Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Intel behind the AMD/nVidia subpeonas?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 9, 2006 1:21:58 PM

I thought it amazing that Intel can charge $1000+ for CPUs but then GPUs that usually debut on the high end at half of that could be investigated for price-fixing.

Intel has complete control over X86 pricing and has used it to it's advantage to lower the ASPs of every major semi manuf (including their own).

A recent story at The Register thinks that an arm of Intel is definitely behind it as Intel believes it has an answer to G80/R600.

Check it out and leave your opinions.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/08/intel_larrabee_...
December 9, 2006 1:44:27 PM

I thought it amazing that AMD can charge $1000+ for CPUs but then GPUs that usually debut on the high end at half of that could be investigated for price-fixing.

AMD has complete control over BaronMatrix and has used 'it' to their disadvantage to lower the ASPs of every major semi manuf (including their own).

A recent story at The Register thinks that a voice of AMD is definitely behind it as AMD believes it has an answer to G80/Intels NGGPUMA.

Check it out and leave your opinions.


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

:p 
December 9, 2006 1:54:11 PM

Related resources
December 9, 2006 2:01:10 PM

Quote:
I thought it amazing that AMD can charge $1000+ for CPUs but then GPUs that usually debut on the high end at half of that could be investigated for price-fixing.

AMD has complete control over BaronMatrix and has used 'it' to their disadvantage to lower the ASPs of every major semi manuf (including their own).

A recent story at The Register thinks that a voice of AMD is definitely behind it as AMD believes it has an answer to G80/Intels NGGPUMA.

Check it out and leave your opinions.


http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

:p 


All hail the duopoly!!!
December 9, 2006 2:02:21 PM

:?:
Quote:
Executives of the company are also alleged to have had meetings and conversations to discuss pricing of graphics processing units and cards in the US.

Overpricing and fixing prices aren't the same thing.

Please STFU about the stupid duopoly when you constantly brag about buying the inferior Quad FX :twisted:
December 9, 2006 2:08:19 PM

Quote:
:?:
Executives of the company are also alleged to have had meetings and conversations to discuss pricing of graphics processing units and cards in the US.

Overpricing and fixing prices aren't the same thing.

Please STFU about the stupid duopoly when you constantly brag about buying the inferior Quad FX :twisted:

Not!

Quote:
Price fixing is an agreement between business competitors selling the same product or service regarding its pricing. In general, it is an agreement intended to ultimately push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all the sellers. Price-fixing can also involve any agreement to fix, peg, discount or stabilize prices. The principal feature is any agreement on price, whether express or implied. For the buyer, meanwhile, the practice results in a phenomenon similar to price gouging.

December 9, 2006 2:12:29 PM

Quote:
:?:
The story says Intel wants to take down AMD and Nvidia with graphics technology, not sue their pants off.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33661

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36258
The problem isn't them overpricing GPUs, it's them price fixing.


Wow, you actually left an opinion? Price-fixing refers to artificially inflating the prices.

The key part you missed is that price-fixing refers to when AMD and Nvidia have secretly agreed with each other not to drop prices below a certain point. Thats price fixing and illegal. Price-fixing is not just companies artificially inflating prices on their own. Thats normal and legal business which all companies do.
December 9, 2006 2:14:40 PM

Given Intel's marketing conduct , they would have far more to lose in pushing an antitrust investigation. People who live in glass houses don't throw rocks. The antitrust investigation began long before ATI was acquired by AMD. It became easier when AMD acquired ATI because one of the conspirators suddenly had a US headquarters. Before it was Canada (not overly cooperative with DOJ because of the Microsoft sellout) and Taiwan (cooperation non-existant).
December 9, 2006 2:37:11 PM

Quote:
Price fixing is an agreement between business competitors selling the same product or service regarding its pricing. In general, it is an agreement intended to ultimately push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all the sellers. Price-fixing can also involve any agreement to fix, peg, discount or stabilize prices. The principal feature is any agreement on price, whether express or implied. For the buyer, meanwhile, the practice results in a phenomenon similar to price gouging.


Gouging is not the same as price fixing.

Case closed.
December 9, 2006 2:51:51 PM

Quote:
Price fixing is an agreement between business competitors selling the same product or service regarding its pricing. In general, it is an agreement intended to ultimately push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all the sellers. Price-fixing can also involve any agreement to fix, peg, discount or stabilize prices. The principal feature is any agreement on price, whether express or implied. For the buyer, meanwhile, the practice results in a phenomenon similar to price gouging.


Gouging is not the same as price fixing.

