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,, 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

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 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 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
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 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,
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


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
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 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
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


...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
Just ask George Bush about global warming.


RE: wow
By 16nm on 8/12/2007 3:48:14 PM , Rating: 1
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.

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
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

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki