backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by KrisFujiZ.. on Aug 15 at 5:58 PM

AMD launches a new website to educate the consumer on the evils of Intel

AMD is enjoying the fact the European Commission charged Intel for anticompetitive measures. The company enjoys the fact so much it has launched a new pseudo-advertising campaign website providing updates on the case. The new AMD website, breakfree.amd.com, provides all the information you would ever need to know on the allegations. Additionally, the site provides information on antitrust, competition and procurement.

Of course, since it is an AMD site the information is going to favor AMD. There is no mention of the official response from Intel regarding the subject matter. All the industry quotes cited by AMD reflect negatively on Intel. Not that I am trying to defend Intel or anything, but only the European Commission has charged Intel. Nothing has been proven and until there is an official ruling on the issue, I reserve my opinion on Intel’s tactics.

At the end of the day, a corporation’s primary goals are to make money. I highly doubt AMD intends to educate buyers about a competitive marketplace. However, since it is the only direct Intel competitor, it wants a bigger slice of pie. The company enjoyed major growth with the launch of Opteron and Athlon 64. The company also struck a major deal with Dell – a once Intel only house.

Sadly, like every other company, with growth and a performance-leading product, they get arrogant. The once great Intel lost the battle to 1.0 GHz to AMD’s Athlon and moved towards the clock-happy Netburst architecture. While the Netburst architecture, in its later days, had no troubles beating out the Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 and Opteron was a tougher sell.

AMD was in the lead for quite a bit, through the end of Northwood and the lifetime of Prescott, Smithfield and Presler. This is where the arrogance sets in. AMD’s fabrication processes, processors and competition was a bit lackluster. The K8 architecture remains around, after launching over three years ago. AMD is barely pushing out 65nm products and continues to hock new 90nm products. Not much has really changed from the AMD lineup except the move to dual-core.

Intel saw the mistakes of its clock-happy era and arrogance and released Conroe. The company is also on a fast track plan of shrinking fabrication processes every other year and launching completely new architectures in-between. AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel’s stringent roadmap.

I will give AMD the benefit of the doubt though. They might have a killer next-generation product, but from the early testing I have performed on Barcelona, there is no light at the end of the tunnel -- with the K10 generation at least. However, AMD isn’t planning to issue DVT samples of Barcelona to partners until later this month. Who knows, maybe they somehow gained an extra 10% in clock-for-clock performance since then.

There is still light at the end of the tunnel in the long-run. AMD’s recent Technology Analyst day revealed interesting details of the company’s modular Fusion architecture. Maybe Fusion is just what AMD needs to swing the pendulum back into its favor. Either way, AMD has a tough road ahead.

The late launch of its quad-core processors, nearly a year after Intel, and the new Phenom branding will keep the marketing team busy. There’s a lot the company needs to do, but “breaking free” is the least of its problems.


Comments     Threshold


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

wow
By omnicronx on 8/10/2007 2:17:41 PM , Rating: 5
Do you seriously need 'proof' to come to the conclusion Intel's tactics are illegal and wrong? Intel has some damn good products right now, and they are kicking AMD's butt when it comes to performance and price.
But do you not find it a bit fishy that AMD had a better product for 4 years and only barely managed to even up their marketshare, to have it all taken back in 6 months?

Its pretty obvious to me that Intel used its vaste wealth to strong arm AMD out of the marketshare that they diserved. From kickbacks, to exclusivity deals, there was no reason with intel having the inferior product for this too happen.

Some could argue that people choose what they are familiar with, but isnt the main goal of companies like Dell to make money? It seems to me if they had offered AMD products during their hayday margins would have been just as good off, if not better than selling the well known Intel product line exclusively, because of the large difference in performance per price.
I just cant believe people complain about companies like microsoft doing wrong when infringements for them are something as simple as an 'indexing service not workign with google', but stuff like this is ok. Of course this is all my opinion, but i would really love it if people opened their eyes




RE: wow
By grenableu on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 3
> "It shows the power of a brand name and good marketing"

Don't forget simple business inertia. My own firm (one of the largest in the world) only validated AMD cpus for purchase a couple years ago. If a new no-name company came out tomorrow with chips twice as fast as the C2D for 99 cents each, it'd still be five years before we'd start buying them.


RE: wow
By bpurkapi on 8/10/2007 3:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
So true. Most firms won't buy new tech, they choose to see how well it holds up and if there are any issues that might come up. Large companies don't want to invest their tech budgets into a company that might not exist over the next 5 years. AMD should consider themselves lucky now that all the big's like dell and hp use their chips. AMD will always have a place in the market, it just needs to cope with the fact that it no longer is a underdog. AMD is now a household name and there is no longer the public perception that just because it says AMD it is an inherently worse product. In this regard AMD has made much progress. I think now is a very good time for the chip market because AMD and Intel now have to actually compete on a performance price basis, it used to be that Intel could rest on its laurels and exclusiveness, but things have changed for the benefit of all who buy chips.


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/10/2007 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 5
If AMD was no-name company i would have to agree with you, and your reasoning is exactly what i think happened back in the mid to late 90's. But AMD has gained respect in the PC world since the release of the original Athlon, and 2 refreshes later (A64) Amd should have easily gained the trust of most PC manufacturers and business's, especially when when talking about lower end workstations.

As for the comment above about needing 'proof', A european trade commision probe should be more than enough to convince you something fishy is going on, you can be sure Intel hid their tracks, so i do not know what is going to come of this. But if you dont find any of this a bit odd, you are oblivious, and you are doing the exact thing you are accusing people like me of doing, overlooking some major inconsistancies, because its something you want to belive ;)

If you care to explain why these events happened with a little more than product loyalty, maybe my mind will be changed.


RE: wow
By Anh Huynh on 8/10/2007 3:25:01 PM , Rating: 3
A few years of decent products will not guarantee an overnight success. Take a look at the auto industry, Toyota didn't overtake GM overnight. It took decades of improvement and GM screw ups before consumers lost trust in the brand.

