why you see that in some benchmarks, the AMD64 beats the EM64T under a Pentium 4.

Now that's a history lesson based on what I've researched without talking to Intel engineers. Not some comment I whipped out of my butt hole.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/2006 1:58:24 AM , Rating: 1
That is pretty much what I mean - just in more detail.

Is 64 bit useful, maybe in some specific situation - most where large amounts of memory is required. But for most people no. It really has not catch on. But that is likely going to change once Vista is release.

You know what is really funny about this whole AMD vs Intel, there are tons more computers with Intel cpus in there, but when it comes to speaking out in forums and blogs, there are many AMD fans making statements - but very few Intel fans. I think most Intel fans don't want to deal with BS.

I should know better to get involved with AMD vs Intel thing - just like ATI vs nVidia ( I am for nVidia by the way ). But it can be so much fun.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 2:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is 64 bit useful, maybe in some specific situation - most where large amounts of memory is required. But for most people no. It really has not catch on

This is exactly what Intel thought back in 1999...and they were dead wrong. You have to understand the difference between market share and revenue share. That "specific situation" you speak of is the entire x86 server and workstation market! As an example, 70% of AMD's revenue comes from this market even though by units it's a MUCH smaller portion of the chips they sell.

As to consumer level desktops, apps that benefit from large amounts of memory include some games (BF2 for example), Photoshop, almost any type of rendering software, and even multitasking. I think you are correct about Vista, but more to the point it will be when 2GB Dimms are affordably priced that we will see 4GB-8GB of ram as being normal on a consumer machine.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By jonnyboy88 on 4/23/2006 3:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know what is really funny about this whole AMD vs Intel, there are tons more computers with Intel cpus in there, but when it comes to speaking out in forums and blogs, there are many AMD fans making statements - but very few Intel fans. I think most Intel fans don't want to deal with BS.


Maybe that's because a lot people who buy computers don't know anything about them, so they go with what's cheapest and what they saw on a tv commercial.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 9:03:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You know what is really funny about this whole AMD vs Intel, there are tons more computers with Intel cpus in there, but when it comes to speaking out in forums and blogs, there are many AMD fans making statements - but very few Intel fans. I think most Intel fans don't want to deal with BS

In point of fact, there are more AMD systems sold to the people in these forums and the general public (by far). AMD is in (as of last quarter) 80%+ of the retail systems sold in the US...


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/2006 2:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
On a side note: there is rumors that the Socket 771 will support both the Woodcrest Xeon chips and a future Itaniam chip.

On the Itanium chip, I think it will be rare find to find someone that truely knowledgable in the chip. Its requires a total different level of architexture for computer. Itaniums are far from dead - just have a different market than the normal x86 chips ( both Intel and AMD chips ).


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 2:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is rumors that the Socket 771 will support both the Woodcrest Xeon chips and a future Itaniam chip

You are referring to the CSI based platforms, now due in 2009 (originally they were slated for 2007 on Whitefield).
quote:
On the Itanium chip, I think it will be rare find to find someone that truely knowledgable in the chip. Its requires a total different level of architexture for computer. Itaniums are far from dead - just have a different market than the normal x86 chips

The problem for Itanium is software...nobody wants to develop for a platform that is incompatable with the market leader. In fact, IBM just cancelled their Itanium program this week...


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/2006 10:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are referring to the CSI based platforms, now due in 2009 (originally they were slated for 2007 on Whitefield).


I notice that recently on the roadmaps - I remember seeing something about the socket compatible somewhere. I also notice that the Clovertown will likely not use the same chipset as Woodcrest. Clovertown also has lower bus speed 1066 instead of Woodcrest 1333Mhz.


quote:
The problem for Itanium is software...nobody wants to develop for a platform that is incompatable with the market leader. In fact, IBM just cancelled their Itanium program this week..


