Yes... Thats good. being a small biz owner, I got involved in a BIG BIZ (big boys) fight like this and had to kiss and make up.! Sometimes revenge with even law-suit is a great way to kick ass...!!!!!!!
GO AMD.!
I hope AMD wins this one! I hate this Intel monopolistic way of being ! Every It Shop recomends Intel products, even if AMD is much more cost effective !
I paid 1200 $ for a p233 mmx back in 1998. I still regret that.
For 600 i got an AMD 1600+ in 2001. And it was great !
Now I have an Barton 2500+ on Asus a7n8x e deluxe and I`m very satisfied with it! My brother has the same !
102: "Intel has to be considered a monopoly first before it can be violating anti-trust laws"
Not so. The Sherman Act covers two basic offenses: Monopolization and Restraint of Trade. Even though Intel isn't a monopoly, they can still be civilly or criminally liable for restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act.
What may be seen as strong arm is generally correct, intel are now the microsoft of chip design, but most people who want real world performance still go other places linux vs microsoft, or in this case amd.
as a tech, i just make sure that i give what will do the job better
Something tells me that Intel and Microsoft are taking leaves out of each other's books, by threatening people who try to compete with them and by twisting manufacturer's arms in order to get them to stick with Intel, when AMD chips are really the better chip on the market.
It seems that AMD is not the only one suspicious of Intel. The EU raided Intel's European offices today on suspicion of allged antitrust behavior. Perhaps this isn't just hearsay (for all of you nay-sayers in the crowd). As they say here in America, the proof is in the bottom of the paper shredder.
"while Intel dominates the market, it does not have a monopoly"
I don't think that there's any question that Intel certainly IS a monopoly, though proving it will take time. Remember that a monopoly only means control of the market, not being the only one in it. The US regards any company with greater than 50% marketshare to be a probable monopoly...
Stan: Intel has to be considered a monopoly first before it can be violating anti-trust laws. It's clear the alleged behavior would qualify as anti-trust under U.S. laws, however, while Intel dominates the market, it does not have a monopoly. Until Intel is considered a monopoly, they are just competing.
It is indisputable fact that Intel has forced companies to use only their products in a distinct effort to squeeze AMD out of the desktop microprocessor business. It is the definition of anti-trust and is clearly against the law. Though I'm sure there are legal loopholes to get around it. But it is undeniably unfair business practice and has been happening for many many years.
In fact, if pressured, I’d be willing to present Intel memos that prove they have been performing unfair business tactics for years.
Steve Husted - "All I see here is a lot of hearsay. "Intel strongarms OEMs." Okay, where's the proof? You trust AMD saying it?"
1. Just like Anand has, I have witnessed these strongarm tactics firsthand myself (though not as much as Anand has...)
2. Please note that Intel HAS NOT DENIED them...their only response was that they haven't done anything illegal.
"AMD stands to gain 50% stock price if they win"
Winning or losing won't happen for years...and unless AMD was very confident of winning, that's a hell of a long time to wait and a lot of money to spend!
"Maybe AMD should focus on their business instead of trying to gain market share in court."
Without being allowed to fairly compete, they can only expect the same incremental gains they have been experiencing for their efforts...at this point, a judicial remedy is a requirement, not a luxury.
"I know at least 5 people that "will never buy AMD again" because of thermal issues"
I guees that means that Intel's future is pretty dismal (at least if your logic is descriptive of the majority...).
"Their marketing machine was successful even though some technologies were not. I said Intel is "smarter at how they go about selling processors" - and I stand by that"
Due respect, but attributing Intel's success in tough times to their marketing team alone is fairly naive...
To be clear, using their current control of the x86 market in order to force exclusive deals isn't marketing at all...nor is it legal.
"64 bit on the desktop is not currently a smart move, anyway. When's the last time you needed >4GB threads?"
Today...I was editing a large uncompressed movie in one chunk.
"On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that? Please don't make rash claims that are easily dismissed"
OK...AthlonXPs have been discontinued for awhile now, so you were looking at old stock being dumped. That might help you see it differently? (trying not to be rash...) :-)
"P4 has had 36bit extensions that allow up to 64GB of RAM, anyway, in 4GB chunks in the same fake way that "AMD64" does. I feel sorry for those chumps that bought AMD64 processors back in 2002"
Mate, you really need to go back and read that "don't make rash statements" comment you made!
Let me help...I believe you are speaking of PAE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAE This let's you use up to 64GB of system memory, that's true...but you are unable to address more than 4GB (i.e. you cannot open a file larger than 2.5 GB, because Windows reserves 1.5GB for system use).
Of course this has NOTHING to do with AMD64, which does not need PAE at all for the first 128GB, and with PAE can address up to 256 TeraBytes.
"Define "a lot slower," please. A lot hotter? Until recently, you had to use a third-party fan/heatsink for AMD where the one that comes with the Intel processor was fine. More expensive? Yes, on the outset. You're paying for a name in the same way that you pay for a Rolex or Lexus. Intel charges what people are willing to pay. YOU might not be willing, but 80% of the market is"
1. Intel isn't really a LOT slower...on average it's close to 10-30% slower at an equivalent cost basis...
2. Intel's processors (except the P-M) are about twice as hot as the equivalent AMD. This is by far the highest temperature differential in the history of the x86!
3. The expensive part is really the whole crux of the suit and why it's important for the average guy that AMD win...
80% of the market presently choose Intel because they have no choice! With OEMs having (as the former head of Compaq put it) a gun to their heads to supress AMDs presence, the largest customers (business) don't have an AMD system available for purchase that has the requisite service that only OEMs can provide.
Well, I think this debate is just at it's beginnings, but one thing it's clear: it will be "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING". From my point of view, even if AMD wins and INTEL will be forced to stop or at least diminish their unfair way to face the competition, after a little while INTEL will continue those strategies to impose their products and control the market. That's so bad, because in the last 2 years INTEL didn't bring anything really new from technologically point of view, just a little bit of an evolution. And by the way, why consumers must buy an entirely new platform when INTEL decises to make even small changes on their line-up and pay a big deal of money for that, even if performances are not justified? Examples: SDR--->RDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2
People have been compaining about the timing of this suit throughout the thread. "Why didn't they do it ealier when they had more problems.... blah blah blah" Here is my reasoning for why this is a great time to go forward:
1. AMD has been making money for a change with their processors. Their limiting factor right now (besides Intel) is prodcution capability. They have built up capital to sustain a long legal battle they will most likely win.
2. Even if they do not win this will get the company more recognition, and more mredia exposure throughout the whole process.
3. Nearing the end or perhaps during the legal proceedings, their brand new Fab will be coming online dramatically increasing their production capabilities. (If the ruling is in AMD's favor, their will most likely be increased demand for their products, they will then be able to meet)
4. Even with better desktop/server processors if AMD does not act now, their situation will only continue to deteriorate.
5. Japan's antitrust ruling gives them some leverage.
Refer to #84
Anandtech without Anand!
I'm pissed. I'm also surprised to see the 1st article still up since it also mentions the consoles having a weak cpu.
Sorry, Steve, the CEOs stealing being smarter was not intended to be aimed at Intel, just a general business ethics reference in the light of what has been happening lately..
As far as even beginning to defend Intel on the design (thermal issues, throttling) of the P4, you are a brave, brave man. Everybody that has followed chip architecture for the last 5 years has seen how 'broken' the hyperpipelined P4 design is. The processor is just beginning to turn the corner in performance at passing 3 gig. Intel's own launch white papers from the original P4 launch comment that the architecture was designed for 5 - 10 ghz speeds and will take an efficiency hit at the slower intro speeds. True, Intel has seen the utter end of the performance road with the .09 process Prescotts running HOTTER than the .13 cores. Please explain this to me..it makes no sense.
AMD's switch to .09 process has brought a cooler running processor and faster clock speeds - two things that Intel's move failed to achieve. True, Intel has it right with the Pentium M design, especially the Centrino implementation.
A thorough analyst will be able to see a pattern here:
AMD intorduces the Athlon 500 - beats PIII 500 in benchmarks.
AMD first to 600 mhz.
AMD first to 700 mhz..
AMD first to 1 ghz..
Intel fails with 1.13 ghz PIII, all review samples and OEM alotments recalled..
Intel designed the P4 for one thing: EGO.
Designing an inefficient processor that has to run at an artificially high clock rate to get the same work done as processors running 500 mhz slower is marketing trickery. When suzy homemaker goes to the store to get a PC in 2000, 1.6 is bigger than 1.2 (P4 to Athlon) so the 1.6 MUST be faster. Absolute marketing bullshit..
Inasmuch as this kind of blatant lying to the public may sell more processors to the sheep, an analysis of the technical merits of the designs are what get discussed on a board like this. I am not some big AMD fanboy, but I have done enough research to write 2 research papers for different classes on the subject of comparing the Athlon to the P4 architecture and a marketing analysis of Intel based on the development of the P4 as a tool to show 'artificially' high mhz numbers.
I just think it is about time that some of the things that have been happening get put out on the table for the public to judge for themselves. It's all about the ethics: Just because you CAN get away with something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD. Everybody has to pay the piper sometimes and Intel shouldn't be any different..
Anand, where did ya go? It has been over a week and NOTHING. The last we heard, you posted an article, then it disappeared, followed by your own magic act?!? 8 days and counting....
- Creathir
Due to the unauthorized release of information violating several NDA's Anandtech is now under completely new management designated by Microsoft. Anand will not be returning. For futher questions on the matter and the cpu article incedent. Please contact me by email.
value for money is always the first I think about when I buy something.as long as AMD supports whatever technology or standard is thrown to the computing populace (nerds or not),they still have the edge although not all the time.
"I've read that AMD64 can add about 10% improvement over the 32 bit counterpart (that's being generous). On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that?"
You can't directly compare Athlon XP and Athlon 64 rating. In fact, the performance of an Athlon XP 3200+ is equal to an Athlon 64 2800+.
- Athlon XP 3000+ are listed at 93$ on Pricewatch (Athlon XP 3200+ are so highly priced, we can'T consider them as comparison and they are EOL)
- Athlon 64 2800+ are liste 110$ on Pricewatch
So paying 18% more to get 64bit support, on-die memory controller AND better performane is not a bad deal from my point of view.
Steve:
AthlonXP 3000 = $98
An Athlon64 3000 = $132
It's called an onboard memory controller. Research !! Anyone would be stupid to buy the XP over the 64 unless they were just broke or only internet surfing.
You decide, it makes sense, Intel is pressuring OEM's in my opinion. It seems strange that Gigabyte is not offer certain boards at the release of the Intel Royal series.
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 235181
Sent : 2005/6/27 04:01
Question : I just purchased the gigabyte 7800GTX video card. I am concerned that this card being long will interfer with the sata connecters towards the end of the card. My question is will it over hang and prohibit the use of the sata connecters?
I have been looking without any success for your Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 motherboard. This board would pair up nicely. Can you tell me why no USA online vendor can get stock concerning this board? CAN YOU SELL ME ONE? or at the least stock the online vendors> zipzoomfly is the only vendor that list it on their site but as out of stock> what gives with the high cost as well?
Answer : Dear Customer,Answer - 235181
No need to worry, as longer PCI-E cards will not interfere with the SATA2 connectors on the GA-K8NXP-SLI. The SATA cable may make contact with the PCB of the PCI-E cards, but this is within specifications.
