Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD wants us to breakfree

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 9, 2007 7:36:11 AM

http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/default.aspx
This comes in just in time, I just upgraded from an AMD 4800 Toledo to a Q6600(B3).
Here is a letter from Hector.
Light your torches!!


On July 26, 2007, following an exhaustive five-year investigation, the European Commission filed a Statement of Objections formally charging Intel with breaking the law by abusing its monopoly power over the global market for microprocessors.*

The EC explained that “the actions of Intel are bad news for competition and consumers,” ** charging that Intel has:

* Maintained its monopoly by paying substantial rebates to PC manufacturers on the condition that they do little or no business with AMD,
* Paid manufacturers to delay or cancel the launch of AMD-based products, and,
* Provided below-cost microprocessors for servers to prevent rival solutions from being chosen by strategic customers.

In short — Intel is paying and pressuring computer manufacturers to boycott AMD.

This is not an isolated incident. The EC’s charges are similar to conclusions of the Japan Fair Trade Commission in 2005 and reflect conduct that Korea’s antitrust body is also investigating. In the United States and Japan, private litigation is focusing on the same pattern of abuse.

Of course, the framers of antitrust laws don’t care whether this or that company succeeds in the marketplace. That’s the way it should be. The essential purpose of antitrust laws is to tear down artificial blockades to competition, and to promote efficient economic productivity and the welfare of consumers.

So last week’s action by the European Commission was not about one company “winning” or “losing.” It’s simply this — a big step forward, by an expert antitrust enforcement authority, to a world in which customers come first, innovation comes often, and consumers come to know that they are free to choose.

We welcome the opportunity to compete for the business of computer OEMs and consumers around the world in such a fair and open marketplace.

Hector Ruiz

Hector Ruiz
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Advanced Micro Devices

More about : amd breakfree

August 9, 2007 7:47:07 AM

Sounds to me like AMD is getting pretty desperate. They're getting owned on the market and are grabbing for any thing they can to downplay Intel's success.

Quote:
* Provided below-cost microprocessors for servers to prevent rival solutions from being chosen by strategic customers.


I dont understand this. If I had a buisness and were competing with another buisness in the same market, I'd try almost any thing I could (legally) to get people to buy my product.
August 9, 2007 8:37:15 AM

@BTK (by the way if you got your nick from the serial killer, that's sick dude)
THat's the whole point mate!!!! INTEL is NOT acting in a legal maner!! They're trying to pay their way through the competion although they have better products!! That's just greedy man! Besides, without competition Intel would be able to charge whatever they want and also the drive for innovation would be much smaller.
Just think about it.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2007 8:37:37 AM

I hope justice prevails and Intel has to payup.

The proceeds could wipe AMD's debt completely.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The damages bill is probably going to be between 2 to 10 Billion? Is that correct?

The ATI aquisition could actually end up being a freebee !!!

Go Barcelona !!

Stick that up your nose Ottelini ...You won't be CEO much longer.

I imagine this is the main reason Intel is desperately trying to push AMD to the wall ... how many successive price cuts has Intel made now??

August 9, 2007 9:14:45 AM

How many years did the Athlon 64's and Athlon X2's exist in the market without Core2?

During that time, Intel managed to continue selling those crap CPU's

How did they manage that?

The above statement reveals how!
Time to pay!
August 9, 2007 9:18:21 AM

Just look at Nvidia now. They are pretty much charging whatever they want for their GPUs. They dont have much competition, so they think its okay for them to charge insane amounts of money for their Ultra cards. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130093

Greed!

That is true. Intel managed to sell the netburst chips through all the oems. They were getting nasty "rebates" to not sell the AMD chips, just plain wrong. I remember wanting to get a PC with a AMD and it was very hard to find the one I wanted. They were pushing the Intel chips hard, making it hard for me to find the one PC I wanted. Thats how I dumped HP and went for my own system build.
August 9, 2007 9:58:02 AM

I am sticking with AMD that's for sure! K10 will be my next upgrade.
August 9, 2007 10:43:41 AM

cherie22984 said:

That is true. Intel managed to sell the netburst chips through all the oems. They were getting nasty "rebates" to not sell the AMD chips, just plain wrong. I remember wanting to get a PC with a AMD and it was very hard to find the one I wanted. They were pushing the Intel chips hard, making it hard for me to find the one PC I wanted. Thats how I dumped HP and went for my own system build.