Do you really think IBM will support the Itanium, they have PowerPC chips and there bigger brothers. There are places you can buy Itaniums if you desired them.

http://8anet.com/listprod.ihtml?parent=49

This is nice site has both Highend Intel and AMD products. Mostly Intel however.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 12:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think IBM will support the Itanium, they have PowerPC chips and there bigger brothers

IBM has sold Itanium for years now, and with them gone it leaves only a single last Tier 1 OEM left to support it (HP who are 50% owners of the chip). Even Microsoft has put off support for Itanium...though I would bet that Intel will spend the cash to get Vista server developed for Itanium eventually (they have spent Billions already for software support on Itanium). I agree that Itanium isn't dead yet, but it sure is in a coma...:)


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Cilicon on 4/23/2006 4:03:20 AM , Rating: 3
hstewarth you are right about what happened in the 286 to 486 era.

Intel thought back in the early 90s that 64-bit dual CPUs wouldn't catch on for quite a while and AMD pressed on with it and has now taken the wind out of Intel's sails and caught them out.

It's Intel that's causing the "really bad business" and AMD is trying to get a fair market share against an unfair competitor that seems to resort to any tactic to shut AMD out.

Every time AMD has taken legal action against Intel they have WON, excluding the ongoing cases which haven't been resolved yet.

Every time Intel has taken legal action against AMD (and Cyrix also) they have won ONLY ONCE in 1997 of a trademark infringement over the misuse of the term MMX, all other cases Intel LOST. Intel and AMD both agreed to settle with Intel allowing AMD rights for its use in relation to the AMD K6 MMX processors.

In 1990 Intel brought infringement of copyright action against AMD seeking an injunction and damages on certain microcode AMD used with its 80C287 to function with Intel's 80286.

In 1991 Intel tried again with AMD's AM386 and yet again in 1993 for the AM486 but in 1994 the verdict was that AMD could use Intel's microcade for X86 processors.

In 1992 AMD lost this case but in 1993 the court found Intel had committed discovery abuse (is this an Intel dirty tactic?) so AMD won.

In 1992 AMD sought action against Intel for causing tort which looks like Intel was using its underhanded and/or threatening "we'll penalise you if you use the competition's processors" tactics to stay dominant. So unfair to AMD, Cyrix and all of us consumers worldwide.

In 2000 AMD complained to the European Commission about Intel of violating anti-monopoly rules and abusing its dominant position in the market. (Doesn't Intel learn?) So far AMD's request for documents from Intel has been refused by the US courts! It is still pending and the legal profession is getting richer and all we want is better and cheaper processors!

The win in 1994 for AMD clearly highlighted that the intellectual property rights in AMD's AM386 processor were AMD's and that the violation of AMD's rights by Intel was intentional (now that IS a dirty tactic Intel).

It is sad that greedy Intel who already have a huge market share don't play fair and let things take their course.

Are Intel freaking out and resorting to dirty tactics because deep down they know that AMD has the ability to ultimately blow Intel out of the water.

How much of AMD's resources are going into fighting these idiots to try and keep the playing field level when those resources could be better utilised in developing better processors! (could that be ANOTHER of Intel's foul tactics).

Currently AMD is cleaning up in the dual processor market for desktops and Intel is focusing on the notebook and server markets with expected release in September 2006.

Should AMD be worried about this? Maybe Intel isn't a good place to work at because the leader and other top team members representing those who are working on their dual processors have defected over to the opposition (AMD) who now has them working on dual processors for notebooks and servers.

Will Intel, who are already lagging in dual CPU development, be able to make bug-free devices available by the due date with critical development team members missing!

Since AMD's latest action against Intel, it is interesting that here in Australia how currently their are all these AMD notebooks on the market yet a year ago they were as rare as rocking horse s**t.

Even now I am looking at a Big-W advert for a Acer Sempron 3000 desktop PC package and they are so much cheaper than the Intel packages. It seems as though Intel has backed off from their intimidating threats to system builders and even retailers and the AMD CPUs are being used to make great PCs instead of Pentium, Pentium, Celeron, Centrino.