Case closed.

WHy must you get off-topic when your own quote - a reproduction of the WikiPedia definition I already knew - refers to both artificially inflating AND artificially lowering them?

The question is with Intel trying to get back into the stand-alone market is having an "arm" push for this a purposeful attack?

Core 2 pricing shows pegging with AMD being forced to drop prices, though I doubt Intel consulted them.

As far as graphics, ONLY the highest end cards ever break $500. Most standalone GPUs are under $200. Lookign at Newegg, you can see that 202 CONSUMER GPUs are under $200 and everyone knows that right now ONLY the 8800GTX is over $500. And the above $300 area is a good deal FireGL and Quadro.
December 9, 2006 2:53:58 PM

SUP, when all of these law suits and investigations are over, will it lead to cheaper GFX cards and CPUs?
December 9, 2006 2:58:37 PM

Quote:
SUP, when all of these law suits and investigations are over, will it lead to cheaper GFX cards and CPUs?


That's a good question. I don't think it should. Neither one was totally outrageous. I mean everyone could afford a PC as of a few years ago and a compact car from Company X is less than a luxury car from Company X. I mean sure SLI would be super great at $400 but then it is if you buy two lower end cards.
December 9, 2006 3:07:16 PM

Quote:
Neither one was totally outrageous. I mean everyone could afford a PC as of a few years ago and a compact car from Company X is less than a luxury car from Company X. I mean sure SLI would be super great at $400 but then it is if you buy two lower end cards.


WELL, u guyz in the states have it easy, here in Canada an 8800GTX is 800 bucks at least. i wish they were 400.

l8er :) 
December 9, 2006 3:37:22 PM

keep complaining about prices...remember back to the mid 90s when a 4MB mem mod was $200??. These prices are insanley low today. I am far from rich and i consider the prices low. Now vid cards is a diff story they are over priced on the highend but no where near price fixed. Want price fixing...look at Gasoline prices. every single gas station where I live is the same price, not a penny different. The oil companies are making insane quarterly profits as well. They arent just price fixing they are gouging. Exxon/mobile reported a 3rd Q profit of 10 Billion. And say they cant lower prices...if $2.00 a gallon =10billion a Q then $1.00 a gallon= 5billion....anyone else see the math... profit is whats left after ALL revenue R&D Payroll and expenses are taken out...Now answer me what in the hell does a company need with that high of profits? At the expense of the Countrys inflation and causing higher poverty levels.
December 9, 2006 4:03:11 PM

Quote:
Given Intel's marketing conduct , they would have far more to lose in pushing an antitrust investigation. People who live in glass houses don't throw rocks. The antitrust investigation began long before ATI was acquired by AMD. It became easier when AMD acquired ATI because one of the conspirators suddenly had a US headquarters. Before it was Canada (not overly cooperative with DOJ because of the Microsoft sellout) and Taiwan (cooperation non-existant).


If there's price fixing with GPU's, it won't stop there. The CPU's will be
next, AMD will make sure of it (if they are innocent). Baron, how does that help Intel?


Quote:

and everyone knows that right now ONLY the 8800GTX is over $500.


I wonder what the R600 will run?
December 9, 2006 4:03:34 PM

Quote:
Now answer me what in the hell does a company need with that high of profits? At the expense of the Countrys inflation and causing higher poverty levels.


The point of a company is to make money. Period. They may do other things as their owners/stockholders see fit, but that is the primary goal. What do you consider a fair profit? Only $1 bill? How about only $5 million? Heck, why not revoke all profits and dump them into a general govt fund? (why do so few people seem to grasp the concept of capitalism?)

Fact: The US Govt makes several times over what the gas companies make for each gallon of gas sold. Most European govt's make even more than that. I think the Government is tax-gouging us on gasoline...
December 9, 2006 4:49:16 PM

Problem is their the govt is able to spend more money than it can bring in, even though they seem to make a jabilaziollion dollars
December 9, 2006 6:36:56 PM

Quote:
Neither one was totally outrageous. I mean everyone could afford a PC as of a few years ago and a compact car from Company X is less than a luxury car from Company X. I mean sure SLI would be super great at $400 but then it is if you buy two lower end cards.


WELL, u guyz in the states have it easy, here in Canada an 8800GTX is 800 bucks at least. i wish they were 400.

l8er :) 

Wow, I would hope that ATi would be at least a little cheaper being based in Canada. Those import takes can be a killer.
December 9, 2006 6:38:23 PM

Quote:
Wow, this is abit of a misleading post.... your title and theme would try to suggest the linked articles implicates Intel in creating the current price fixing investigation, both govt. and private, allegations against nVidia and AMD/ATI.


