AMD suing Intel!!

[Paul]

Neowin

It's been a long battle for AMD to gain headway in a market Intel has dominated all these years, but now it's taken a turn for the worst (or better, depending on how you look at it).

Not long after a much discussed price increase in its own line of dual and single core CPU's, some now more expensive than Intels own comparable line of CPU's, AMD -maker of x86 microprocessors, said Tuesday it had filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp., the world’s largest maker of chips, in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware accusing Intel of unfair competition, which limited market share growth of AMD.

“Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation -- and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market,� said Hector Ruiz, AMD chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer. “Whether through higher prices from monopoly profits, fewer choices in the marketplace or barriers to innovation – people from Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel’s monopoly abuses.�

AMD have also setup a website dubbed "Fair and Equal Competition Home" which also lays out the innovation the company has undertaken in the years its been in business. This looks like its going to be a very public fight and Intel has the monetary power to defend itself. Lets hope us consumers don't lose out.

Open Letter by Hector Ruiz (AMD CEO)
The full AMD complaint
Looks like another "Anti-Monopoly" lawsuit

[purenuman]

I don't know if I should or

[Paul]

I dunno but it could get nasty and have some nasty knock on effects for prices

[andygrif]

So AMD not being market leader has nothing to do with being inferior at marketing then? Or supplying (up until recently) processors with fewer functions or power? Or for not striking up straegic alliances with signifants companies like Dell and MS?

One of these days companies will spend less time whinging and balming others for the inadeqate performance, and do something about it instead!

Of course, it's America, so I'm probablyt completely wrong!

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by andygrif

So AMD not being market leader has nothing to do with being inferior at marketing then? Or supplying (up until recently) processors with fewer functions or power? Or for not striking up straegic alliances with signifants companies like Dell and MS?

One of these days companies will spend less time whinging and balming others for the inadeqate performance, and do something about it instead!

Of course, it's America, so I'm probablyt completely wrong!

I think this is more about the big guys pushing their weight about and not fighting fair.

Imagine I had the only store in my area and was doing very well and had become quite large (not me the store). You open a store in the same area but it's not as big as mine and you have a lot less money......

Would it be fair of me to run at a loss almost giving stuff away so that you also had to run at a loss to compete?? Spending all your 'development' savings just to keep going but being unable to move forward??

I could keep it up until you fell well behind or until I had got rid of you......

I'm not saying this is what is happening with Intel v AMD but just pointing out things aint as black an white as you make it sound.

[andygrif]

First, it's not what is happening, as Intel chips generally cost more than AMD's.

Second, the situation you describe happens every day in our high street in this country. I'm not saying it's right, but you don't see Tesco in court as a result.

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by andygrif

First, it's not what is happening, as Intel chips generally cost more than AMD's.

Second, the situation you describe happens every day in our high street in this country. I'm not saying it's right, but you don't see Tesco in court as a result.

Originally Posted by purenuman

I'm not saying this is what is happening with Intel v AMD but just pointing out things aint as black an white as you make it sound.

I posted the above to make a point as the AMD v Intel situation is not that simple.

I was just pointing out that your sweeping statement is a bit blinkered.

If you think that.....


-Forcing major customers to accept exclusive deals.
-Withholding rebates and marketing subsidies as a means of punishing customers who buy more than prescribed quantities of processors from AMD.
-Threatening retaliation against customers doing business with AMD.
-Establishing quotas keeping retailers from selling the computers they want.
-Forcing PC makers to boycott AMD product launches.


.....is fair and AMD should stop moaning fair enough....

I don't and would like somebody to look at all the evidence, give them a fair hearing and come to a proper conclusion without labelling them whiners.

I'm just worried about the outcome.....

[andygrif]

Blinkered? Ok.

But posting the mainstay of AMD's case, from the AMD website and citing it as fact is not helpful to the discussion. They're hardly likely to say that "Intel have performed better, negotiated stronger, produced more significant relationships and sold more...but we thought we'd have a pop at them anyway" are they?

Also, why use an example about one company undercutting the other being anti-competitive, then say that doesn't prove your point?

Of course the case isn't going to be simple. the lawyers are there with the sole task of making it more complicatred than it needs to be. But if you'd like to present an anology that backs up your position, then I'm happy to have a sensible discussion about it (i.e. without rolling eyes).

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Blinkered? Ok.

But posting the mainstay of AMD's case, from the AMD website and citing it as fact is not helpful to the discussion. They're hardly likely to say that "Intel have performed better, negotiated stronger, produced more significant relationships and sold more...but we thought we'd have a pop at them anyway" are they?

Also, why use an example about one company undercutting the other being anti-competitive, then say that doesn't prove your point?

Of course the case isn't going to be simple. the lawyers are there with the sole task of making it more complicatred than it needs to be. But if you'd like to present an anology that backs up your position, then I'm happy to have a sensible discussion about it (i.e. without rolling eyes).

Ok.............without the rolling eyes......

I never posted the mainstay of AMD's case as fact. I simply posted what they claim and wondered if you thought it fair. I then said I didn't and it should IMHO be looked in toooo...

You made a sweeping statement implying that any company that stand up for themselves are just whinging and blaming others for the inadequate performance. While some obviously do moan as a smoke screen it does not make sense to dismiss every company who complain as whingers......

Originally Posted by andygrif

Also, why use an example about one company undercutting the other being anti-competitive, then say that doesn't prove your point?

????

It does! And I didn't say it didn't.

Maybe I didn't make it clear (V tired when I posted) but it was about your sweeping statment rather than AMD v Intel. It was in response to your statement implying that any company that stand up for themselves are just whinging and blaming others for their inadequate performance, not the AMD v Intel case . I was just pointing out that there are valid reasons for being a whinger.......