Despite Netburst not leading performance, the processors and platforms were still solid. And to the general consumer, the Intel brand was recognizable.

It also helps that Intel dumps a ton of marketing dollars all over the place, while AMD seems to focus more on channel marketing. You can hate Intel all you want, but they have excellent marketing campaigns that places the brand in their minds, ie Centrino.


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/10/2007 3:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
While AMD might not have been a well known name for the average joe, its not like they came out of nowhere in the 90's and started selling cpu's.
Infact, AMD has been around since the beginning when intel first signed a contract with IBM, but the contract required them to have atleast 2 sources for their chips. So amd was the original OEM maker of x86 based chips, and actually made both 80086 and 286 chips essentially for intel until 1986. AMD also sold 386 chips priced much lower than intels, and actually had a faster 386 chip which clocked in at 40mhz instead of 33mhz until the 486 came out. of course AMD came out with their own competing processors after the 486 including the k62 and k7 (which they bought) which brought them into stardom, and is the AMD we know today.

Most people involved in the industry would know this, giving AMD a much better track record than one would think.
Marketing to the end-user is one thing, but the OEM business market, where all the money happens to be, you would think would they better, and would not fall for the product loyalty B.S unless they had a reason too. (kickbacks caugh)


RE: wow
By Anh Huynh on 8/10/2007 3:58:34 PM , Rating: 1
The OEM business market is a big business, and as masher said, no one ever got fired for buying Intel. If a company has purchased Intel in the past, had good luck and no real quibbles with Intel hardware, what would compel them to just switch to AMD? Business buyers rarely stray away from familiarity.

Also Intel was able to offer a solid platform with its processors. AMD, for the most part, relied on third party chipsets. Even the early AMD chipsets were a bit shoddy, then there was VIA, SIS and such. I'm sorry, if I was a business buyer, I'd buy Intel, simply because they were able to supply a solid platform and processor.

Hopefully AMD's acquisition of ATI will allow them to deliver a single branded platform solution. But, as masher pointed out above, it may be years before a business buyer would even consider it.


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/10/2007 4:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
I fully understand what you both are saying. And i know intel will be chosen because of familiarity. I think platform has a lot less to do with it though. People put far far too much faith into thinkig Intel platforms are more stable.

One fact i will agree upon is that intel making their own chipset and boards does give people the illusion Intel products have better compatability among hardware(and its probably true to some degree, but its not day and night).

You keep mentioning it will take years for AMD to get the 'trust' of buyers, well this is exactly what intel is slowing down with their strongarm techiques. As i said AMD has been around since the beginning, so there is no reason to believe it should take 30-40 years for them to penetrate the market as a 'trusted' cpu maker. Your example of Toyota and GM makes sense, but even toyota only started to have quality cars in the early 90's, that means it only took toyota 30 years max to go from nothing to taking over marketshare from GM, (which happened to be over 50% in 1980)

Dont you find that weird? if you can give me another example of this AMD/INTEL scenario happening i would be glad to hear it.


RE: wow
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 5:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "As i said AMD has been around since the beginning"

AMD's first competitive product was the K7, released in 1999 . It was cheaper than Intel, but ran hotter and early chipsets were unreliable. It wasn't until around the Palomino days that AMD had a product clearly superior on all fronts. And within a year or two of that time, AMD was gaining market share hand over fist. What's suspicious about that?

> even toyota only started to have quality cars in the early 90's, that means it only took toyota 30 years max to go from nothing "

Eh? Toyota was gaining market share in the late 1970s and early 80s, competing on cost and fuel efficiency only. Starting as far back as at least the mid-1980s, it was often outscoring GM and Ford on quality surveys. Yet it didn't become #1 just recently.


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/11/2007 3:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
The k62 was their first competitive product, heres a quote from an article i happen to have from 1998
quote:
In the rapidly growing market for sub-$1,500 systems, PCs powered by AMD-K6 family processors captured a 54 percent market share -- the highest penetration we have achieved to date.
Keep in mind this was only for sub 1500$ pc's but in 1998 that happened to be 80% of all pc's sold and it was only for a quarter i think, but you get the point. They started to put pressure on Intel 10 years ago yet intel still has the business market cornered off, when budget pc's are what business's should be shopping for, just doesnt make sense to me.

Toyota may have been gaining market share, but not like they did in the 90's. Toyota had a grand total of one quality car before the 90's (camry) and even that could be disputed. Furthermore GM layed back pretending like they would be king forever, and they sure as hell were not as aggressive as Intel has been.


RE: wow
By masher2 (blog) on 8/11/2007 3:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "The k62 was their first competitive product...PCs powered by AMD-K6 family processors captured a 54 percent market share"

So, according to you, AMD's very first competitive product wound up outselling Intel in its target market? And this is "evidence of a Intel perpetually holding AMD back"? You might want to rethink your conclusion there.

> "Toyota may have been gaining market share, but not like they did in the 90's."

Toyota had a market share of 8% in 1990, and 9% in 2000. They didn't gain madly during the 1990s. The two periods they gained the fastest were 1975-1985 (doubling their share in this period) and 2000-2005 (a 50% gain in this period).

> "Toyota had a grand total of one quality car before the 90's (camry)"

You mean, beside the Corolla (3 times highest ranked subcompact before 1990), and the SR5...the vehicle that, in the late 70s, pretty much created the compact truck market. That one vehicle alone tripled Toyota's share of the light truck market in just 4 years.


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/12/2007 2:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
obviously i am misinformed about toyota, i always thought they're big jump was in the 90's, obviously i was wrong. But this aside,
quote:
So, according to you, AMD's very first competitive product wound up outselling Intel in its target market? And this is "evidence of a Intel perpetually holding AMD back"?
seems like you are putting words in my mouth here. All i am trying to show here, is that AMD has had a comparable chip since 1998, in which they gained significant market share, all to have it taken away by an inferior product each cpu refresh.(until now of course where for the first time in years, intel chips are superior on all fronts)
I am just trying to put it out there, thats all.