The GA-K8NXP-9 release is on hold. I currently have no ETA. The current available model is the GA-K8N Ultra-9. The main difference is that DPS is not supported, and a WiFi card is not included on the latter.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 236460
Sent : 2005/6/29 20:00
Question : The whole reason behind buyying the Gigabyte 7800GTX was to pair it up with a motherboard hat fits the setup. The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 fits this. I am one to pair up video cards with motherboards. Since you have no ETA, unfortunately the SLI version is shy one needed pci slot and my next choice is your competition, BFG BFGRNF4U. Its not my first choice. This is why I stopped buying Asus, MSI motherboards. They never had stock on motherboards they claimed availability on their website, as your company does on their website concerning the GA-K8NXP-9. This is indeed unfortunate for me. I apologize for taking your time.
Thank you.
Answer : Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products. Answer - 236460
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 237134
Sent : 2005/7/1 02:50
Question : Are you still going to produce the The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 motherboard?
Answer : Dear Customer, Answer - 237134
This model is in limited production and only available in the UK and Austrailia.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
From : David Shumpis [ HAL3200@PEOPLEPC.COM ] Question - 237681
Sent : 2005/7/2 11:44
Question : Do you mean that you are not going to sell this motherboard in the USA? You sell more products here in America than any other country. What kind of answer is the last 2 post to my questions. I ask again are you going to sell the GA-K8NXP-9 in the USA? If not just say so. I can not believe that a company as yours in stepping backwards and hurting potential sales by not having product. Do you believe that you will increase sales this way? Can you sell me direct this motherboard?
Answer : Dear Customer,Answer - 237681
The GA-K8NXP-9 is limited and will probably not be available in the US market.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 239009
Sent : 2005/7/6 05:26
Question : will you offer a newer MB that is equivalent, one with the DPS feature and is not SLI?
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 239043
Sent : 2005/7/6 07:40
Question : June 28, 2005
AMD sues Intel - Tuesday, Jun 28, 2005 2:03 PM
So AMD is suing Intel. First, I'd suggest reading through the 48-page complaint filed by AMD. Given that Vinney is in law school, I've seen a few of these things, but this one is surprisingly legible even for us non-legal types :)
I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:
I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:
1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard
Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.
The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.
The list goes on and on.
What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.
Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.
What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.
One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.
Your thoughts?
Does this come into play? Is this why there was only limited amount of the The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 . With the new release of your intel royal board?
Question - 239009
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ]
Sent : 2005/7/6 05:26
Question : will you offer a newer MB that is equivalent, one with the DPS feature and is not SLI?
Answer - 237681
Answer : Dear Customer,
The GA-K8NXP-9 is limited and will probably not be available in the US market.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
Question - 237681
From : David Shumpis [ HAL3200@PEOPLEPC.COM ]
Sent : 2005/7/2 11:44
Question : Do you mean that you are not going to sell this motherboard in the USA? You sell more products here in America than any other country. What kind of answer is the last 2 post to my questions. I ask again are you going to sell the GA-K8NXP-9 in the USA? If not just say so. I can not believe that a company as yours in stepping backwards and hurting potential sales by not having product. Do you believe that you will increase sales this way? Can you sell me direct this motherboard?
Answer - 237134
Answer : Dear Customer,
This model is in limited production and only available in the UK and Austrailia.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
Question - 237134
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ]
Sent : 2005/7/1 02:50
Question : Are you still going to produce the The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 motherboard?
Regarding the console article I am really disappointed in Anand for not blogging an explanation as to why the article was removed. It is very unlike him to not be transparent on such things and is a let down. The article was great but silencing the press when the article is already in the wild and on many sites is a waste. The source can't be protected because of this - what is the real reason?
#73: Cut the conspiracy theory crap. MS didn't delay Win64 "to allow sluggish Intel to catch up." Do you also believe that Elvis is alive and the CIA killed JFK? Come on.
Microsoft and Intel have a love-hate relationship, and neither is tied to the other. MS wants to sell software and commoditize hardware. Intel wants to sell hardware and commoditze software. Mutually exclusive goals make a conspiracy very unlikely.
Hey, kids, let's put on our thinking caps and put down the reefer!
Define "a lot slower," please. A lot hotter? Until recently, you had to use a third-party fan/heatsink for AMD where the one that comes with the Intel processor was fine. More expensive? Yes, on the outset. You're paying for a name in the same way that you pay for a Rolex or Lexus. Intel charges what people are willing to pay. YOU might not be willing, but 80% of the market is.
Hey, I think people are stupid for buying Britney Spears albums because I think her music is terrible, but she still sells a lot of records and (at the time) was downloaded from P2P extensively. "Better" doesn't always get the sales. Marketing does. I can't remember the last time I saw an AMD commercial on TV, but I see many Intel commercials daily and Centrino marketing is ubiquitous.
Please cite a link for the "incompetence" you claim.
I believe the branch predictor not the instruction queue was actually improved in Prescott to make up for the increased pipeline. As proof, performance between equal MHz Prescott and Northwood is about the same. Your inability to get your facts straight immediately discredits your arguments.
#74: Thanks for being an anonymous coward. So the AMD/Intel flame war has come down to insulting peoples' mothers? AMD zealots actually make AMD look BAD in the same way that Michael Moore makes Democrats look bad.
When you run out of facts, just start lobbing insults. Great. Just great. I see that this thread has devolved and its time to move on.
#68 - Windows 64 was deliberately delayed by Microsoft to allow sluggish Intel to catch up _after_ AMD64 support was in for months and to allow peripheral manufacturers to catch up too, so cut the BS!
As for CPUs, Intel P4 family CPUs are a lot slower, a lot hotter, more power hubgry and generally more expensive than comparable AMD64 CPUs, the only hope Intel has is to push damn hard with a Pentium M like CPU and replace their current broken multi-core, multi-CPU architecture.
The P4 family has a seriously broken instruction queue system which could cause ridiculously large slow downs, especially for HT, this was only partially fixed in the Prescott family. That is incompetence not innovation, this was even acknowledged in their patents!!! e.g. its a bit like having miles of capilliary piping and valves between the fuel tank and the engine instead of a normal pipe and fuel pump.
#69: Again, don't talk about Intel's "negative business practices" because NONE OF US HERE really know what's going on. Maybe the OEMs Anand was hearing from have ulterior motives. Maybe they were full of crap. YOU DON'T KNOW and cannot, logically, assume that Intel is at fault.
In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Please don't convict Intel in the court of public opinion before hearing the facts from both sides.
How does Intel's CEO steal millions from his company? Please give me a reputable link with hard claims. I think in the days of Sarbanes Oxley it's a hard sell on that paranoid conspiracy.
Craig Barrett's salary was actually BELOW the median for Semiconductor CEOs (http://www.forbes.com/static/execpay2005/LIRTFXO.h... His stock compensation, however, was higher because Intel has continuous record profit quarters.
Maybe AMD should focus on their business instead of trying to gain market share in court. I know at least 5 people that "will never buy AMD again" because of thermal issues. Maybe those days are over but my mom will never buy a Chrysler product again because of her experience from 1979!
You really come off sounding like a lunatic with wild, unsupported claims.
As for your technology points, you unwittingly prove my points - Intel took risks and moved on when they didn't pay off. Their marketing machine was successful even though some technologies were not. I said Intel is "smarter at how they go about selling processors" - and I stand by that.
Oh, and do you think that Intel didn't have 64 bit since the first P4 in 2000? Ha! The market wasn't ready, and the market proved Intel right when AMD had 64 bit for OVER 2 YEARS before you could do anything but a couple of versions of Linux in 64 bit.
Oh, and 64 bit on the desktop is not currently a smart move, anyway. When's the last time you needed >4GB threads? P4 has had 36bit extensions that allow up to 64GB of RAM, anyway, in 4GB chunks in the same fake way that "AMD64" does. I feel sorry for those chumps that bought AMD64 processors back in 2002.
Which brings me back to this: Intel ENABLES the market, it doesn't just come up with technologies. If AMD wants to succeed and/or dominate, it needs to learn this lesson.
Let's get this straight, kids: 64 bit on the desktop DOES NOT "DOUBLE" PERFORMANCE. All it does it break the 4GB barrier. That's it, end of story. Stop believing the crap about "twice the lanes" etc.
Take 64 bit Notepad. How many 64 bit ASCII characters will Notepad use? You got it! None! Unless you're doing high-end work (read: workstation graphics or Google-sized database work) 64 bit is pretty much a waste on the desktop.
I've read that AMD64 can add about 10% improvement over the 32 bit counterpart (that's being generous). On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that?
Please don't make rash claims that are easily dismissed.
Don't even get me started on Intel's vs. AMD's chipsets and motherboards...
#61- You're either a closed-minded European or a a very, very stupid American to refer the the 'right to make money' as a constitutional right. The United States is the most powerful country in the world with the most fair/productive implementation of a free-market economy around. We do draw the line at unfair business practices. We prosecute CEOs that bleed the company dry. The constitution gurantees life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness - and pretty much nothing else - especially when referring to business. Christ. That was the most brain-dead post I have seen in a long time. I feel for you and your family.
#61, It's one to compete for profits. That's fine. But when one prevents others from gaining profits through illicit means (basically bribing other companies to use their products), it's where you draw the line.
Great post, 48. Yes, the commodity machine does make the money for companies in cars, computers, pretty much anything, but the performance image parlays itself to marketing everything the company sells, eventually. Enough years of AMD kicking ass will catch up with Intel eventually. The twentysomethings that now realize what is going on become 30 and 40 somethings making purchasing decisions for major corporations.
Oh, and for every 'courtesy' that Intel gives their customers, there are dozens more negative impacts that their business practices have on consumers.
And as for Intel being 'smarter' than AMD at selling processors: WAKE THE *UCK UP. Is the CEO that steals millions from his company 'smarter?' How 'smart' was Intel in trying to force Rambus down our throats as a standard? The failed 1.13 Ghz PIII was very smart. Almost as smart as the 'hyperpipelined' arch. of the P4 that has resulted in thermal issues that have killed it. In fact, Intel is so smart, they 'decided' to go ahead and support AMD64 extentions in new processors. Oh, and AMD adopted DDR 2 years before Intel was 'smart' enough to do it.
Intel's marketing tricks and overall lack of any business ethics in dealing with competition is truly sickening. I will not support it. The company for whom I make purchasing decisions will not support it. (well, they didn't on the last 15 servers we bought - because I presented the options to our board)
All I see here is a lot of hearsay. "Intel strongarms OEMs." Okay, where's the proof? You trust AMD saying it? Someone had it right - AMD stands to gain 50% stock price if they win. I don't trust them for that very reason.
Further, I believe Intel is dominant because they're just smarter about how they go about selling processors. Co-branding, co-marketing, actually enabling the market for new technologies before rolling them out (can you say "2 years without a 64bit version of Windows," AMD?), visiting customers to enable them - even rewriting code for their customers. I'm sure there's much more.
Does AMD do all this? Maybe you should take a step back before you judge and look at the whole picture.
I am running Intel processors in my systems. The extra 5fps (when you're already getting 150fps) is probably the dumbest argument I've ever seen. Enthusiasts that care to squeeze every frame don't drive the market, Anand, and never will - just like motorheads that tweak out every last horsepower don't drive Detroit's market. I thought you would understand that.
Yes, a Chrysler 300C is way better than a Camry but the Camry will always sell better, mostly because of history - which brings us back to AMD.