Actually the Register (www.theregister.co.uk) suggested this and I thought it was interesting.
December 9, 2006 7:32:34 PM

...Almost 900 AUD.... You Canadians have it easy.
December 9, 2006 8:22:46 PM

Quote:


Actually the Register (www.theregister.co.uk) suggested this and I thought it was interesting.


Please quote where they said that Intel is out to secretly sue the pants off of both AMD and Nvidia.
December 9, 2006 10:06:07 PM

First, my response to the InQ report, originally posted on another forum. (BGP Spook = BGP_Spook)

Quote:
I don't know what to think of this.

I did some looking around and only a little more than four years ago the newest top end cards cost ~$400 (Geforce 4 Ti4600) and the latest top end card costs ~$600 (Geforce 8 8800GTX), that is a 50% price increase in four years.

On the other hand, the dollar has lost value during that time and the cost of producing new video cards has gone up.

There may be some grounds for the allegations, duopoly's(or near duopoly's) are always tricky since neither competitor really wants to lower prices.

It could be entirely do to market forces without any collusion at all.


I will add that every new high-end card released from ATI or Nvidia is always introduced at about the same price point, call it "the high-end price." It used to be $400 USD several years ago but it has been creeping up to $600 USD now.

It is the the same price regardless of which company seems to have the best high end card.
The rest of the cards then slid in price as the performance decreases. Although, it seems that some mid-range video cards have been floating around the same price point for the last year and a half.

I am pretty sure it is the consistency of the introductory price points(not just at the high end?) that is under investigation.

-----------------------------------------

Aside from Larrabee Development Group and by extension Intel choosing this point in time to enter the news by accelerating their endeavor I don't see any connection.

The only scenario where I can see Intel being behind this push is an attempt to under cut AMD's price margins for video cards. Yet, as someone pointed out, Intel was, apparently, already entering the discrete video card market before the ATI purchase, however I don't know when the investigation first started.

-----------------------------------------
@everyone:
It would greatly be appreciated if the source of any quote used is given along with the selected quote. This is especially true if the source is not quoted in entirety, as readers might want to read the rest of the source.

Quote:


Not!


Price fixing is an agreement between business competitors selling the same product or service regarding its pricing. In general, it is an agreement intended to ultimately push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all the sellers. Price-fixing can also involve any agreement to fix, peg, discount or stabilize prices. The principal feature is any agreement on price, whether express or implied. For the buyer, meanwhile, the practice results in a phenomenon similar to price gouging.

Source:?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

From wiki:
Quote:

Under U.S. law, price fixing is only illegal if it is intentional and comes about via communication or agreement between firms or individuals. It is not illegal for a firm to copy the price movements of a de facto market leader called price leadership, which has been seen to be the case in markets for breakfast cereals and cigarettes. But informal agreements or unspoken agreements to fix price also can violate the antitrust laws.
December 9, 2006 10:09:06 PM

Quote:


Actually the Register (www.theregister.co.uk) suggested this and I thought it was interesting.


Please quote where they said that Intel is out to secretly sue the pants off of both AMD and Nvidia.

Not so much sue, but it is looking like an internal(?) development team or something from Intel started this thing.

Register story

The problem is that BM mistakenly took that story to have anything involving the subpeonas that were handed to AMD/ATI and nVidia, since there was not one thing about Larrabee claiming anything that the subpeonas were for, price-fixing.

In fact, the story linked above and in BM's original post just talks about how Intel is interested in getting into the GPU sector and create it's own GPUs, nothing about any DoJ investigations was mentioned in the Register story.
December 9, 2006 11:20:31 PM

Baron are you slipping?

You didn't see his coming and add it as one of your predictions?
December 9, 2006 11:21:14 PM

Am I missing something, or just not getting the point? If Intel wanted to release performance GPUs, wouldn't price-fixing by AMD & Nvidia be a benefit to Intel?

Intel could jump out with a much lower pricepoint - just like with the C2D.
December 10, 2006 12:40:39 AM

Quote:


Actually the Register (www.theregister.co.uk) suggested this and I thought it was interesting.


Please quote where they said that Intel is out to secretly sue the pants off of both AMD and Nvidia.

Not so much sue, but it is looking like an internal(?) development team or something from Intel started this thing.

Register story

The problem is that BM mistakenly took that story to have anything involving the subpeonas that were handed to AMD/ATI and nVidia, since there was not one thing about Larrabee claiming anything that the subpeonas were for, price-fixing.