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/12/2007 2:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
and don't even get me started about industry supported standards like SSE.


RE: wow
By Lightning III on 8/10/2007 4:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
MASSHERS MISQUOTING AN OLD
quote:
NOBODY EVER GOT FIRED FOR BUYING IBM


AND SPECIAL REBATES FOR EXCLUSIVITY IS MONPOLISITIC LIKE WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH Dell

AND THE ONLY REASON Dell suddenly started carring AMD was overseas legal issues.

and I still rember the Intel Rep at Dell telling me how the P4 will scale to 6 ghz

anyway their ethics suck and it took a bunch of chip designers in Haifa Israel to pull their fat out of the fire

I hope AMD gets the 6 billion in intel profit's they deserve


RE: wow
By Treckin on 8/12/2007 6:03:39 PM , Rating: 5
My god Anh, you're an idiot.

This law suite has NOTHING to do with Intel's current tactics... AMD alleges that Intel had used shady handshake's and threats of price increases to lock AMD's products out of 90% of the OEM market. The suit states that between 1997 and 2004 (i believe) that Intel convinced the major OEM's, through loyalty pledges, to remain Intel Inside exclusively... That would be illegal...

SO PLEASE STOP SPOUTING MISINFORMED BS, its really quite unbecoming. AMD charges that their current poor performance is due to the fact that they are forced to compete with an illegitimately formed monopoly, and their lack of financial resources is due in large part to lost capitol as a result of Intel's anti-competitive behavior.


RE: wow
By wordsworm on 8/11/2007 8:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'll have you know that my Intel 486 DX 33 clocked quite nicely to 40 MHz.


RE: wow
By MonkeyPaw on 8/13/2007 3:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A few years of decent products will not guarantee an overnight success. Take a look at the auto industry, Toyota didn't overtake GM overnight. It took decades of improvement and GM screw ups before consumers lost trust in the brand.


How is it that we always get into car analogies when comparing Intel and AMD? They are really on 2 different planes. First of all, people buy cars based on looks and features. Early generation Toyotas were reliable and efficient, but they were also pretty cheap looking. It wasn't until the late 90s that Japanese auto makers seemed to "get" what Americans wanted in a car, and that includes style. I think it was beyond their comprehension that Americans want big (relative to other nations), powerful cars and trucks as opposed to a tiny, spartan cars with efficient, gutless engines. Notice what Japanese car makers sell now? Fast sedans and full-size pickups with real engines. Japanese cars don't really have better fuel economy than American cars anymore either. Oh, and did anyone else see that Buick is tied with Lexus for overall quality? Honestly, I think the tables have turned in the auto industry because the Japanese are just doing a better job at giving Americans what they want in a car. I haven't been that enthusiastic about the looks of most of the vehicles the Big 3 sends out these days.

Now take CPUs. MOST buyers don't buy a computer based on CPU, they buy based on cost and maybe even looks. I'm sure the size of the HDD and total system RAM are bigger factors than which CPU is inside. CPU models are so horribly confusing now that most consumers would be clueless on what to buy anyway. If brand recognition is what people use, then consumers are probably very confused on why "Pentium" is now a budget model and this new-fangled Core 2 is somehow better. No, consumers look at prices, and they look at things that are quantifiably easy to compare (RAM, DVD drives, HDD capacity, Montior sizes). They might even go with the prettier case sticker or the "cooler looking" case from OEM A instead of OEM B.

But really, people buy the best they can with their budget, and that's probably going to be a mid-range purchase. The mid-range has always been competative, and all other things being equal, AMD typically provides a cheaper overall system cost in the mid-sector). AMD has been giving OEMs what they want, which allows them to give


RE: wow
By MonkeyPaw on 8/13/2007 3:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
...the customers what they want--affordable, stable PCs.

(hit submit too soon!>


RE: wow
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/10/2007 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
read my other post


RE: wow
By Regs on 8/14/2007 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree Masher. My Fortune 500 company takes about the same time to make any such use for a new processor. Most major companies follow standard operating procedures and red-tape bureaucratic nonsense down to the T. My company usually takes at least a year just to make a contractual agreement with their suppliers. So if they don't agree with the first draft of the contract, it's back to square one.

Though don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Intel. Intel does not need to be defended.


RE: wow
By Aprime on 8/10/2007 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
Entire period? No, I only started finding AMD products on store shelves (first in boutiques, a tad later in Future Shop and such) in '99 (3D Now and such) and we started adopting their processors in '03 (Duron), I wanted to go with a 3D Now chip back then but my step-father had no experience with them so he advised me not to, same with the 233MHz G3 I wanted because it looked so hawt... Instead I got a PC tower that was styled exactly like the G3. :V

My uncle got an Atlhon as soon as they were available.

I can't believe I'm going back to Intel after getting 4 processors from AMD and all my graphic cards from ATI except one, now it's going to be a 50-50 situation (graphic wise).


RE: wow
By cochy on 8/10/2007 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But do you not find it a bit fishy that AMD had a better product for 4 years and only barely managed to even up their marketshare, to have it all taken back in 6 months?


Not at all. AMD simply has next to no marketing. Their CPU couldn't make espresso but if the consumer does't know AMD they won't buy it.


RE: wow
By cochy on 8/10/2007 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
couldn't


Could

...going back to sleep


RE: wow
By Anh Huynh on 8/10/2007 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yep. AMD doesn't spend enough on marketing. Intel shoves enough marketing campaigns down consumer throats that its hard not to recognize the brand. AMD on the other hand...well...yea...

Company A can have a superior product to Company B, but if Company B knows how to market, they'll most likely gain more ground.


RE: wow
By tdktank59 on 8/10/2007 10:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Heres a perfect example of it

back before we have nice operating systems from Microsoft and Others....

There were punch cards woot!!!!

anyways IBM and Microsoft both were developing a operating system for your average joe. IBM's was FAR supurior to Microsofts but Microsoft had the marketing and IBM didnt...

I dont know how IBM responded to this since i wasnt around for this but from waht i can come to they didnt do much besides maybe complain a bit... not go and try and sue and shut down there competition like AMD is trying to do... (well get money out of them...)


RE: wow
By omnicronx on 8/10/2007 3:30:08 PM , Rating: 1
Ya, well ive heard talking is hard with a sock in your mouth. its not that AMD has no marketing, Intel just has better marketing, something that more money tends to do. This is one thing though that is no fault of intel's, bigger companies usually have better/more powerfull marketing.

Its not like the guy who is incharge of buying x said number of pc's from DELL or some other manufacturer did not know that AMD held the performance crown for some time.
I agree with you about the average person, but to the people making the big decisions concerning buying computers would probably be aware of the status of the current market.
Or they wont have a job too long.


RE: wow
By cochy on 8/10/2007 4:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Unless I am mistaken here the "average person" makes up the bulk of the PC market share.

When you look at markets such as the server market the picture changes dramatically. AMD is much stronger in that segment because they have superior server products and Intel's in your face marketing isn't as effective.


RE: wow
By tdktank59 on 8/10/2007 10:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
actually it might be able to lol since there chips run about 20+ *F more than Intels...

i think thats what it came out to either way the numbers may be wrong but Amds chips run hotter and take more power while intels require less power and produce less heat


RE: wow
By Heinrich on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By Ringold on 8/10/2007 11:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just ask George Bush about global warming.


Witty.


RE: wow
By 16nm on 8/12/2007 3:48:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But do you not find it a bit fishy that AMD had a better product for 4 years and only barely managed to even up their marketshare, to have it all taken back in 6 months?


I do know AMD had more demand than they could meet. So even if they had even greater demand than they did it would have changed nothing. AMD's processors were very expensive because of it. Instead of thinking they could buy ATI with their fat margins, they should have built more capacity.

Which gets used more, Hector's brain or an animal brain? Animal brains. Which brain has greater protein content, Hector's or an animal's? An animal's. Hector's brain is mostly lard which explains how AMD is in the position it is today.


RE: wow
By The Sword 88 on 8/13/2007 1:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
I would say Intel stayed strong through good advertising and brand awareness even wehn AMD had a better product.

My parents who know little to nothing about PCs are unaware of AMD's existence much less its product lines. Everyone knows Intel though.

So while all the guys at the LAN parties knew about AMD your average user had no idea who they were and therefore stuck with Intel.

Also many businesses were already confortable with Intel CPUs and when they upgraded they stuck with Intel instead of switching to AMD even though they may have gotten better performance with AMD

I believe taht is why Intel stayed ahead but if AMD can prove Intel cheate then good for them and I will believe it with no trouble.


Allrighty
By Tom Tom on 8/10/2007 9:07:56 PM , Rating: 5
"The company enjoys the fact so much it has launched a new pseudo-advertising campaign website providing updates on the case. The new AMD website, breakfree.amd.com, provides all the information you would ever need to know on the allegations."

This website has been up for months.

"Not that I am trying to defend Intel or anything, but only the European Commission has charged Intel. Nothing has been proven and until there is an official ruling on the issue, I reserve my opinion on Intel’s tactics"

Japan FTC charged Intel and then found them guilty. Korea is investigating Intel also.

"The company enjoyed major growth with the launch of Opteron and Athlon 64. The company also struck a major deal with Dell – a once Intel only house."

The Athlon 64 and Opteron didnt gain much traction until AMD filed the lawsuit, thats when they started to gain market share.

"The K8 architecture remains around, after launching over three years ago.

Yeah, but Intels netburst had a much longer lifespan.

"AMD is barely pushing out 65nm products and continues to hock new 90nm products."

You make it sound like AMD has the resources Intel does.

Intel saw the mistakes of its clock-happy era and arrogance and released Conroe. The company is also on a fast track plan of shrinking fabrication processes every other year and launching completely new architectures in-between. AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel’s stringent roadmap.

Intel didnt get off its fat ass until AMD filed the lawsuit. If AMD hadnt filed the suit Intel would still be pushing netburst and buying market share.

I will give AMD the benefit of the doubt though. They might have a killer next-generation product, but from the early testing I have performed on Barcelona, there is no light at the end of the tunnel -- with the K10 generation at least. However, AMD isn’t planning to issue DVT samples of Barcelona to partners until later this month. Who knows, maybe they somehow gained an extra 10% in clock-for-clock performance since then.

You sound proud of yourself for hijacking that bug ridden sample and benchmarking it. IMO thats pathetic, you should be sued.




RE: Allrighty
By JumpingJack on 8/10/2007 9:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Japan FTC charged Intel and then found them guilty. Korea is investigating Intel also.


Incorrect, the JTC found cause to issue a cease and desist order, Intel agreed to end the rebate program. There was no trial, and the 'facts' were not litigated in a court, hence could not be found guilty... furthermore, no criminal charges were ever levied. This in fact is a major point of the article above, proof has yet to be presented and litigated under the adverserial process... i.e., Intel has yet to be able to present it's case that no laws were in fact broken and that competitive machinery in fact takes place. http://news.com.com/Intel+to+abide+by+Japan+FTC+re...

quote:
The Athlon 64 and Opteron didnt gain much traction until AMD filed the lawsuit, thats when they started to gain market share.


