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

RE: Allrighty
By JumpingJack on 8/10/2007 9:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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'
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:
At this time, the most significant risk is manufacturing capacity constraint.

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.

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
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...

"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive
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

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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