#61:
the problem with "free market" is when these privelages are abused they hurt the concept of competition and in the end equate to higher prices for the end user. In fact, free market is not what is practiced in the US. we practice a mostly free market with boundaries set up by the SEC and other government organizations. My friends always say that its funny that capitalism in its purest form is horrible, whitnessed by companies such as Standard oil, Microsoft, Tyco, Worldcom, Enron, and now, Intel, and must be mitigated and restricted to protect the economy from collapse and inflation to skyrocket due to monopolies. on the other hand communism is a good system when practiced perfectly, but any dilution of it results in the fascist dictatorships witnessed in china, russia, and the USSR. The fact is that Intel is clearly raping AMD by making sure that they cannot sell their products to major OEMs, and prevent AMD from successfully marketing their products, which would increase competition, and thus lower prices, which is what capitalism is supposed to achieve, thus making the system self-defeating. it is at that point that we need to step in and say "enough" and make AMD whole.
i'm glad i read on a major publication in my lifetime what you mentioned about Motherboard Manufacturers. i love how they try to debunk the Chipset allocation issue.. i've been arguing that point just as an End-User for about seven years against Intel fanboys.
i remember how a link would surface on THG directing everyone to a K7 Motherboard product page on ASUS's Website and almost immediately after traffic started coming into that such it would vanish. for the longest time the only information you could find on a K7 solution was to go look at the product box at your Local Distributor (which Intel reps could easily do if they wanted to check on their Mobo clients dealings). i swear of all things FIC was the only Manufacturer whom from the start maintained any information publicly regarding their K7 Mobo. FIC!!
Intel has made some good products over the years but their business tactics are appalling. if it were not for such tactics i would own a Pentium M and a variety of other Intel products.
marcus-
yes its clearly a free market, but antiturst laws still exist. free market does mean that you can do whatever you want in the name of capitalism, are you also upset that it's illegal to sell cocaine? considering how profitable the drug industry is it would also be to quote you "a smarter business strategy" however it is illegal because cocaine turns people into worthless sacks of crap, and thus cocaine is detrimental to the nation's greater good.
the same theory is the reason for our antitrust laws, if a monopoly is allowed to squeeze out all competition then they are able to spend less money on development while raising prices, because there is no competition. on both counts the results of a monopoly are detrimental to the nation and even to the world. i agree that some of the things AMD states in the claim do sound like they are just better strategies by Intel, but also some of the things in there are clearly illegal and hurting the entire industry as well as the consumers.
Furthermore, you say that dell and HP should be allowed to choose to go entirely with AMD, however the reason Intel is being sued for this is Intels practices, threats and bribery. while this may or may not be true, AMD has the right to a hearing about it.
"I always hear that Intel has better stability, faster MHz and all the typically things from customers who hardly knows that AMD exists."
the only time i've run into a stability problems on my AMD system was when a cord prevented my cpu fan from spinning, and just yesterday when i left my window open and it rained on my computer. i think it was just a mouse that shorted something and crashed it. it was back up and running a few hours later, running distributed computing and video encoding ever since
#61
i'll say it again, there is no transmeta anymore,
and linus left them before that anyways.
i agree in premise with a lot of the things you said, but there are laws, and if AMD can prove Intel broke those laws (years ago?), then Intel's wallet will hurt.
but i believe i read somewhere that AMD also in addition to proving Intel broke these laws, needs to prove that Intel is a monopoly. and i don't think anybody can say that intel is a legel, recognized monopoly (in the legal sense of the word).
That X360/PS3 article was pure malarky, btw. This guy Anand should be ashamed of himself for writing that trash up. The X360 and PS3 will both be extremely powerful gaming platforms, in spite of what and of you geeks might want to think.
I think its really funny that in the United States, the most capitalistic country on Earth, which has a 'Free Market'. So if any thing, shouldn't it be a illegal to oppose this 'Free Market'? Isn't it just that maybe Intel has a smarter buisness strategy? And AMD is trying to abuse Intel's constitutional rights to compete for profit. Which is very ironic, because AMD is saying no one can compete against Intel, yet it is AMD that if anything is destroying the right to compete for proft. AMD can't complain that Dell decided run solely with Intel. It's Dell's right to capitlism. Intel convinced HP to maybe move away from AMD by supplying them with 'capital' to fight an 'enemy' of HP, isn't that their right?
How can AMD sue? The US is supposed to be a free country! AMD themeselves says they are doing very well! So why can they sue? Hypocritical. But at the time thats what the whole US is. Hypocritical. That is the whole system.
And just so you know, I am not an Intel 'fanboy'. Quite frankly I don't really care for AMD or Intel. I just buy whatever gets me the most power for cheapest. Maybe I should support Linus Torvalds and go for Transmeta instead?
I sincerely hope nothing negative will come of you or anandtech as a result of the ps3 v x360 article, but if at all possible, could you give us some explanation on why it was removed?
If for legal reasons you can't go into detail could you at least say something on the matter?
yeh i read it too, i think that some of it will be hard to prove, and some of it will be found to not be in violation of antitrust laws, but if AMD can prove even 5 or 6 incidents (and i hope they can) then they'll win big. paragraphs 102-105 were real intel killers :-)
I read the entire 48p. It's quite a scheme Intel is pulling there. It sounds very plausible too. Otellini's reply was not very convincing. He acts like he doesn't know what's going on in his sales department. He'll probably resign after the trial and get a golden handshake
(i.e. few million bucks to go).
I can say, good timing AMD. It's been long overdue for what Intel has been doing to subvert the CPU makers. In the sunny island of Singapore, where I live, OEM can sells exclusively Intel Desktops. The only break was the K7 Athlon 1 GHz in Compaq computers. But now, you see only the Sempron Mobile...
AMD has to make a move in more Asian countries to make itself more attractive than it really is. After that, well, Intel, better buck up there, you are the competition, after all. Oh, and I certainly hope VIA and Transmeta can do better if AMD wins out...
To quote Walt Whitman, "I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable, I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world."
If your vendor, reseller, oem, or general supplier won't stock what you want- sound your barbaric yawp until they do. If that doesn't work, exercise your free enterprise privies and find someone who will.
Personally, I commend Intel for their years of innovation. But what AMD has done in the last decade far surpasses the milestones of Intel. And these should both be recognized by even the most die-hard fanboys of either side of the debate. And let us not forget the innovations of the little guys whose innovations far outweigh their market share. "Here's to you Transmeta."
I find it quite disheartening that it takes a lawsuit to motivate end-users to truly question what defines the boundary between innovation and the bottom line. Yes, we should all pay less for our products- but at what cost?
I read what I could of AMD's complaint (basically until I couldn't stand to hear any more about how evil Intel has been). Thanks for posting this. It's inspired me to look further into things. Assuming further reading and following of this issue confirms AMD's claims, I hereby vow that my next computer will be my first AMD.
I originally posted this on the comments for the Console article blog, but since it got taken down, I'm putting it up here. I hope you get worked out what happened- I liked that article a lot.
-Anand, first of all, another great job on an article. I learned a lot of things I didn't know about the architectures and effective performance of those two upcoming consoles. I had, however, a question that is completely separate from the topic of the article. Have you ever thought about writing an article of Overclocking on a Budget? For example, you could put a system together with 1GB of OCZ Value VX RAM (with a motherboard that can provide it the voltage it needs, like the DFI NF4 Ultra-D), the Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Capable of running at 2.8GHz on stock Vcore and stock air cooling, up from a standard 2.0GHz), and any video card you'd care to throw in. I decided to price all this on Newegg, and it came out as a little over $700. I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting to see how this sort of system would compare to a FX-55 (or -57), "real" VX memory, and, again, whatever graphics card you wanted to use. Any thoughts, whether from you, Anand, or anyone else reading this?
Anand, first of all, another great job on an article. I learned a lot of things I didn't know about the architectures and effective performance of those two upcoming consoles. I had, however, a question that is completely separate from the topic of the article. Have you ever thought about writing an article of Overclocking on a Budget? For example, you could put a system together with 1GB of OCZ Value VX RAM (with a motherboard that can provide it the voltage it needs, like the DFI NF4 Ultra-D), the Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Capable of running at 2.8GHz on stock Vcore and stock air cooling, up from a standard 2.0GHz), and any video card you'd care to throw in. I decided to price all this on Newegg, and it came out as a little over $700. I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting to see how this sort of system would compare to a FX-55 (or -57), "real" VX memory, and, again, whatever graphics card you wanted to use. Any thoughts, whether from you, Anand, or anyone else reading this?
one other thing, amd should have filed this lawsuit in Texas were i live (Los Fresnos) that way we can put everyone one of the CEO bastards on death Row! hehehehehehehe!
first thing first i own 3 amd systems(2 754 and a 939)and sold my p4 system, why because amd kept on betting the intel system in gaming and photoshop. any how i hope amd really sticks it to Intel. i mean spank them HARDCORE. amd can then use the revenue to open up another fabrication plant to help produce more X2 chips and prices can come down. FRY intel amd. Fry them don't let them off the hook. if you dont they will contiue to bully you around, unless you throw down a smack down, then they will treat you a little better and they will be sneakier.
get them....get them.... and don't let up!!!!!
Probably although everyone on slashdot says Anand doesn't know anything about console programing and neither do his sources (triied finding the remining pages, but obviously failed). I don't really agree since Anand has never posted entirely flawed trash and my impression was that there was more than one source for this so they can't all be idiots.
Anyway I'd bet Sony too since while it is plausible that Microsoft would ask him to take it down they probably wouldn't have cared so much about his blog entry. That and the shear speed makes me remember the FBI's crack down on teh bittorrent for "Star Wars".
So, do you guys want to start taking bets on whether it was Sony or MS that made him take it down? My guess is Sony, since they've spent YEARS hyping up the Cell processor.
no unanonymous sources mentioned in the article... anyways anand wrote/uploaded it, so clearly he thought thatw as ok. dun see how the blog entry and the story could have been a mistake
itstrue-really - "i was there during some of the events written about in the 48page memo... wish i could say more but there's too much at stake for me personally"
"According to AMD spokespersons, in a private conference call numerous CEOs and others who have allegedly been strong-armed by Intel have been encouraging AMD to do this lawsuit just so they can be subpoenaed and "forced" to tell their tales of woe"
err, did i miss something or did the latest xbox 360/ps3 article disapear slightly faster then expected... something, er, wrong? enlighten us, i found teh article funny - i can now laugh at the people who were oging on about how the $300 console was going to won all gaming PCs
Otellini is a liar. I'm positive because i've seen this first hand, i was there during some of the events written about in the 48page memo... wish i could say more but there's too much at stake for me personally.
Man guess Anand couldn't take the heat. PS3 and XB360 article yanked real fast. Really needs some major revisions as to how it would run with PROPER code written specifically for it.
One other consideration that was pointed out to me by an Intel supporter (Questar)...
This is a CIVIL suit brought by AMD for damages. This is NOT a criminal case...
That means a few things:
1. AMD must only prove that THEY were harmed by Intel's actions...they need not prove the public was harmed.
2. If the DOJ finds enough supporting evidence as this case unfolds to show that the public was ALSO harmed, they can file an additional criminal suit.
3. The OEMs that were barred from trade by Intel's actions would also have a civil case, and just might join AMD in this suit...
#27, some of us 38 year olds do know about AMD chips. My last Intel chip was the 80486. Since then, all AMD:
XP 1800 - Win98. 7 year old son's Internet PC.
XP 2000+? - XP. Email PC.
A64 3200 - W2K3 Server. Main PC. Development.
A64 3200 - XP64. Gaming PC. BF2 and FarCry.
A64 3500 ZV6000 Laptop.
A64 3500+ 939 - gonna get tonight at the Techtour.
On topic. Good timing for AMD, what with the new FAB going online.
As a tech, i recommend what the customer wants. If someone comes in with the preconceived notion that Intel is the ONLY cpu out there then i teach them the difference. If they still want intel then i sell them intel and put more money in my pocket. Herein lies the problem. The older generation (30s-40s) who still think AMD is stuck in the K6-K7 days and don't know will still use Intel. It is us younger (18-30) generation that is helping to fuel AMD sales and to teach others about what is out there. Some still are stubborn and partake in the fanboy frame of mind but hey, they're uneducated and refuse to learn (this goes for both sides).
Anand hit the nail on the head here and gives a properly explained reason as to WHY AMD is filing this lawsuit.
Congrats for being impartial over the years. I'm an AMD fan, and have been so for a long time. All we ask for is fairness... we think in a level playing field, AMD will frequently dominate.
Regarding timing - AMD has a new fab coming on... this time they're not willing to convert the old one to flash... so, the publicity of the suit may help fill FAB36!
I'm thinking that the lawsuit will keep Intel on its toes. It'll think twice about offering "rebates" to copmanies to use Intel only cpus. It'll basically level out the playing field while Amd's new fab starts producing processors. Plus they can use the Japanese ruling as evidence.
AMD waited until now because they won't be accused of being like SCO/Linux. AMD has good press about their processors now, their pricing and availability aren't problems. Heat is only a problem to those who read old trade journals found in Dentist offices.
AMD will not appear to be suing just to get money to keep their doors open but because they really are a threat to INTEL's profit margin and that INTEL is clearly practicing illegal, anti-competitive techniques on all fronts.
It is the best time to file. It will also be the best time for INTEL to settle out of court for "an undisclosed amount." I hope AMD doesn't take the money, though.
AMD Picked the perfect time to roll on this. The new fab should be coming on board soon, they have top notch products across the board, and Intel has a very weak outlook for the next 18 months.
Anand,
Any idea when we may see your followup article with Developers comments?
I hope AMD wins this one so everyone sees what's going on behind the scenes. I always buy AMD CPU's and always recommends them when I get the question.I work for a IT company in sweden that sells mostly Fujitsu-Siemens computers which translates to only Intel cpu's in them. This sucks when there is better alternatives.
I always hear that Intel has better stability, faster MHz and all the typically things from customers who hardly knows that AMD exists.
Quoting somebody who obviously doesn't care much for AMD, from the "computer talk" section of my local college's "open discussion":
"AMD has serious overheating problems with their processors. They are their own worse problem."
Nobody has replied.
Really, if you stuck Intel in for AMD, that statement would be more correct then it is now...It's precicely the heat which prevented them from ramping up prescott's clockspeed anymore, is it not?
Anand, you´ll be the first to be called by AMD on a trial order to give this testimony:
“I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not: 1) Send an AMD motherboard for review, 2) Promote an AMD motherboard, 3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard”
Good luck as AMD witness!
#6, I second #7's comment about the case being brought in Delaware. I don't know where you got the California thing.
Anand, because of your close association over the years with hardware vendors, if you were asked to appear in court on either Intel or AMD's behalf, would you do it and for which side?
It appears that the analysts have already weighed in on this...
Wells Fargo says that there is a 75% probability that AMD will receive a favourable ruling to the tune of about $8/share...that's about $4 billion!
"AMD says Intel's dirty practices keep the cost of new computers high.
But I can buy a brand-new Dell 3Ghz P4 for like $500! Dare I say the cost would be significantly higher if Intel and Dell did not have a good deal going?"
I disagree...if Intel was forced to compete on price/performance alone (as they legally should do), that same system would probably be another $100 cheaper...or it would be an AMD! :-)
Mike Dell is the master at playing one vendor off against another, and I can't imagine that his bargaining would be diminished by a level playing field...more likely it would be enhanced!
Totally OT, and I'm sure you mentioned it before, but where is your wife going to law school and what year is she? What kind of law does she want to practice?
I ask because my girlfriend is in law school now, so I'm just curious.
AMD says Intel's dirty practices keep the cost of new computers high.
But I can buy a brand-new Dell 3Ghz P4 for like $500! Dare I say the cost would be significantly higher if Intel and Dell did not have a good deal going?
I personally think that Intel will settle this quickly (like they did in Japan).
If AMD could get Intel to completely cancel their rebate program as a settlement, my bet is that both would go for it.
AMD has a probable clear win in this case, but with all legal cases you just never know! If Intel cancelled their rebate program in the next few months, AMD has the right lineup of product to take advantage of it and they could probably gain more than they would if it went to trial.
Contrarily, Intel is already having a number of PR problems to contend with...and with the prospect of a multi-billion dollar loss at the end of the road, they might see settling as a blessing right now.
I'm thinking this will be a huge uphill battle for AMD unless there exists some form of a signed agreement between Intel and Company_X that specifically includes text which shows there was a conspiracy to exclude AMD. Strongarm deals (alleged, to be fair) like this are only discussed in person with nothing put into writing, so the burden of proof is immense.
In the absence of such incriminating documents, who's to say that Company_X didn't simply choose to keep their inventory lean by limiting the number of SKUs which they would need to stock? Yeah, that's a flaky explanation, but so is a case built upon potentially non-existent hard evidence and uncooperative witnesses (the Company_X's).
If I had my druthers, the end judgement would favor AMD -- but I'm not going to hold my breath.
A couple of points. First, I believe that AMD has let this slide for so long because they didn't have capital to expend on a lawsuit or the manufacturing ability to fill much more demand than what their market share has been. I think they are fixing to ramp up production and can fill a greater demand than currently exists. Second, I don't see this helping us "white box" manufacturers at all. We still have to compete with companys that buy their hardware in lots > 1000 pieces and Microsoft nearly giving their OS to Dell and the others. This may bring prices down on systems you purchase from big companies like HP or Dell, but we won't see any significant price breaks because of this. Now, with all that said, I am glad to see AMD feels they are now in the position to take on the 800 lb. gorilla and give them a fight. I hope it pays off for them and doesn't end up draining recources they could be using to further innovate. MY $.02.
I think it's ridiculous that it has come to this. I'm still having nightmares about Linux/SCO. I agree that Intel has been less than competive. Exclusivity seems to be a standard business practice in our industry. I myself have been all AMD except for a notebook. I just wish system builders would wake up and market their AMD systems as more than just an "alternative". In this day of political correctness everything from religious extremism to homosexuality is an "alternative". AMD does not deserve to be marketed this way! Dell and AMD both have thousands of employees in TX. There's no way they haven't talked before. Something artificial has to be in the way of an AMD Dell system...
but why bring this lawsuit now?
amd is gaining ground right now, they're advancing;
why bring up the past? (i know i know, amd thinks intel is still being a 'bully'...)
on another note, this lawsuit was filed in california - the state where NOBODY gets convicted!!!
I'm glad you don't sound overtly Pro-AMD. I can't stand it when someone is such a fanatic that they can't even be reasoned with on the most basic logical levels. Competition IS sorely needed in all markets, which is what free enterprise is SUPPOSED to be all about (but we all know corruption stinks in every facet of life).
I hope there is a more level playing field for all players. I, personally, prefer Intel processors (if only because they created the first popular microprocessor and I'm a bit of a loyalist (read: not fanboy crazy)), but I wish they'd get off their dead behinds and make something better than AMD. I know they can do it, they have the technical savvy. Maybe this lawsuit and pending decision will give them the kick in the butt they need and force them to be fair.
It would be great if AMD won this lawsuit. It would among other things balance out the availability of AMD processors in the big distributors.
More importantly than that, the small white box system builders would be more competitive because the price of Intel processors, for big distributors, would go up because of the lack of kickbacks to companies like Dell.
About a year ago, I actually wanted to just go out and purchase a desktop for my wife. I have been an AMD fan for many years (outside of an Intel Pentium M, my last 5? computers have been AMD). The ONLY option I could find was a 754 pin Compaq (I hadn't looked at buying a prebuilt system in years). When I saw what was out there, I went back to the tried and true "build it your own". It is no wonder AMD's share is sooo small.
I have been pushing the company that I work for to use Opterons in our servers, but we have to buy Dell, which means we have to use intel. Oh for a free market free market...
I certainly hope this lawsuit fares better than their last.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
111 Comments
Back to Article
SV - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Yes... Thats good. being a small biz owner, I got involved in a BIG BIZ (big boys) fight like this and had to kiss and make up.! Sometimes revenge with even law-suit is a great way to kick ass...!!!!!!!GO AMD.!
Xpander - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
I hope AMD wins this one! I hate this Intel monopolistic way of being ! Every It Shop recomends Intel products, even if AMD is much more cost effective !I paid 1200 $ for a p233 mmx back in 1998. I still regret that.
For 600 i got an AMD 1600+ in 2001. And it was great !
Now I have an Barton 2500+ on Asus a7n8x e deluxe and I`m very satisfied with it! My brother has the same !
Good luck AMD ! Keep it going !
alan - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
while true, AMD is sueing them under section 2Dan - Thursday, July 14, 2005 - link
102: "Intel has to be considered a monopoly first before it can be violating anti-trust laws"Not so. The Sherman Act covers two basic offenses: Monopolization and Restraint of Trade. Even though Intel isn't a monopoly, they can still be civilly or criminally liable for restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Pete - Thursday, July 14, 2005 - link
Where is Anand? This is not like him...dev - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
What may be seen as strong arm is generally correct, intel are now the microsoft of chip design, but most people who want real world performance still go other places linux vs microsoft, or in this case amd.as a tech, i just make sure that i give what will do the job better
Christopher - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
Something tells me that Intel and Microsoft are taking leaves out of each other's books, by threatening people who try to compete with them and by twisting manufacturer's arms in order to get them to stick with Intel, when AMD chips are really the better chip on the market.Tim - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
It seems that AMD is not the only one suspicious of Intel. The EU raided Intel's European offices today on suspicion of allged antitrust behavior. Perhaps this isn't just hearsay (for all of you nay-sayers in the crowd). As they say here in America, the proof is in the bottom of the paper shredder.Read more:
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml...
viditor - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
"while Intel dominates the market, it does not have a monopoly"I don't think that there's any question that Intel certainly IS a monopoly, though proving it will take time. Remember that a monopoly only means control of the market, not being the only one in it. The US regards any company with greater than 50% marketshare to be a probable monopoly...
Insomniac - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
Stan: Intel has to be considered a monopoly first before it can be violating anti-trust laws. It's clear the alleged behavior would qualify as anti-trust under U.S. laws, however, while Intel dominates the market, it does not have a monopoly. Until Intel is considered a monopoly, they are just competing.smn198 - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
#98 Ha ha!Anonymous - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
time for new Blog?viditor - Monday, July 11, 2005 - link
Prakash patel - "Can i run my A8N-SLI motherboard without a graphics card? What will be the result on my display?"There is no onboard graphics on the A8N...so the result would be a black screen as there would be no place to plug the screen into. :-)
As to dealers in Mumubai, I have no idea...
Try going to http://www.google.co.in/ and search around for the best prices...
Prakash patel - Monday, July 11, 2005 - link
hi,this is completely offtrack. but i couldnt think of any other place where i could get an assured reply.
1) What would be best dealer(in Mumbai / Pune) to get a bargain on a nvidia 6600 GT graphics card?
2)Can i run my A8N-SLI motherboard without a graphics card? What will be the result on my display?
thanx in advance and extremely sorry if i have been a bother.