Again, false... AMD was capacity contrained the moment Opteron hit the market, it wasn't until 90 nm hit full capacity did they show huge gains. Nonetheless, even AMD touts (until Q1 2007 report) 14 quarters of MSS gain per thier 'plan'
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/04/21/1011...
quote:
adding it was the first time in 14 quarters the company failed to gain market share

AMD's sharpest MSS gains almost mimiced their 90 nm ramp as they reported it. AMD even reported capacity constraints holding them back in a 2003 10K filing:
quote:
At this time, the most significant risk is manufacturing capacity constraint.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/11/12/0001193125-...

quote:
Yeah, but Intels netburst had a much longer lifespan.


As crappy as Prescott was, Netburst did perform well against the competitive offering with Northwood and such... It was not until K8 that AMD held a definitive and clear lead.

quote:
You sound proud of yourself for hijacking that bug ridden sample and benchmarking it. IMO thats pathetic, you should be sued.

This is a personal attack on the commentator and severely decreases your credibility as a respondant.


RE: Allrighty
By Tom Tom on 8/11/2007 11:47:24 AM , Rating: 4
The JFTC Recommendation is the culmination of an 11-month investigation that has established patterns of anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior. The Commission found that, because of AMD’s inroads into Intel’s market share, Intel deliberately set out to artificially limit AMD by imposing conditions on five Japanese manufacturers that together represented 77% of all CPUs sold in Japan. Specifically, the JFTC found that:

o One manufacturer was forced to agree to buy 100% of its CPUs from Intel; another manufacturer was forced to curtail its non-Intel purchases to 10% or less;

o Intel separately conditioned rebates on the exclusive use of Intel CPUs throughout an entire series of computers sold under a single brand name in order to exclude AMD CPUs from distribution;

o The mechanisms used to achieve these ends included rebates and marketing practices that includes the “Intel Inside” program and market development funds provided through Intel’s corporate parent in the United States.

This is what the FTC found, call it what you like.

Again, false... AMD was capacity contrained the moment Opteron hit the market, it wasn't until 90 nm hit full capacity did they show huge gains. Nonetheless, even AMD touts (until Q1 2007 report) 14 quarters of MSS gain per thier 'plan'

I agree AMD has and had capacity issues, but how could AMD build capacity when market share gains were limited at best even with superior products? And then Intel puts out a competitve arch and takes back all the gains in a quater or two. Its a tough situation but there needs to be fair and open competition in this market and other tech markets as well. Technological development is being slowed because of anti competitive behavior.


RE: Allrighty
By grenableu on 8/11/2007 2:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One manufacturer was forced to agree to buy 100% of its CPUs from Intel
They weren't "forced" to buy. They agreed to a 100% deal in exchange for preferred pricing. It was their choice, and they made it because they thought it was the best move for them.


RE: Allrighty
By omnicronx on 8/11/2007 3:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
What exactly are you trying to prove here? Its not illegal to do this when you are not cornering off the market, but when you do it with every big manufacturer, it becomes monopolistic activity, plain and simple. Nobody is blaming the manufacturers here, they would be crazy not to take advantage of preferred pricing, but that does not make what Intel is doing legal, quite the opposite actually.


RE: Allrighty
By JumpingJack on 8/12/2007 1:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
I am not arguing the JTC findings, the JTC obviously had information that, based on their interpretation of the law, warranted a cease-and-desist order.

Intel chose not to fight it and ended all rebates. They later followed suit globally.

The point is people often take an accusation and stretch it to 'Intel was found guilty'... there has not yet been a single legal conclusion of any wrong doing -- this is not saying there hasn't been, but the point of the article above is exactly that -- the burden of proof has not been satisfied, and we are likely not able to see such proof for quite some time.

Even the JTC case was not adjudicated, and as such your claim that Intel was 'found guilty' is utterly false.


RE: Allrighty
By JumpingJack on 8/12/2007 1:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oh... also, could you provide links to back up your claims in your bulleted items...
thanks.


I had been wondering...
By Saist on 8/10/2007 6:29:24 PM , Rating: 1
I had been wondering for several months how far into Intel's Pocket Anandtech / Dailytech was. First it was passing off known bugs and issues as factual statements of performance. Then it was simply re-wording Intel press releases. Then it was failing to examine the FSB issues with Conroe based processors. Then it was failing to examine realistic system stability, what happens when the system does hit 100% memory usage and hits 100% processor usage. Then it was failing to even question the real world application of benchmarks published by Intel... Then there was the recent matter over Kris being ignored during the Analyst day.

Then this post. Has it ever occurred to AT/DT that they LOST all of their journalistic integrity literally last year? I find it sad that I can now rely on TheRegister and TheInquirer to deliver more truthful reporting than AT/DT.

Congratulations Anandtech / Dailytech. You have officially passed Toms Hardware Guides as the number one tech site to avoid.




RE: I had been wondering...
By TejTrescent on 8/10/2007 6:49:45 PM , Rating: 3
I recommend you educate yourself about the difference between a blog and an article.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/10/2007 6:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then there was the recent matter over Kris being ignored during the Analyst day.

I'm guessing that was an isolated incident. AMD reached out and touched us for this article:
http://www.dailytech.com/False+Alarm+Defective+Rad...


RE: I had been wondering...
By Ringold on 8/11/2007 12:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, Toms Hardware is impossible to surpass in lack of integrity -- unless they've improved significantly during the past year or so; I've ignored them. I wont reward them with ad views to see if they've changed their stripes.

Second of all, most of that is FUD as no tech site I visit regularly has made a giant issue of any of that.

It's amazing that DT points out in a blog that AMD has dropped the ball and expresses hope that it eventually is able to catch back up and zealots come crawling out of the woodwork to question their integrity. Tech sites haven't hardly recommended an AMD chip since Conroe's debut and it's possible Barcelona will fail to change that as Intel's refreshed chips hit the market. DT's just calling it as they see it!


RE: I had been wondering...
By Anh Huynh on 8/11/2007 3:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'll recommend an AMD product...I just went to Fry's today. They had the Athlon X2 BE-2300 with an ECS 6100 motherboard for $89. Can't really beat that on the Intel side.