I reckon AMD has a point because up to a year ago so many retailers didn't stock any AMD CPUs at all and I had a gut feeling that something was wrong.

Personally I know that even though Intel chips go faster AMD chips have to be more efficient to achieve what they do without the higher clock speeds.

Intel also used to bag AMD about their CPUs runnung so hot. AMDs latest processors run up to 200% cooler than their Intel equivalents which is an industry proven fact.

I don't like bullies, as Intel appears to be, and have and will always support AMD when purchasing processors and I recommend AMD to everone and strongly advise against using Intel.

All my business associates and friends who have AMD desktops or notebooks like them so much they will never go Intel again. The others who have Intel? All say it is AMD next time, no kidding.

My 4 PCs? Guess what - all AMD (Socket A)! Next week I go 64-bit.

For more on AMDs battle with Intel check out:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_12670_134...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl...


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By menting on 4/23/2006 7:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
no offense, but you sound like AMD hired you to do some major PR!

I don't have anything against AMD or INTEL (2 of my last 3 computers had AMD chips), but I have to say, being this biased can't be healthy for you you know.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/2006 10:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
Business tactics are a matter of opinion. Especially in relationship with Bestbuy/Circuit city and HP. I remember my Sister and Husband buying computers for they kids and they got AMD machines. Salesmen were stating they can more power for less cost if they purchase AMD machine. Pretty much trying to sway them away from Intel machines.

One things will be sure - things will signficantly change. The old AMD sell that Intel cpu's run hot - will no longer be valid - the Conroes and even the Woodcrest use less power than the current Intel chips.

The main though of my reasoning is that Intel created the x86 architexture and AMD should work like a partner and not try to legally undermind the company that really put them into business.

Here is what closest comes to mind, say there is new platform and there is a popular application ( say Photoshop ), but Adobe does not have the techincal talents on this platform so they licence a company to port Photoshop to this platform. The company comes out with the Port and its successfull.. but later they take the knowledge they have a make a package that is pretty much 100% compatible with it and has same function and sell it as a competitor of the product. Would this be right thing to do? I know its not the same.

I believe that the Instruction in the cpu should be treated as the product feature. It is what Intel came up originally.


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By Viditor on 4/23/2006 2:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that the Instruction in the cpu should be treated as the product feature. It is what Intel came up originally

I see where you are misguided now...did you not know that Intel uses just as many (or more) AMD patents in their chips as AMD uses from Intel? AMD has many thousands of patents and designs, without which Intel processors would not work! This is why Intel renewed the cross-licensing agreement just a few years ago...!


RE: Intel sued AMD?
By hstewarth on 4/23/06, Rating: 0
AMD's case against Intel thus far
By crystal clear on 4/22/2006 10:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
We had the same article with different headlines on the 15th of this month.
Nothing has changed so far-yes all the websies have picked up the story.It does good for their forums/blogs etc.




RE: AMD's case against Intel thus far
By hstewarth on 4/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: AMD's case against Intel thus far
By crystal clear on 4/23/2006 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
yes -add to this most websites not this one, have become hungry for Ad $$$$ like TV channels.They have their ratings like -how many forums members,how many visited the site,how many have read their reviews etc,how many blogs daily etc.
They always putin topics that inspire bloggers to give their opinions & sometimes fight it out.The numbers count in their hard sell for Ads/sponsorships etc.
This site is however not in the above catergory.


By hstewarth on 4/24/2006 12:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
One perfect example of how stupid this AMD vs Intel stuff gets can found on this site. I brought up quest in Quad SLI article if the technology would be on Woodcrest processor and someone has to state that AMD is better.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1922

I know everyone is probably guilty of this. Its just nature of people these day - to support one or another vender. Same thing for video cards. I just believe that every thing on the internet is just opinions.

Maybe its better not to comment, I am primary looking when technology like the Woodcrests are coming out.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer









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