Anonymous - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link
Anand, donde esta?Stan - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link
It is indisputable fact that Intel has forced companies to use only their products in a distinct effort to squeeze AMD out of the desktop microprocessor business. It is the definition of anti-trust and is clearly against the law. Though I'm sure there are legal loopholes to get around it. But it is undeniably unfair business practice and has been happening for many many years.In fact, if pressured, I’d be willing to present Intel memos that prove they have been performing unfair business tactics for years.
viditor - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
Steve Husted - "All I see here is a lot of hearsay. "Intel strongarms OEMs." Okay, where's the proof? You trust AMD saying it?"1. Just like Anand has, I have witnessed these strongarm tactics firsthand myself (though not as much as Anand has...)
2. Please note that Intel HAS NOT DENIED them...their only response was that they haven't done anything illegal.
"AMD stands to gain 50% stock price if they win"
Winning or losing won't happen for years...and unless AMD was very confident of winning, that's a hell of a long time to wait and a lot of money to spend!
"Maybe AMD should focus on their business instead of trying to gain market share in court."
Without being allowed to fairly compete, they can only expect the same incremental gains they have been experiencing for their efforts...at this point, a judicial remedy is a requirement, not a luxury.
"I know at least 5 people that "will never buy AMD again" because of thermal issues"
I guees that means that Intel's future is pretty dismal (at least if your logic is descriptive of the majority...).
"Their marketing machine was successful even though some technologies were not. I said Intel is "smarter at how they go about selling processors" - and I stand by that"
Due respect, but attributing Intel's success in tough times to their marketing team alone is fairly naive...
To be clear, using their current control of the x86 market in order to force exclusive deals isn't marketing at all...nor is it legal.
"64 bit on the desktop is not currently a smart move, anyway. When's the last time you needed >4GB threads?"
Today...I was editing a large uncompressed movie in one chunk.
"On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that? Please don't make rash claims that are easily dismissed"
OK...AthlonXPs have been discontinued for awhile now, so you were looking at old stock being dumped. That might help you see it differently? (trying not to be rash...) :-)
"P4 has had 36bit extensions that allow up to 64GB of RAM, anyway, in 4GB chunks in the same fake way that "AMD64" does. I feel sorry for those chumps that bought AMD64 processors back in 2002"
Mate, you really need to go back and read that "don't make rash statements" comment you made!
Let me help...I believe you are speaking of PAE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAE
This let's you use up to 64GB of system memory, that's true...but you are unable to address more than 4GB (i.e. you cannot open a file larger than 2.5 GB, because Windows reserves 1.5GB for system use).
Of course this has NOTHING to do with AMD64, which does not need PAE at all for the first 128GB, and with PAE can address up to 256 TeraBytes.
"Define "a lot slower," please. A lot hotter? Until recently, you had to use a third-party fan/heatsink for AMD where the one that comes with the Intel processor was fine. More expensive? Yes, on the outset. You're paying for a name in the same way that you pay for a Rolex or Lexus. Intel charges what people are willing to pay. YOU might not be willing, but 80% of the market is"
1. Intel isn't really a LOT slower...on average it's close to 10-30% slower at an equivalent cost basis...
2. Intel's processors (except the P-M) are about twice as hot as the equivalent AMD. This is by far the highest temperature differential in the history of the x86!
3. The expensive part is really the whole crux of the suit and why it's important for the average guy that AMD win...
80% of the market presently choose Intel because they have no choice! With OEMs having (as the former head of Compaq put it) a gun to their heads to supress AMDs presence, the largest customers (business) don't have an AMD system available for purchase that has the requisite service that only OEMs can provide.
cristick - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
Well, I think this debate is just at it's beginnings, but one thing it's clear: it will be "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING". From my point of view, even if AMD wins and INTEL will be forced to stop or at least diminish their unfair way to face the competition, after a little while INTEL will continue those strategies to impose their products and control the market. That's so bad, because in the last 2 years INTEL didn't bring anything really new from technologically point of view, just a little bit of an evolution. And by the way, why consumers must buy an entirely new platform when INTEL decises to make even small changes on their line-up and pay a big deal of money for that, even if performances are not justified? Examples: SDR--->RDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2Phaxmohdem - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
People have been compaining about the timing of this suit throughout the thread. "Why didn't they do it ealier when they had more problems.... blah blah blah" Here is my reasoning for why this is a great time to go forward:1. AMD has been making money for a change with their processors. Their limiting factor right now (besides Intel) is prodcution capability. They have built up capital to sustain a long legal battle they will most likely win.
2. Even if they do not win this will get the company more recognition, and more mredia exposure throughout the whole process.
3. Nearing the end or perhaps during the legal proceedings, their brand new Fab will be coming online dramatically increasing their production capabilities. (If the ruling is in AMD's favor, their will most likely be increased demand for their products, they will then be able to meet)
4. Even with better desktop/server processors if AMD does not act now, their situation will only continue to deteriorate.
5. Japan's antitrust ruling gives them some leverage.
Just my .02
shockerweb - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
intel is a miserable company which should crumble to amds massively better empire. intel sucks and they even admit it. amd pwnsTheChefO - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
I wonder if it's just going to be renamed "tech.com"...hmm....
Anonymous - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Refer to #84Anandtech without Anand!
I'm pissed. I'm also surprised to see the 1st article still up since it also mentions the consoles having a weak cpu.
Broken - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Sorry, Steve, the CEOs stealing being smarter was not intended to be aimed at Intel, just a general business ethics reference in the light of what has been happening lately..As far as even beginning to defend Intel on the design (thermal issues, throttling) of the P4, you are a brave, brave man. Everybody that has followed chip architecture for the last 5 years has seen how 'broken' the hyperpipelined P4 design is. The processor is just beginning to turn the corner in performance at passing 3 gig. Intel's own launch white papers from the original P4 launch comment that the architecture was designed for 5 - 10 ghz speeds and will take an efficiency hit at the slower intro speeds. True, Intel has seen the utter end of the performance road with the .09 process Prescotts running HOTTER than the .13 cores. Please explain this to me..it makes no sense.
AMD's switch to .09 process has brought a cooler running processor and faster clock speeds - two things that Intel's move failed to achieve. True, Intel has it right with the Pentium M design, especially the Centrino implementation.
A thorough analyst will be able to see a pattern here:
AMD intorduces the Athlon 500 - beats PIII 500 in benchmarks.
AMD first to 600 mhz.
AMD first to 700 mhz..
AMD first to 1 ghz..
Intel fails with 1.13 ghz PIII, all review samples and OEM alotments recalled..
Intel designed the P4 for one thing: EGO.
Designing an inefficient processor that has to run at an artificially high clock rate to get the same work done as processors running 500 mhz slower is marketing trickery. When suzy homemaker goes to the store to get a PC in 2000, 1.6 is bigger than 1.2 (P4 to Athlon) so the 1.6 MUST be faster. Absolute marketing bullshit..
Inasmuch as this kind of blatant lying to the public may sell more processors to the sheep, an analysis of the technical merits of the designs are what get discussed on a board like this. I am not some big AMD fanboy, but I have done enough research to write 2 research papers for different classes on the subject of comparing the Athlon to the P4 architecture and a marketing analysis of Intel based on the development of the P4 as a tool to show 'artificially' high mhz numbers.
I just think it is about time that some of the things that have been happening get put out on the table for the public to judge for themselves. It's all about the ethics: Just because you CAN get away with something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD. Everybody has to pay the piper sometimes and Intel shouldn't be any different..
Creathir - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Anand, where did ya go? It has been over a week and NOTHING. The last we heard, you posted an article, then it disappeared, followed by your own magic act?!? 8 days and counting....- Creathir
Anonymous - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
oh!TheChefO - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Oh and btw - please clear up this amd/intel mess and just put on the label that ms minimum requirements are amd 1.5ghz or equivelant (ie: intel 3ghz+)thx
TheChefO - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Ahhh - Microsoft now OWNS Anandtech ... I get itwell ... in that case can we get all this garbage about MACs off this site along with all the LINUX garbage?
thx
Bob Sears - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Due to the unauthorized release of information violating several NDA's Anandtech is now under completely new management designated by Microsoft. Anand will not be returning. For futher questions on the matter and the cpu article incedent. Please contact me by email.Bob Sears - Microsoft
rem - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
value for money is always the first I think about when I buy something.as long as AMD supports whatever technology or standard is thrown to the computing populace (nerds or not),they still have the edge although not all the time.Steve Rodrigue - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
#72 you are wrong"I've read that AMD64 can add about 10% improvement over the 32 bit counterpart (that's being generous). On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that?"
You can't directly compare Athlon XP and Athlon 64 rating. In fact, the performance of an Athlon XP 3200+ is equal to an Athlon 64 2800+.
- Athlon XP 3000+ are listed at 93$ on Pricewatch (Athlon XP 3200+ are so highly priced, we can'T consider them as comparison and they are EOL)
- Athlon 64 2800+ are liste 110$ on Pricewatch
So paying 18% more to get 64bit support, on-die memory controller AND better performane is not a bad deal from my point of view.
TheChefO - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Anyone notice Anand seems to be missing?????When was the last time you say an update/post/article from him??????
******Where is Anand?********
EdisonStarfire - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Nice comments Anand. I agree completely.Steve:
AthlonXP 3000 = $98
An Athlon64 3000 = $132
It's called an onboard memory controller. Research !! Anyone would be stupid to buy the XP over the 64 unless they were just broke or only internet surfing.
David Shumpis - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
You decide, it makes sense, Intel is pressuring OEM's in my opinion. It seems strange that Gigabyte is not offer certain boards at the release of the Intel Royal series.From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 235181
Sent : 2005/6/27 04:01
Question : I just purchased the gigabyte 7800GTX video card. I am concerned that this card being long will interfer with the sata connecters towards the end of the card. My question is will it over hang and prohibit the use of the sata connecters?
I have been looking without any success for your Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 motherboard. This board would pair up nicely. Can you tell me why no USA online vendor can get stock concerning this board? CAN YOU SELL ME ONE? or at the least stock the online vendors> zipzoomfly is the only vendor that list it on their site but as out of stock> what gives with the high cost as well?
Answer : Dear Customer,Answer - 235181
No need to worry, as longer PCI-E cards will not interfere with the SATA2 connectors on the GA-K8NXP-SLI. The SATA cable may make contact with the PCB of the PCI-E cards, but this is within specifications.
The GA-K8NXP-9 release is on hold. I currently have no ETA. The current available model is the GA-K8N Ultra-9. The main difference is that DPS is not supported, and a WiFi card is not included on the latter.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 236460
Sent : 2005/6/29 20:00
Question : The whole reason behind buyying the Gigabyte 7800GTX was to pair it up with a motherboard hat fits the setup. The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 fits this. I am one to pair up video cards with motherboards. Since you have no ETA, unfortunately the SLI version is shy one needed pci slot and my next choice is your competition, BFG BFGRNF4U. Its not my first choice. This is why I stopped buying Asus, MSI motherboards. They never had stock on motherboards they claimed availability on their website, as your company does on their website concerning the GA-K8NXP-9. This is indeed unfortunate for me. I apologize for taking your time.
Thank you.
Answer : Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products. Answer - 236460
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 237134
Sent : 2005/7/1 02:50
Question : Are you still going to produce the The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 motherboard?