It still amazes me how cheap things have gotten. Just two years ago, a cheap dual-core system was the Pentium D 820.


RE: I had been wondering...
By JumpingJack on 8/12/2007 1:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
I saw the same deal... cursed myself for picking up a 3600+ and biostar board a week before. Oh well... ce la vi'

Nonetheless, this is part of AMD's real problem since Conroe launched. Their top end flagship product at the time of launch was pushed to the lower 1/2 of the mid-range, and it has taken squeezing blood from a turnip to get a 6000+ out there to reach the mid-range offering of the C2D line.

AMD, logically, adjusted the prices for the price/performance curve to line up, thus making it possible to recommend an AMD CPU for the lower price points... but we can see how this has affected the bottom line.

Finally, with the lead in litho-node, Intel has been able to more or less relegate any single core CPU to the Sempron/Celeron class and make dual core mainstream... this is killing AMD in costs as they were slower to transition from single to dual... this has nothing to do with Intel being a monopoloy and everything to do with them having a significant technological lead especially on the manufacturing side.


RE: I had been wondering...
By Willie on 8/13/2007 4:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

ce la vi'


That'd be c'est la vie , btw.


RE: I had been wondering...
By sfjf11 on 8/13/2007 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 3
long time dailytech readers learn to accept the bias dt/at like to show towards intel. it's life


AMD: Stop wining
By juanflaiter on 8/11/2007 4:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
I´m an editor of a big hispanic hardware site in southamerica and I feel just like Anh. The bottom line about this article is plain simple, AMD has to stop whining and start launching a killer product. Up to date nothing shows AMD is going to launch a killer product, and let´s keep in our minds Intel is going to launch Penryn inmediatly after K10, and Penryn will have some frequency overhead (45nm anyone?).

Again, my bet is that AMD will not have a leading technology with K10 @ 65nm, but god, for the good of everyone, let´s hope it does, competition is good for all of you. BTW for all of you that think that DT or AT is biased, let´s think a little bit more in depth, do you think Kris or Anand would want AMD to go out of business? Monopoly companies don´t buy ads, they don´t need too. They are just telling you that under this circumstances, things look really black for AMD, thats all.

Kris and Anh, keep the good work, you are doing a hell of a job, bringing great confirmed insider info from trustful sources and cleaning tech journalism. I´m afraid some fanboys don´t really like this kind of news, but for every 10 fanboys that post comments, you receive 10k objective readers that love your work, and that´s the only thing that should give you fuel to work day to day.




RE: AMD: Stop wining
By ted61 on 8/12/2007 1:18:18 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, juanflaiter is "an editor of a big hispanic hardware site". Why do I get the feeling that juan is Kris K. or his friend Ahn. Us readers of dailytech know there is no anti AMD bias here. It has gotten so bad that I mainly read the AMD articles just to see how they will be spun to a negative.

As long as Masher2 posts blogs, I will keep coming back anyway. So DailyTech can hate on anyone they want. Just give me my masher blogs.


RE: AMD: Stop wining
By James Holden on 8/12/2007 6:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
That took me like 7 seconds to determine that Juan is not Kris. Or Anh for that matter.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22juan+flait...


RE: AMD: Stop wining
By Michael Hoffman on 8/12/2007 3:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
James, I believe that was a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor by ted61. ;)


RE: AMD: Stop wining
By Zurtex on 8/12/2007 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't see how this hurts AMD. I mean having their legal and marketing team actually following up and advertising what they feel are things that Intel have done that are dodgey legal ground and stop the natural competitiveness from AMD.

Surely if this is found to actually be the case, then it will stop Intel from carrying on with such business practises and give AMD a better chance in future generations to seriously compete? I hardly think that putting up a website is going to slow their R&D team down, I don't think it's the same staff that work on both things :P


RE: AMD: Stop wining
By juanflaiter on 8/12/2007 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Of course both works are independent, but customers and tech savy people don´t do a difference between AMD´s legal team and R&D team, you just receive the full bundle. And what AMD is showing us today, is that they don´t have the leadership in technology, they have a price pressure they cannot hold on for too many time and that up to this, they are whining about Intel´s business policies.

I totally support AMD´s right to have a neutral market to work with, but I don´t support using other company´s mistakes to pump your sales through marketing. This is just pathetic, legal issues have to be solved in court and not through your customers.

BTW please excuse me for the "wining" typo, English is not my native language and I still need a lot of improvement.


RE: AMD: Stop wining
By ted61 on 8/12/2007 11:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry juan, we all make typo's.

I don't really care about all of the marketing on either side, I just go for the most bang for the buck. I like to buy mobo/cpu combo's at Fry's Electronics. I go for price first then whichever combo does not include an ECS mobo. If I have to spend an extra $20 to get an Abit or Asus mobo, I will. It does not matter which cpu gets attached.

I wonder how many other people think about price before marketing.


Mad at AMD
By ted61 on 8/10/2007 3:11:56 PM , Rating: 3
Why are you Dailytech guys always so mad at AMD? You act as if Intel should be the only producer of CPU's. If AMD, was out of the way, Intel could focus on making more profitable CPU's without having to worry about the competition.

They are both good companies that keep us in a situation where the software can't keep up with the hardware. I just wish they would use the same socket to make things easier.

Lighten up already, if you lost money on AMD or Intel stock, say so up front so we know what your beef is.




RE: Mad at AMD
By Michael Hoffman on 8/10/2007 3:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
I've never been mad at AMD! :P


RE: Mad at AMD
By maroon1 on 8/10/2007 3:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
My computer got outdated because of competition. If there were no competition my computer would last me at least for three years.

I know many people who bought E6600 for $330 but after only 6 months the Quad core Q6600 dropped to $290 !!

Competition is only good for rich people who can upgrade their computer every month. But poor guy like me don't have the money to upgrade his computer every 6 months or even a year............