[NitroNutter]

What put me off AMD and has put me into the intel camp for sometime.

1. AMD's cracked core warranty policy, If you cant make a chip fit for its intended purpose that is "tough" Yes this is defunct on the 64's but the 64's came at a price of stitching up end users with a BS and illegal policiy
2. AMD's fake speed naming of there chips from the XP models. IN reality these speeds may only be achieved in minor instances and does not give true power. Intel kick their ass on this in the rest. and that even goes for intel 32 bit cpu's when headed up agaisnt AMD's 64 bit range.
3. Instability of 3rd party chipsets and hybreds.

Id suggest if AMD want to get there market back they fix thier products not their legal team.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

2. AMD's fake speed naming of there chips from the XP models. IN reality these speeds may only be achieved in minor instances and does not give true power. Intel kick their ass on this in the rest. and that even goes for intel 32 bit cpu's when headed up agaisnt AMD's 64 bit range.

I beg to differ on this point. The AMD naming policy makes things easier for non-techie people to understand, as it effectively puts AMD and Intel chips on a more even playing field. You and I may know that an Athlon 2600+ cpu doesn't really run at 2.6GHz, but performance is not simply about clock speed anymore, and when taking all factors into consideration, that 2600+ chip does run at equivalent speeds of a 2.6GHz Intel chip (more or less ).

Let's look at this from another non-computer perspective... a friend of mine drives a Mazda RX8. When they were first released, he used to get people asking him about 'how fast it was'. He would say that the rotary engine was the equivalent of a 1.3l non-rotary engine. People that didn't know anything about how a rotary engine works would scoff and then claim that their 1.4 Saxo could go faster than him. In truth, this '1.3l equivalent' has over 200 BHP, so it's a little bit faster than a Saxo (er... no offence to other Saxo drivers, it's just that the ones in Swindon are a bit stupid).

Is it fair to compare his 200BHP RX8 to a 1.4l car? No - simply because engine size in this case not relevant, whereas BHP is the same for both types of engine, and thus is much fairer to use. If car performance was measured in engine size and not BHP, then I doubt Mazda would be marketing the RX8 as a 1.3l car.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Gareth

I beg to differ on this point. The AMD naming policy makes things easier for non-techie people to understand, as it effectively puts AMD and Intel chips on a more even playing field. You and I may know that an Athlon 2600+ cpu doesn't really run at 2.6GHz, but performance is not simply about clock speed anymore, and when taking all factors into consideration, that 2600+ chip does run at equivalent speeds of a 2.6GHz Intel chip (more or less ).

Let's look at this from another non-computer perspective... a friend of mine drives a Mazda RX8. When they were first released, he used to get people asking him about 'how fast it was'. He would say that the rotary engine was the equivalent of a 1.3l non-rotary engine. People that didn't know anything about how a rotary engine works would scoff and then claim that their 1.4 Saxo could go faster than him. In truth, this '1.3l equivalent' has over 200 BHP, so it's a little bit faster than a Saxo (er... no offence to other Saxo drivers, it's just that the ones in Swindon are a bit stupid).

Is it fair to compare his 200BHP RX8 to a 1.4l car? No - simply because engine size in this case not relevant, whereas BHP is the same for both types of engine, and thus is much fairer to use. If car performance was measured in engine size and not BHP, then I doubt Mazda would be marketing the RX8 as a 1.3l car.

What? Well, I suppose it makes it easier to hoodwink non-techie people !

You claim your processor is a '2800' and then go on about how faster it is than your competitor's equivalent - so someone would assume that your processor must be faster than their '2800' - when in fact yours is only really 2100 so maybe at best its equivalent, but only in certain senarios.

[jtwn]

Originally Posted by Gareth

I beg to differ on this point. The AMD naming policy makes things easier for non-techie people to understand, as it effectively puts AMD and Intel chips on a more even playing field. You and I may know that an Athlon 2600+ cpu doesn't really run at 2.6GHz, but performance is not simply about clock speed anymore, and when taking all factors into consideration, that 2600+ chip does run at equivalent speeds of a 2.6GHz Intel chip (more or less ).

Or when you get in games, you can see the bottom range of AMD processors beating the top level of Intel processors. AMD's 'fake speed' policy i think not.

Intel processors are vastly overpriced and underpowered for the cost, however this is good as it is bringing their diminishing desktop market share.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

What put me off AMD and has put me into the intel camp for sometime.

1. AMD's cracked core warranty policy, If you cant make a chip fit for its intended purpose that is "tough" Yes this is defunct on the 64's but the 64's came at a price of stitching up end users with a BS and illegal policiy

I know a few people who have had AMD chips. NOT ONE has had a cracked core

2. AMD's fake speed naming of there chips from the XP models. IN reality these speeds may only be achieved in minor instances and does not give true power. Intel kick their ass on this in the rest. and that even goes for intel 32 bit cpu's when headed up agaisnt AMD's 64 bit range.

Erm, I can only go on my own test results here, but my AMD 64 3000+ with 1 Gig of crucial DDR3200 ram consistantly out performs the P4 3200's with 2 Gig of Crucial DDR3200 ram we have at work. All the benchmarks I have seen suggest the AMDs at least equal the equivalent specced P4.

3. Instability of 3rd party chipsets and hybreds.

Id suggest if AMD want to get there market back they fix thier products not their legal team.

TBH, the only chipsets I have heard of that have problems on AMD machines are VIA chipsets, and these appear to be flaky on Intel machines as well.