Answer : Dear Customer, Answer - 237134
This model is in limited production and only available in the UK and Austrailia.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
From : David Shumpis [ HAL3200@PEOPLEPC.COM ] Question - 237681
Sent : 2005/7/2 11:44
Question : Do you mean that you are not going to sell this motherboard in the USA? You sell more products here in America than any other country. What kind of answer is the last 2 post to my questions. I ask again are you going to sell the GA-K8NXP-9 in the USA? If not just say so. I can not believe that a company as yours in stepping backwards and hurting potential sales by not having product. Do you believe that you will increase sales this way? Can you sell me direct this motherboard?
Answer : Dear Customer,Answer - 237681
The GA-K8NXP-9 is limited and will probably not be available in the US market.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 239009
Sent : 2005/7/6 05:26
Question : will you offer a newer MB that is equivalent, one with the DPS feature and is not SLI?
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ] Question - 239043
Sent : 2005/7/6 07:40
Question : June 28, 2005
AMD sues Intel - Tuesday, Jun 28, 2005 2:03 PM
So AMD is suing Intel. First, I'd suggest reading through the 48-page complaint filed by AMD. Given that Vinney is in law school, I've seen a few of these things, but this one is surprisingly legible even for us non-legal types :)
I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:
I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:
1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard
Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.
The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.
The list goes on and on.
What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.
Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.
What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.
One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.
Your thoughts?
Does this come into play? Is this why there was only limited amount of the The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 . With the new release of your intel royal board?
Question - 239009
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ]
Sent : 2005/7/6 05:26
Question : will you offer a newer MB that is equivalent, one with the DPS feature and is not SLI?
Answer - 237681
Answer : Dear Customer,
The GA-K8NXP-9 is limited and will probably not be available in the US market.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
Question - 237681
From : David Shumpis [ HAL3200@PEOPLEPC.COM ]
Sent : 2005/7/2 11:44
Question : Do you mean that you are not going to sell this motherboard in the USA? You sell more products here in America than any other country. What kind of answer is the last 2 post to my questions. I ask again are you going to sell the GA-K8NXP-9 in the USA? If not just say so. I can not believe that a company as yours in stepping backwards and hurting potential sales by not having product. Do you believe that you will increase sales this way? Can you sell me direct this motherboard?
Answer - 237134
Answer : Dear Customer,
This model is in limited production and only available in the UK and Austrailia.
Thank you for choosing Gigabyte products
Question - 237134
From : David Shumpis [ hal3200@peoplepc.com ]
Sent : 2005/7/1 02:50
Question : Are you still going to produce the The Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 motherboard?
g2cris - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
one word. EQUILLIBRIUM. If the government has to get involved to attain this, so be it.Pete Jenkins - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
Regarding the console article I am really disappointed in Anand for not blogging an explanation as to why the article was removed. It is very unlike him to not be transparent on such things and is a let down. The article was great but silencing the press when the article is already in the wild and on many sites is a waste. The source can't be protected because of this - what is the real reason?Husted Steve - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
#75 - ... you stink! kekekekekeke!Steve Husted - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
#73: Cut the conspiracy theory crap. MS didn't delay Win64 "to allow sluggish Intel to catch up." Do you also believe that Elvis is alive and the CIA killed JFK? Come on.Microsoft and Intel have a love-hate relationship, and neither is tied to the other. MS wants to sell software and commoditize hardware. Intel wants to sell hardware and commoditze software. Mutually exclusive goals make a conspiracy very unlikely.
Hey, kids, let's put on our thinking caps and put down the reefer!
Define "a lot slower," please. A lot hotter? Until recently, you had to use a third-party fan/heatsink for AMD where the one that comes with the Intel processor was fine. More expensive? Yes, on the outset. You're paying for a name in the same way that you pay for a Rolex or Lexus. Intel charges what people are willing to pay. YOU might not be willing, but 80% of the market is.
Hey, I think people are stupid for buying Britney Spears albums because I think her music is terrible, but she still sells a lot of records and (at the time) was downloaded from P2P extensively. "Better" doesn't always get the sales. Marketing does. I can't remember the last time I saw an AMD commercial on TV, but I see many Intel commercials daily and Centrino marketing is ubiquitous.
Please cite a link for the "incompetence" you claim.
I believe the branch predictor not the instruction queue was actually improved in Prescott to make up for the increased pipeline. As proof, performance between equal MHz Prescott and Northwood is about the same. Your inability to get your facts straight immediately discredits your arguments.
#74: Thanks for being an anonymous coward. So the AMD/Intel flame war has come down to insulting peoples' mothers? AMD zealots actually make AMD look BAD in the same way that Michael Moore makes Democrats look bad.
When you run out of facts, just start lobbing insults. Great. Just great. I see that this thread has devolved and its time to move on.
Regs - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
Steve, no offense to you, but your mother sounds as ignorant as the general public who know nothing about AMD or Intel.Infernoz - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
#68 - Windows 64 was deliberately delayed by Microsoft to allow sluggish Intel to catch up _after_ AMD64 support was in for months and to allow peripheral manufacturers to catch up too, so cut the BS!As for CPUs, Intel P4 family CPUs are a lot slower, a lot hotter, more power hubgry and generally more expensive than comparable AMD64 CPUs, the only hope Intel has is to push damn hard with a Pentium M like CPU and replace their current broken multi-core, multi-CPU architecture.
The P4 family has a seriously broken instruction queue system which could cause ridiculously large slow downs, especially for HT, this was only partially fixed in the Prescott family. That is incompetence not innovation, this was even acknowledged in their patents!!! e.g. its a bit like having miles of capilliary piping and valves between the fuel tank and the engine instead of a normal pipe and fuel pump.
Steve Husted - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
#69: Again, don't talk about Intel's "negative business practices" because NONE OF US HERE really know what's going on. Maybe the OEMs Anand was hearing from have ulterior motives. Maybe they were full of crap. YOU DON'T KNOW and cannot, logically, assume that Intel is at fault.In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Please don't convict Intel in the court of public opinion before hearing the facts from both sides.
How does Intel's CEO steal millions from his company? Please give me a reputable link with hard claims. I think in the days of Sarbanes Oxley it's a hard sell on that paranoid conspiracy.
Craig Barrett's salary was actually BELOW the median for Semiconductor CEOs (http://www.forbes.com/static/execpay2005/LIRTFXO.h...
His stock compensation, however, was higher because Intel has continuous record profit quarters.
Maybe AMD should focus on their business instead of trying to gain market share in court. I know at least 5 people that "will never buy AMD again" because of thermal issues. Maybe those days are over but my mom will never buy a Chrysler product again because of her experience from 1979!
You really come off sounding like a lunatic with wild, unsupported claims.
As for your technology points, you unwittingly prove my points - Intel took risks and moved on when they didn't pay off. Their marketing machine was successful even though some technologies were not. I said Intel is "smarter at how they go about selling processors" - and I stand by that.
Oh, and do you think that Intel didn't have 64 bit since the first P4 in 2000? Ha! The market wasn't ready, and the market proved Intel right when AMD had 64 bit for OVER 2 YEARS before you could do anything but a couple of versions of Linux in 64 bit.
Oh, and 64 bit on the desktop is not currently a smart move, anyway. When's the last time you needed >4GB threads? P4 has had 36bit extensions that allow up to 64GB of RAM, anyway, in 4GB chunks in the same fake way that "AMD64" does. I feel sorry for those chumps that bought AMD64 processors back in 2002.
Which brings me back to this: Intel ENABLES the market, it doesn't just come up with technologies. If AMD wants to succeed and/or dominate, it needs to learn this lesson.
Let's get this straight, kids: 64 bit on the desktop DOES NOT "DOUBLE" PERFORMANCE. All it does it break the 4GB barrier. That's it, end of story. Stop believing the crap about "twice the lanes" etc.
Take 64 bit Notepad. How many 64 bit ASCII characters will Notepad use? You got it! None! Unless you're doing high-end work (read: workstation graphics or Google-sized database work) 64 bit is pretty much a waste on the desktop.
I've read that AMD64 can add about 10% improvement over the 32 bit counterpart (that's being generous). On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that?
Please don't make rash claims that are easily dismissed.
Don't even get me started on Intel's vs. AMD's chipsets and motherboards...
Broken - Monday, July 4, 2005 - link
#61- You're either a closed-minded European or a a very, very stupid American to refer the the 'right to make money' as a constitutional right. The United States is the most powerful country in the world with the most fair/productive implementation of a free-market economy around. We do draw the line at unfair business practices. We prosecute CEOs that bleed the company dry. The constitution gurantees life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness - and pretty much nothing else - especially when referring to business. Christ. That was the most brain-dead post I have seen in a long time. I feel for you and your family.Duracell - Monday, July 4, 2005 - link
#61, It's one to compete for profits. That's fine. But when one prevents others from gaining profits through illicit means (basically bribing other companies to use their products), it's where you draw the line.Broken - Monday, July 4, 2005 - link
Great post, 48. Yes, the commodity machine does make the money for companies in cars, computers, pretty much anything, but the performance image parlays itself to marketing everything the company sells, eventually. Enough years of AMD kicking ass will catch up with Intel eventually. The twentysomethings that now realize what is going on become 30 and 40 somethings making purchasing decisions for major corporations.Oh, and for every 'courtesy' that Intel gives their customers, there are dozens more negative impacts that their business practices have on consumers.
And as for Intel being 'smarter' than AMD at selling processors: WAKE THE *UCK UP. Is the CEO that steals millions from his company 'smarter?' How 'smart' was Intel in trying to force Rambus down our throats as a standard? The failed 1.13 Ghz PIII was very smart. Almost as smart as the 'hyperpipelined' arch. of the P4 that has resulted in thermal issues that have killed it. In fact, Intel is so smart, they 'decided' to go ahead and support AMD64 extentions in new processors. Oh, and AMD adopted DDR 2 years before Intel was 'smart' enough to do it.
Intel's marketing tricks and overall lack of any business ethics in dealing with competition is truly sickening. I will not support it. The company for whom I make purchasing decisions will not support it. (well, they didn't on the last 15 servers we bought - because I presented the options to our board)
Steve Husted - Monday, July 4, 2005 - link
All I see here is a lot of hearsay. "Intel strongarms OEMs." Okay, where's the proof? You trust AMD saying it? Someone had it right - AMD stands to gain 50% stock price if they win. I don't trust them for that very reason.Further, I believe Intel is dominant because they're just smarter about how they go about selling processors. Co-branding, co-marketing, actually enabling the market for new technologies before rolling them out (can you say "2 years without a 64bit version of Windows," AMD?), visiting customers to enable them - even rewriting code for their customers. I'm sure there's much more.
Does AMD do all this? Maybe you should take a step back before you judge and look at the whole picture.
I am running Intel processors in my systems. The extra 5fps (when you're already getting 150fps) is probably the dumbest argument I've ever seen. Enthusiasts that care to squeeze every frame don't drive the market, Anand, and never will - just like motorheads that tweak out every last horsepower don't drive Detroit's market. I thought you would understand that.
Yes, a Chrysler 300C is way better than a Camry but the Camry will always sell better, mostly because of history - which brings us back to AMD.