RE: Mad at AMD
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 3
Competition is always good, period. Your computer didn't get worse due to competition...newer products got better. Your machine is still able to do everything today it can (and just as fast) as it did when you first purchased it. It's only "worse" by comparison.

Without competition, we'd still be buying PC's from IBM for $6,000 each. We might be up to the color monitor and 32-bit cpu stage by now...or we might not.

I'm sure Anh hopes AMD will not only survive, but thrive in the future, and any "anger" perceived in his blog is simply fear that AMD's current actions are counterproductive to that end.


DailyTech = Neutrality?
By ReeZun on 8/10/2007 5:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... but from the early testing I have performed on Barcelona, there is no light at the end of the tunnel -- with the K10 generation at least.


There was an article which stated:

“AMD engineers stress to DailyTech that this benchmark was premature, and that final silicon and software will allow for SSE optimizations and better performance.”

Though I don't believe the article is still available, google captured it in several instances.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=of...

It’s almost laughable to think that anyone (or any entity) – including Dailytech – could somehow obtain REAL benchmark data at an event, at a time when AMD is dead-set against revealing ANY benchmark data. Just the fact they allowed you to run a benchmark should tell you that it wasn’t the final product (or that it was somehow crippled or not optimized).

When AMD is ready to supply the world with benchmark results, it will. It won’t come as a result of someone who thought they could sneak in a benchmark off of a thumbdrive.




RE: DailyTech = Neutrality?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 6:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "...at a time when AMD is dead-set against revealing ANY benchmark data."

I think I speak for all of us here when I say-- I hope you're right, and that Barcelona will surprise us. I hope...but my head tells me otherwise.

The fact that we doubt this isn't based on any "anti-AMD" bias. When a company has a clearly superior product, they don't try to suppress benchmarks-- they cram them down your teeth.

I'm sure Barcelona at launch will outperform at least slightly the benches we've already seen. But will it be enough to turn the tide? Well...hope springs eternal to the human breast.


RE: DailyTech = Neutrality?
By James Holden on 8/10/2007 6:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Though I don't believe the article is still available, google captured it in several instances.

No need for conspiracy theories. The articles are all still there:
http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+to+Launch+Barcelona+S...
http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+and+Dirty+AMD+K10+C...
http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Partners+Demonstrate+...


RE: DailyTech = Neutrality?
By Anh Huynh on 8/10/2007 9:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
During a time when the competitor [Intel] is beating you, you don't sit quietly without attempting to hype a product. Intel was losing in performance to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 with its Smithfield and Presler Netburst processors, so what did they do? They let journalists benchmark early Conroe, Kentsfield and recently Penryn systems around two quarters before launch.

If they have a killer product, they would have nothing to hide, unless AMD marketing works backwards or something.

I have nothing against AMD, used to root for the underdog, and I've reported plenty of AMD news without a mention of Intel, from roadmaps, to new product launches. My opinion doesn't skew my normal reporting, I've simply formed opinions from my observations of the facts.


article is a rant
By crapzz on 8/10/2007 2:42:45 PM , Rating: 3
Never seen an article on Dailytech with so much "opinion".

In fact it is probably just a rant by some office cleaner that gained access to the system.

Please delete.




RE: article is a rant
By ttowntom on 8/10/2007 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Blogs are supposed to have opinions. And if you're an AMD fan, you should be concerned about their tactics. Companies that try to compete in the courtroom rather than the product space usually go downhill fast.


RE: article is a rant
By James Holden on 8/10/2007 3:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Never seen an article on Dailytech with so much "opinion".

That's why it says BLOG in gigantic letters across the top.


Brutal comments
By 3kliksphilip on 8/11/2007 7:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
All I can say is that AMD must be thoroughly angry with Intel to have made such a blatant 'Intel is evil' campaign. It doesn't seem like a very professional thing to do and in my opinion makes me believe that they're desperate. I feel for AMD, with them being the only serious competitor that Intel has in the CPU market, but I didn't even know that it was allowed for them to have such a stab at Intel on their website. What ever next? Will Intel have the headlines 'AMD is a sore loser'? I'm not taking sides but AMD seems to be reacting in the same way as that to a 5 year old when they get their sweets pinched. I like AMD but I don't know how much this campaign is going to raise people's awareness. Even if it does, I'm not sure if people will back AMD because of it.




RE: Brutal comments
By JumpingJack on 8/12/2007 1:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
AMD has been making this complaint since the early 90's... they have lodged complaints with both the FTC (US) and the EU, as well as any other country they can find.

The FTC has investigated Intel twice, and in one case settled and in another dropped the investigation for lack of evidence, EU investigated Intel from the late 90's to early 2000's, dropped the case for lack of evidence... and AMD simply lodged another complaint... when it does not go in their favor, they lodge another complaint.

Eventually something will stick I suspect, a company as large as Intel deals with thousands of people, there is likely going to be some zealous salesman who coersed a contract somewhere with some small outfit and it will be pounced upon... who know, it could be that Intel is indeed guilty of breaking the law, in which case the judicial process will need to ascertain the extent and what damages have been done and what reprimands will be needed.


RE: Brutal comments
By werepossum on 8/13/2007 6:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I can say is that AMD must be thoroughly angry with Intel to have made such a blatant 'Intel is evil' campaign. It


I think perhaps AMD has little else to push at the moment.

As to how AMD was hurt, the group of computers my company purchased prior to our current machines were Dells, at the owner's insistance. I had tested both Athlon 500 MHz and Pentium 500 MHz, and the Athlon was greatly superior in AutoCAD. However, Dell only offered Intel because offering any AMD processors would have greatly increased their cost for Intel processors - Intel had a very steep discount for exclusivity. Therefore we bought inferior Intel processors. Obviously AMD was damaged by Intel's business practices - after all, almost every company's business practices are designed to hurt one's competition. The only question is whether or not Intel's business practices were illegal, and that question has yet to be settled IMO.