In fact, the story linked above and in BM's original post just talks about how Intel is interested in getting into the GPU sector and create it's own GPUs, nothing about any DoJ investigations was mentioned in the Register story.

I never STATED anything, I asked if it was possible. I like watching you guys do this.
December 10, 2006 12:42:17 AM

Quote:
Good luck, you will not get this courtesy from Baron. He doesn't understand how to press the CNTL-V key at the same time.


Get off my jock, freak.
December 10, 2006 1:08:56 AM

Quote:
Good luck, you will not get this courtesy from Baron. He doesn't understand how to press the CNTL-V key at the same time.


Get off my jock, freak.

Well, I have never been on your jock, that is a sacred place for Henri Richards.... however, I will not let you go with foolishiness.


But you're some idiot regurgitater on a forum. Why would I care about you?
December 10, 2006 1:33:50 AM

Quote:
You shouldn't... and frankly, I would not want you to. However, you will never post something that I won't be there.


That sounds like a stalker to me.
December 10, 2006 7:38:00 AM

Quote:


Actually the Register (www.theregister.co.uk) suggested this and I thought it was interesting.


Please quote where they said that Intel is out to secretly sue the pants off of both AMD and Nvidia.

Not so much sue, but it is looking like an internal(?) development team or something from Intel started this thing.

Register story

The problem is that BM mistakenly took that story to have anything involving the subpoenas that were handed to AMD/ATI and nVidia, since there was not one thing about Larrabee claiming anything that the subpeonas were for, price-fixing.

In fact, the story linked above and in BM's original post just talks about how Intel is interested in getting into the GPU sector and create it's own GPUs, nothing about any DoJ investigations was mentioned in the Register story.

I never STATED anything, I asked if it was possible. I like watching you guys do this.

Keep believing your own crap, cause no else does.

Your freaking title of the thread is simply: IS INTEL BEHIND THE SUBPOENAS AGAINST AMD/NVIDIA?

Then you use an article from the Register that has absolutely nothing to do with any freaking subpoenas. Why? To just put that BS idea that Intel had something to do with a subpoena about price-fixing that the DoJ is investigating? Riiiight.

Then you ramble on about how Intel can price their CPUs at $1k, but forget to mention that the FX-62 was $1k also, at one time. Hmm...pretty convient.

I am not going to get into your crazy ideas of what you "meant" to say, cause it's pretty obvious that you tried to use the topic's title to push your BELIEF as a fact, when there is absolutely NOTHING to prove it.

In fact, you never even ASKED if it was possible. NOT ONCE in your original post. There was nothing claiming crap about Intel being the brainchild of this subpoena. NOTHING. Let's see:

Quote:
I thought it amazing that Intel can charge $1000+ for CPUs but then GPUs that usually debut on the high end at half of that could be investigated for price-fixing.


Hmm...nothing about how AMD had a CPU priced at $1k prior to C2D. BS.

Quote:
Intel has complete control over X86 pricing and has used it to it's advantage to lower the ASPs of every major semi manuf (including their own).


Again, conviently forgetting that the FX series was at one time over $800. Oh, but it didn't lower ASPs, which will in turn become price fixing, which the subpoena is about. Hmmm.... BS.

Quote:
A recent story at The Register thinks that an arm of Intel is definitely behind it as Intel believes it has an answer to G80/R600.


Where in the article does it even mention Intel's ideas of creating a GPU for it's platform as the cause of a DoJ investigation. Oh, wait, you didn't have the balls to actually say that. You just IMPLIED that "the Register THINKS that an arm of Intel is DEFINITELY BEHIND it", when the article NEVER once mentions anything about the investigation. Did we forget how to comprehend articles?

Quote:
Check it out and leave your opinions.


I did leave my opinion, and yet you claim you never once believed that you stated anything, yet the thread title says nothing but how Intel might be behind the subpoenas. BS, again.

I don't care if you want to dissect my answer, cause I'm done with this thread, cause it's pure misinformation, even with a link to an article that is nothing more than Intel's plans to possibly make a GPU.

Yeah, a plan causes subpoenas. Please.
December 10, 2006 8:14:41 AM

I cant see a reason for Intel to subpoena nVidia
December 10, 2006 8:17:34 AM

Quote:
I cant see a reason for Intel to subpoena nVidia


It can be reasonable, but the point is:
BaronMatrix "imagines" that Intel is the only to subpoena nVidia and AMD with reasons.
!