Ab2kgj - Sunday, July 3, 2005 - link
#61:the problem with "free market" is when these privelages are abused they hurt the concept of competition and in the end equate to higher prices for the end user. In fact, free market is not what is practiced in the US. we practice a mostly free market with boundaries set up by the SEC and other government organizations. My friends always say that its funny that capitalism in its purest form is horrible, whitnessed by companies such as Standard oil, Microsoft, Tyco, Worldcom, Enron, and now, Intel, and must be mitigated and restricted to protect the economy from collapse and inflation to skyrocket due to monopolies. on the other hand communism is a good system when practiced perfectly, but any dilution of it results in the fascist dictatorships witnessed in china, russia, and the USSR. The fact is that Intel is clearly raping AMD by making sure that they cannot sell their products to major OEMs, and prevent AMD from successfully marketing their products, which would increase competition, and thus lower prices, which is what capitalism is supposed to achieve, thus making the system self-defeating. it is at that point that we need to step in and say "enough" and make AMD whole.
pmrdij - Sunday, July 3, 2005 - link
Anand,i'm glad i read on a major publication in my lifetime what you mentioned about Motherboard Manufacturers. i love how they try to debunk the Chipset allocation issue.. i've been arguing that point just as an End-User for about seven years against Intel fanboys.
i remember how a link would surface on THG directing everyone to a K7 Motherboard product page on ASUS's Website and almost immediately after traffic started coming into that such it would vanish. for the longest time the only information you could find on a K7 solution was to go look at the product box at your Local Distributor (which Intel reps could easily do if they wanted to check on their Mobo clients dealings). i swear of all things FIC was the only Manufacturer whom from the start maintained any information publicly regarding their K7 Mobo. FIC!!
Intel has made some good products over the years but their business tactics are appalling. if it were not for such tactics i would own a Pentium M and a variety of other Intel products.
Robert - (PmR)DeathInJune
Alan - Saturday, July 2, 2005 - link
marcus-yes its clearly a free market, but antiturst laws still exist. free market does mean that you can do whatever you want in the name of capitalism, are you also upset that it's illegal to sell cocaine? considering how profitable the drug industry is it would also be to quote you "a smarter business strategy" however it is illegal because cocaine turns people into worthless sacks of crap, and thus cocaine is detrimental to the nation's greater good.
the same theory is the reason for our antitrust laws, if a monopoly is allowed to squeeze out all competition then they are able to spend less money on development while raising prices, because there is no competition. on both counts the results of a monopoly are detrimental to the nation and even to the world. i agree that some of the things AMD states in the claim do sound like they are just better strategies by Intel, but also some of the things in there are clearly illegal and hurting the entire industry as well as the consumers.
Furthermore, you say that dell and HP should be allowed to choose to go entirely with AMD, however the reason Intel is being sued for this is Intels practices, threats and bribery. while this may or may not be true, AMD has the right to a hearing about it.
plonk420 - Saturday, July 2, 2005 - link
"I always hear that Intel has better stability, faster MHz and all the typically things from customers who hardly knows that AMD exists."the only time i've run into a stability problems on my AMD system was when a cord prevented my cpu fan from spinning, and just yesterday when i left my window open and it rained on my computer. i think it was just a mouse that shorted something and crashed it. it was back up and running a few hours later, running distributed computing and video encoding ever since
Anonymous - Saturday, July 2, 2005 - link
#61i'll say it again, there is no transmeta anymore,
and linus left them before that anyways.
i agree in premise with a lot of the things you said, but there are laws, and if AMD can prove Intel broke those laws (years ago?), then Intel's wallet will hurt.
but i believe i read somewhere that AMD also in addition to proving Intel broke these laws, needs to prove that Intel is a monopoly. and i don't think anybody can say that intel is a legel, recognized monopoly (in the legal sense of the word).
stat - Saturday, July 2, 2005 - link
That X360/PS3 article was pure malarky, btw. This guy Anand should be ashamed of himself for writing that trash up. The X360 and PS3 will both be extremely powerful gaming platforms, in spite of what and of you geeks might want to think.Marcus - Saturday, July 2, 2005 - link
I think its really funny that in the United States, the most capitalistic country on Earth, which has a 'Free Market'. So if any thing, shouldn't it be a illegal to oppose this 'Free Market'? Isn't it just that maybe Intel has a smarter buisness strategy? And AMD is trying to abuse Intel's constitutional rights to compete for profit. Which is very ironic, because AMD is saying no one can compete against Intel, yet it is AMD that if anything is destroying the right to compete for proft. AMD can't complain that Dell decided run solely with Intel. It's Dell's right to capitlism. Intel convinced HP to maybe move away from AMD by supplying them with 'capital' to fight an 'enemy' of HP, isn't that their right?How can AMD sue? The US is supposed to be a free country! AMD themeselves says they are doing very well! So why can they sue? Hypocritical. But at the time thats what the whole US is. Hypocritical. That is the whole system.
And just so you know, I am not an Intel 'fanboy'. Quite frankly I don't really care for AMD or Intel. I just buy whatever gets me the most power for cheapest. Maybe I should support Linus Torvalds and go for Transmeta instead?
TheChefO - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
Anand,I sincerely hope nothing negative will come of you or anandtech as a result of the ps3 v x360 article, but if at all possible, could you give us some explanation on why it was removed?
If for legal reasons you can't go into detail could you at least say something on the matter?
Take care,
-Chef
Alan - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
yeh i read it too, i think that some of it will be hard to prove, and some of it will be found to not be in violation of antitrust laws, but if AMD can prove even 5 or 6 incidents (and i hope they can) then they'll win big. paragraphs 102-105 were real intel killers :-)ceefka - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I read the entire 48p. It's quite a scheme Intel is pulling there. It sounds very plausible too. Otellini's reply was not very convincing. He acts like he doesn't know what's going on in his sales department. He'll probably resign after the trial and get a golden handshake(i.e. few million bucks to go).
Anonymous - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
#56there is no transmeta anymore....
Heron - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I can say, good timing AMD. It's been long overdue for what Intel has been doing to subvert the CPU makers. In the sunny island of Singapore, where I live, OEM can sells exclusively Intel Desktops. The only break was the K7 Athlon 1 GHz in Compaq computers. But now, you see only the Sempron Mobile...AMD has to make a move in more Asian countries to make itself more attractive than it really is. After that, well, Intel, better buck up there, you are the competition, after all. Oh, and I certainly hope VIA and Transmeta can do better if AMD wins out...
Tim - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
To quote Walt Whitman, "I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable, I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world."If your vendor, reseller, oem, or general supplier won't stock what you want- sound your barbaric yawp until they do. If that doesn't work, exercise your free enterprise privies and find someone who will.
Personally, I commend Intel for their years of innovation. But what AMD has done in the last decade far surpasses the milestones of Intel. And these should both be recognized by even the most die-hard fanboys of either side of the debate. And let us not forget the innovations of the little guys whose innovations far outweigh their market share. "Here's to you Transmeta."
I find it quite disheartening that it takes a lawsuit to motivate end-users to truly question what defines the boundary between innovation and the bottom line. Yes, we should all pay less for our products- but at what cost?
StGabe - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
I read what I could of AMD's complaint (basically until I couldn't stand to hear any more about how evil Intel has been). Thanks for posting this. It's inspired me to look further into things. Assuming further reading and following of this issue confirms AMD's claims, I hereby vow that my next computer will be my first AMD.smn198 - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
Cheers!JoeS - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
You can find the article here:http://forum.xbox365.com/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=ge...
Andrew Guyton - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
Whoops- almost double post. Delete #49, please. Sorry.Andrew Guyton - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
I originally posted this on the comments for the Console article blog, but since it got taken down, I'm putting it up here. I hope you get worked out what happened- I liked that article a lot.-Anand, first of all, another great job on an article. I learned a lot of things I didn't know about the architectures and effective performance of those two upcoming consoles. I had, however, a question that is completely separate from the topic of the article. Have you ever thought about writing an article of Overclocking on a Budget? For example, you could put a system together with 1GB of OCZ Value VX RAM (with a motherboard that can provide it the voltage it needs, like the DFI NF4 Ultra-D), the Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Capable of running at 2.8GHz on stock Vcore and stock air cooling, up from a standard 2.0GHz), and any video card you'd care to throw in. I decided to price all this on Newegg, and it came out as a little over $700. I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting to see how this sort of system would compare to a FX-55 (or -57), "real" VX memory, and, again, whatever graphics card you wanted to use. Any thoughts, whether from you, Anand, or anyone else reading this?
Andrew Guyton - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
Anand, first of all, another great job on an article. I learned a lot of things I didn't know about the architectures and effective performance of those two upcoming consoles. I had, however, a question that is completely separate from the topic of the article. Have you ever thought about writing an article of Overclocking on a Budget? For example, you could put a system together with 1GB of OCZ Value VX RAM (with a motherboard that can provide it the voltage it needs, like the DFI NF4 Ultra-D), the Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Capable of running at 2.8GHz on stock Vcore and stock air cooling, up from a standard 2.0GHz), and any video card you'd care to throw in. I decided to price all this on Newegg, and it came out as a little over $700. I'm guessing I'm not alone in wanting to see how this sort of system would compare to a FX-55 (or -57), "real" VX memory, and, again, whatever graphics card you wanted to use. Any thoughts, whether from you, Anand, or anyone else reading this?A5 - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
Not sure...must have gotten smacked down by Sony or MS...Randy - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
I was reading Part 2 of the PS3/360 article...I went to load page 3 and BAM! Gone.Then shortly after, there goes the blog.
And here I was salivating just waiting to read it.
I was wondering if Anand could tell us why it was pulled - I'm positive there is a good reason for it, I just want to know what the reason is.
Fred - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
one other thing, amd should have filed this lawsuit in Texas were i live (Los Fresnos) that way we can put everyone one of the CEO bastards on death Row! hehehehehehehe!Fred - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
first thing first i own 3 amd systems(2 754 and a 939)and sold my p4 system, why because amd kept on betting the intel system in gaming and photoshop. any how i hope amd really sticks it to Intel. i mean spank them HARDCORE. amd can then use the revenue to open up another fabrication plant to help produce more X2 chips and prices can come down. FRY intel amd. Fry them don't let them off the hook. if you dont they will contiue to bully you around, unless you throw down a smack down, then they will treat you a little better and they will be sneakier.get them....get them.... and don't let up!!!!!
Anonymous - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
blog can still be reached by going to:http://anandtech.com/weblog/comments.aspx?bid=229
first page is posted there
Alan - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
what was the blog? i only saw the articlesmn198 - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
Has anyone saved it? Would you be so kind as to email me it?Quantum - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
Probably although everyone on slashdot says Anand doesn't know anything about console programing and neither do his sources (triied finding the remining pages, but obviously failed). I don't really agree since Anand has never posted entirely flawed trash and my impression was that there was more than one source for this so they can't all be idiots.Anyway I'd bet Sony too since while it is plausible that Microsoft would ask him to take it down they probably wouldn't have cared so much about his blog entry. That and the shear speed makes me remember the FBI's crack down on teh bittorrent for "Star Wars".
Anonymous - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
So, do you guys want to start taking bets on whether it was Sony or MS that made him take it down? My guess is Sony, since they've spent YEARS hyping up the Cell processor.Alan - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
i was reading the article this morning on the XBOX 360 and PS3 CPUs and now it seems to be gone! por que? just curious, i liked itdaniel - Thursday, June 30, 2005 - link
no unanonymous sources mentioned in the article... anyways anand wrote/uploaded it, so clearly he thought thatw as ok. dun see how the blog entry and the story could have been a mistakeAhkorishaan - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Anand is protecting his source. Who needs to stay anonymous for several reasons, not the least of which is probably his job.daniel - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
if the stuff was true anand will put it back up. if it was flawed... well... i expect better.Quantum - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
... Oh um hmm WTH okay first the XB360/PS3 article now the blog whats next? I swear its gotta be a combined Sony/Microsoft effort.My plea still stands Email me pages 5 and up for christ sakes I already have 1-4 i need the rest...