Our current batch of computers are no-name clones from a local distributor, specifically because Dell could not deliver the AMDs. Considering Dell's growth, obviously their decision to remain Intel-exclusive worked for them at the time. (And yes, if we buy an additional machine it will almost certainly have an Intel CPU. If Intel broke the law, it should be punished - but their business practices didn't alienate me.)

BTW, AMD's first competitve product was the 80287 20 MHz co-processor, if not earlier. That was in the mid to late 80's. Having tested both brands, I can say the AMD was superior in floating point calculations at that time.


Earlier testing
By smitty3268 on 8/10/2007 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will give AMD the benefit of the doubt though. They might have a killer next-generation product, but from the early testing I have performed on Barcelona, there is no light at the end of the tunnel -- with the K10 generation at least.

I doubt the K10 is going to blow anyone away, but that early testing was pretty much a joke. Your tests showed it performing slower clock-for-clock than an equivalent Opteron. Surely you don't think that's going to happen?




RE: Earlier testing
By tdktank59 on 8/10/2007 11:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well i think i just wasted about half an hour reading flaming of users...

but i did get a few good things out of this.

First off to be honest i go for the company that has the best product for cost avalible when i buy. not including rebates or sales...

The conroes were far supurior to any of the AMD chips out there as far as cost to clock and heat to power and so on... Pretty much what i found out from my research was that Intel had blown AMD out of the water with there new cpus

However isnt this how the worlds supposed to work? competiotion for us means

- Lower Prices
- Faster Technology BOOM (more progress)
- Better products most of the time

The way it works is each company wants to outsell its competition.
quote:
for example you have a shell and an arco on 2 corners at an intersection and then have a vallero down the road a few blocks.for example you have a shell and an arco on 2 corners at an intersection and then have a vallero down the road a few blocks.The vallero will have higher prices than both the shell and arco because it has no competition in its relative area. But the shell and arco will be within a few cents of each other and cheaper than the Vallero.


In retrospect AMD vs. INTEL is a battle like The shell and arco where they are both competing on the same corners for the market.
So when something like that happens you either stick to the name you know, The better product, if you are stupid or lazy or just dont care you might pick at random (when i say that i mean didnt do your research and belived every word you read on the web)... SOme also might buy the underdogs item just for competition. When someone does that it beats the point for competition. When you buy the underdog your saying o hey i see your here and yeah they are bigger but yeah ill buy from you instead even tho i could get more preformance for my money with them...

Not to pick sides here but truly in our society (Capatalism) you go for the best thing that your money can get you.

I just bought a 8800 GTS 640 (before the atis cards came out) i didnt know any specs on ATI's cards besides that they might be comparable or even better but at the time of buying i had done my research and i wanted to get something that would last me a while that was on the market... It turned out that they were almost the same for preformance from what ive looked at so far... But i can tell you for sure that ATI's model numbers SUCK... they have like 3 cards that are diffrent in so many ways that all have the same damn name... explain that to me ... At least with NVIDIA they all have diffrent names or have superclocked or ultra after them...

but 2900HD for all of there cards... (ATI's top of line card did outpreform the nvidias top of line pretty much hands down i think)

So enough of my ranting im getting lost while typing but pretty much my story here is do waht you want to do... I support whoever has the better product at the time. If i was buying for a company right now id probably go with intel since my last computer was intel and the one before that and each lasted me to the point where i litteraly couldnt use it anymore... (due to programs requiring more not the chip falling apart).

Either way i think AMD needs to take whatever INTELS giving them and just deal with it... its called f***ing capatalism, and competition for a reason its not going to be friggen fair for both sides of the coin... its the way things work... but in our SUE happy world we have today and the fact that just someone tapping shoulder to get your attention can get you sued for half a milion dollars becasue you "hurt" them even tho you just tapped there shoulder ever so slightly...

Ok im done sorry for anyone who reads through this whole thing...


RE: Earlier testing
By Treckin on 8/12/2007 6:12:10 PM , Rating: 1
The 2900hd only outperformed the 8600 and sometimes the 8800gts. There is some rumor that the 'xtx', although we never saw a real one to be sure, made the 8800gtx look like kid shit. These rumors were largely unsubstantiated, so dont feel bad. You bought the right card...


How cheap can AMD go?
By FS on 8/10/2007 2:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
These kind of things further show that their future products are not that great and they don't know any other way to help themselves but to follow these cheap tactics.

I am not an Intel/AMD fanboy or anything.




Amd kicks butt
By KrisFujiZ on 8/15/2007 5:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
im not 100% up on the new technology but i was in computer retail for 7 years and AMD is just as good as Intel. i would tell customers to buy amd cause it was the same thing except cheaper. all my machines at home are amd and are still running awesome. There is one difference. Intel spends a crazy amount of money on advertising and AMD does't. theres the difference in price. it's not the quality of the chip. If anyone is interested FujiFilm is coming out with a new camera called the Z10. 7.2megapixels, Face Detection Technology, comes in 5 colors and does video for $199. Check out www.offzhook.com/z




"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles



Latest By Anh Tuan Huynh
More NVIDIA SLI Chipsets Around the Corner
September 25, 2007, 7:40 AM
NVIDIA Prepares New AMD IGPs
September 25, 2007, 7:39 AM
NVIDIA Launches Intel IGP
September 25, 2007, 7:25 AM
Intel Shows Off 32nm Test Shuttle
September 18, 2007, 4:34 PM
Intel Sets Official "Penryn" Launch Date
September 18, 2007, 1:17 PM
VIA Launches EPIA SN With 1.8 GHz Processor
September 17, 2007, 4:00 PM
Freescale Licenses AMD Technologies
September 17, 2007, 3:43 PM
AMD Adds Triple-Core Processors to Roadmap
September 17, 2007, 2:45 PM
Lenovo Announces Solar Power Capable Desktop
September 13, 2007, 2:00 PM













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