Toobad I can't actually read it.. so much for freedom of speech and the press and what not.
viditor - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
itstrue-really - "i was there during some of the events written about in the 48page memo... wish i could say more but there's too much at stake for me personally"Evidently you're not the only one...
http://tinyurl.com/dbpap
"According to AMD spokespersons, in a private conference call numerous CEOs and others who have allegedly been strong-armed by Intel have been encouraging AMD to do this lawsuit just so they can be subpoenaed and "forced" to tell their tales of woe"
daniel - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
err, did i miss something or did the latest xbox 360/ps3 article disapear slightly faster then expected... something, er, wrong? enlighten us, i found teh article funny - i can now laugh at the people who were oging on about how the $300 console was going to won all gaming PCsitstrue-really - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Otellini is a liar. I'm positive because i've seen this first hand, i was there during some of the events written about in the 48page memo... wish i could say more but there's too much at stake for me personally.Omihall - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Man guess Anand couldn't take the heat. PS3 and XB360 article yanked real fast. Really needs some major revisions as to how it would run with PROPER code written specifically for it.Luke Florer - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
For those that wondered "Why Intel rather than AMD?" for the Apple announce, I believe this is your answer.viditor - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
One other consideration that was pointed out to me by an Intel supporter (Questar)...This is a CIVIL suit brought by AMD for damages. This is NOT a criminal case...
That means a few things:
1. AMD must only prove that THEY were harmed by Intel's actions...they need not prove the public was harmed.
2. If the DOJ finds enough supporting evidence as this case unfolds to show that the public was ALSO harmed, they can file an additional criminal suit.
3. The OEMs that were barred from trade by Intel's actions would also have a civil case, and just might join AMD in this suit...
JonasB - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
#27, some of us 38 year olds do know about AMD chips. My last Intel chip was the 80486. Since then, all AMD:XP 1800 - Win98. 7 year old son's Internet PC.
XP 2000+? - XP. Email PC.
A64 3200 - W2K3 Server. Main PC. Development.
A64 3200 - XP64. Gaming PC. BF2 and FarCry.
A64 3500 ZV6000 Laptop.
A64 3500+ 939 - gonna get tonight at the Techtour.
On topic. Good timing for AMD, what with the new FAB going online.
Screwballl - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
As a tech, i recommend what the customer wants. If someone comes in with the preconceived notion that Intel is the ONLY cpu out there then i teach them the difference. If they still want intel then i sell them intel and put more money in my pocket. Herein lies the problem. The older generation (30s-40s) who still think AMD is stuck in the K6-K7 days and don't know will still use Intel. It is us younger (18-30) generation that is helping to fuel AMD sales and to teach others about what is out there. Some still are stubborn and partake in the fanboy frame of mind but hey, they're uneducated and refuse to learn (this goes for both sides).Anand hit the nail on the head here and gives a properly explained reason as to WHY AMD is filing this lawsuit.
Mike Luddy - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Anand,Congrats for being impartial over the years. I'm an AMD fan, and have been so for a long time. All we ask for is fairness... we think in a level playing field, AMD will frequently dominate.
Regarding timing - AMD has a new fab coming on... this time they're not willing to convert the old one to flash... so, the publicity of the suit may help fill FAB36!
Plus
Snipe65 - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
I'm thinking that the lawsuit will keep Intel on its toes. It'll think twice about offering "rebates" to copmanies to use Intel only cpus. It'll basically level out the playing field while Amd's new fab starts producing processors. Plus they can use the Japanese ruling as evidence.JonB - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
AMD waited until now because they won't be accused of being like SCO/Linux. AMD has good press about their processors now, their pricing and availability aren't problems. Heat is only a problem to those who read old trade journals found in Dentist offices.AMD will not appear to be suing just to get money to keep their doors open but because they really are a threat to INTEL's profit margin and that INTEL is clearly practicing illegal, anti-competitive techniques on all fronts.
It is the best time to file. It will also be the best time for INTEL to settle out of court for "an undisclosed amount." I hope AMD doesn't take the money, though.
TheChefO - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
AMD Picked the perfect time to roll on this. The new fab should be coming on board soon, they have top notch products across the board, and Intel has a very weak outlook for the next 18 months.Anand,
Any idea when we may see your followup article with Developers comments?
Fluggo - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
I hope AMD wins this one so everyone sees what's going on behind the scenes. I always buy AMD CPU's and always recommends them when I get the question.I work for a IT company in sweden that sells mostly Fujitsu-Siemens computers which translates to only Intel cpu's in them. This sucks when there is better alternatives.I always hear that Intel has better stability, faster MHz and all the typically things from customers who hardly knows that AMD exists.
Intel has become the Microsoft of cpus...
Anonymous - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Why not file a lawsuit years ago when the things Anand talked about were really rampant?knitecrow - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
"I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard "
After reading these comments all i can say is -- wow. That sure sounds anti-competitive.
yelo333 - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Wow...A legible 48-page legal document.Quoting somebody who obviously doesn't care much for AMD, from the "computer talk" section of my local college's "open discussion":
"AMD has serious overheating problems with their processors. They are their own worse problem."
Nobody has replied.
Really, if you stuck Intel in for AMD, that statement would be more correct then it is now...It's precicely the heat which prevented them from ramping up prescott's clockspeed anymore, is it not?
Antiflash - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
Anand, you´ll be the first to be called by AMD on a trial order to give this testimony:“I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not: 1) Send an AMD motherboard for review, 2) Promote an AMD motherboard, 3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard”
Good luck as AMD witness!
Mark Little - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - link
#6, I second #7's comment about the case being brought in Delaware. I don't know where you got the California thing.Anand, because of your close association over the years with hardware vendors, if you were asked to appear in court on either Intel or AMD's behalf, would you do it and for which side?
:)
viditor - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
It appears that the analysts have already weighed in on this...Wells Fargo says that there is a 75% probability that AMD will receive a favourable ruling to the tune of about $8/share...that's about $4 billion!
http://tinyurl.com/e24ma
viditor - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
"AMD says Intel's dirty practices keep the cost of new computers high.But I can buy a brand-new Dell 3Ghz P4 for like $500! Dare I say the cost would be significantly higher if Intel and Dell did not have a good deal going?"
I disagree...if Intel was forced to compete on price/performance alone (as they legally should do), that same system would probably be another $100 cheaper...or it would be an AMD! :-)
Mike Dell is the master at playing one vendor off against another, and I can't imagine that his bargaining would be diminished by a level playing field...more likely it would be enhanced!
stash - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
Hey Anand,Totally OT, and I'm sure you mentioned it before, but where is your wife going to law school and what year is she? What kind of law does she want to practice?
I ask because my girlfriend is in law school now, so I'm just curious.
Thanks!
Anonymous - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
AMD says Intel's dirty practices keep the cost of new computers high.But I can buy a brand-new Dell 3Ghz P4 for like $500! Dare I say the cost would be significantly higher if Intel and Dell did not have a good deal going?
Anonymous - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
Does this really matter?as long as Intel has Dell... AMD is missing out,
and a lawsuit won't help that.
viditor - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
I personally think that Intel will settle this quickly (like they did in Japan).If AMD could get Intel to completely cancel their rebate program as a settlement, my bet is that both would go for it.
AMD has a probable clear win in this case, but with all legal cases you just never know! If Intel cancelled their rebate program in the next few months, AMD has the right lineup of product to take advantage of it and they could probably gain more than they would if it went to trial.
Contrarily, Intel is already having a number of PR problems to contend with...and with the prospect of a multi-billion dollar loss at the end of the road, they might see settling as a blessing right now.
We shall see!!
Houdani - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
I'm thinking this will be a huge uphill battle for AMD unless there exists some form of a signed agreement between Intel and Company_X that specifically includes text which shows there was a conspiracy to exclude AMD. Strongarm deals (alleged, to be fair) like this are only discussed in person with nothing put into writing, so the burden of proof is immense.In the absence of such incriminating documents, who's to say that Company_X didn't simply choose to keep their inventory lean by limiting the number of SKUs which they would need to stock? Yeah, that's a flaky explanation, but so is a case built upon potentially non-existent hard evidence and uncooperative witnesses (the Company_X's).
If I had my druthers, the end judgement would favor AMD -- but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Naughtygeek - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
A couple of points. First, I believe that AMD has let this slide for so long because they didn't have capital to expend on a lawsuit or the manufacturing ability to fill much more demand than what their market share has been. I think they are fixing to ramp up production and can fill a greater demand than currently exists. Second, I don't see this helping us "white box" manufacturers at all. We still have to compete with companys that buy their hardware in lots > 1000 pieces and Microsoft nearly giving their OS to Dell and the others. This may bring prices down on systems you purchase from big companies like HP or Dell, but we won't see any significant price breaks because of this. Now, with all that said, I am glad to see AMD feels they are now in the position to take on the 800 lb. gorilla and give them a fight. I hope it pays off for them and doesn't end up draining recources they could be using to further innovate. MY $.02.Chad - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
I think it's ridiculous that it has come to this. I'm still having nightmares about Linux/SCO. I agree that Intel has been less than competive. Exclusivity seems to be a standard business practice in our industry. I myself have been all AMD except for a notebook. I just wish system builders would wake up and market their AMD systems as more than just an "alternative". In this day of political correctness everything from religious extremism to homosexuality is an "alternative". AMD does not deserve to be marketed this way! Dell and AMD both have thousands of employees in TX. There's no way they haven't talked before. Something artificial has to be in the way of an AMD Dell system...Dave Graham - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
it was filed in Delaware, #6. I would love for my primary distributor, Synnex, to stock AMD cpus also, but alas, they're an intel-only haus.Anonymous - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
but why bring this lawsuit now?amd is gaining ground right now, they're advancing;
why bring up the past? (i know i know, amd thinks intel is still being a 'bully'...)
on another note, this lawsuit was filed in california - the state where NOBODY gets convicted!!!
OzzFan - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
I'm glad you don't sound overtly Pro-AMD. I can't stand it when someone is such a fanatic that they can't even be reasoned with on the most basic logical levels. Competition IS sorely needed in all markets, which is what free enterprise is SUPPOSED to be all about (but we all know corruption stinks in every facet of life).I hope there is a more level playing field for all players. I, personally, prefer Intel processors (if only because they created the first popular microprocessor and I'm a bit of a loyalist (read: not fanboy crazy)), but I wish they'd get off their dead behinds and make something better than AMD. I know they can do it, they have the technical savvy. Maybe this lawsuit and pending decision will give them the kick in the butt they need and force them to be fair.
Ionoxx - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
It would be great if AMD won this lawsuit. It would among other things balance out the availability of AMD processors in the big distributors.More importantly than that, the small white box system builders would be more competitive because the price of Intel processors, for big distributors, would go up because of the lack of kickbacks to companies like Dell.
Anonymous - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
About a year ago, I actually wanted to just go out and purchase a desktop for my wife. I have been an AMD fan for many years (outside of an Intel Pentium M, my last 5? computers have been AMD). The ONLY option I could find was a 754 pin Compaq (I hadn't looked at buying a prebuilt system in years). When I saw what was out there, I went back to the tried and true "build it your own". It is no wonder AMD's share is sooo small.son - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
well said anand...i do agreee, it would be nice to see jim bob go to best buy and truely get his hands on an extreme gaming system...Robby - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
I have been pushing the company that I work for to use Opterons in our servers, but we have to buy Dell, which means we have to use intel. Oh for a free market free market...I certainly hope this lawsuit fares better than their last.