Wow your makind and excuse for your own ignorance :whistle: 

P.S. Keep at it comunist, if i have the money and i want something and all it takes is money, you bet your *** i'll pay, that's what Intel did! Or did they, where's this mountain of proof :ange: 
August 9, 2007 11:21:48 AM

I've always enjoyed using AMD processors,and I encourage all my clients that want a new computer,to go with AMD.So far AMD has not let me down.And every client with an AMD system,is quite content.But it just goes to show you how even people with billions of dollars at their disposal,can be as ruthless as they are.Simply put,THE CONSUMER HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE what manufacturer it uses.Be it INTEL,AMD,IBM......What INTEL is doing is fighting dirty.Can't beat them in a fair fight,and can't stand to lose.So they use the oldest trick in the book.They pay people off.C'mon INTEL,where is your HONOR???Your INTEGRETY???INTEL,you're PATHETIC.

Dahak
August 9, 2007 12:16:53 PM

All i have to say is this...DID Intel come to your house and put a gun to your head and say buy our product... If you bought an intel during that time frame its because 1 you wanted it or 2 you didnt shop around for an AMD. In texas where i live its a bitch going to a local comp shop and even getting them to HAVE an Intel in stock. Thats today even with the Core 2 around.. Back in Netburst days it was impossible to even get them to order one. To me THATS Antitrust. When the consumer has to go a long way out of thier way to get something they want because the locals are PUSHING something else. I see all of this as business as usual. I work in a service business and yes we talk down our competition because if you want to survive thats what ya gotta do from time to time. It might not be morally right but they are doing the same thing to you.
August 9, 2007 1:45:24 PM

hacker91 ,were you shopping around for a Netburst back in the day? Was it for customers, or yourself?

hacker91 said:
... I work in a service business and yes we talk down our competition because if you want to survive thats what ya gotta do from time to time. It might not be morally right but they are doing the same thing to you.


Anyone that's wondering why Corporate America has made America a soul-less, self-centered, material nation, there it is. So paranoid that the competition is bad-mouthing you, you'd better beat them to it. Screw the customers, as long as the billion dollar corporation's stock goes up. :pfff: 

Legal, healthy corporate competition is great. When you can let the quality of your product be the driving factor in your sales, I have no problem with that. Intel has a great architecture out right now, but in Netburst days, it appears that they employed immoral tactics in peddling their space-heaters to maintain market share against their rival (who had a better product). Intel knows the majority of Americans are going to get a Dell or HP (not shop for components and build it themselves), and exploited that by telling pc manufacturers to not use AMD. If it was only that they offered lower prices, that would be butta'. However, once they say, "don't use company A or B, and we'll give you incentive" that's were I think the problem is. As consumers this should piss you off. A company making the decision for you before you have the choices, is b.s. :fou: 

August 9, 2007 1:49:27 PM

hacker91 said:
All i have to say is this...DID Intel come to your house and put a gun to your head and say buy our product... If you bought an intel during that time frame its because 1 you wanted it or 2 you didnt shop around for an AMD. In texas where i live its a bitch going to a local comp shop and even getting them to HAVE an Intel in stock. Thats today even with the Core 2 around.. Back in Netburst days it was impossible to even get them to order one. To me THATS Antitrust. When the consumer has to go a long way out of thier way to get something they want because the locals are PUSHING something else. I see all of this as business as usual. I work in a service business and yes we talk down our competition because if you want to survive thats what ya gotta do from time to time. It might not be morally right but they are doing the same thing to you.


You are mising most important points. It doesnt matter if some small shops or fans build their own systems with AMD (ofcourse i did and over 80% was AMD). Most of computer systems are build and sold by big companies like Dell, compaq, HP etc. There is majority of peaple who dont understand computers enough to build their own rigs or who just buy PCs from big companies becouse they saw them on TV.
I am not just funboy of AMD, I used both systems, but AMD have still technological advantage over intel even when overal performance is litle lower but its still impresive 90nm chips can almost keep up with 45nm especialy in temperature and power consumption.
I was thinking if go to Qcore from intel, but barcelona is going to have more features i want so i keep waiting.
And if some company use dirty tricks over smaler one i am even less likely to buy their products even when they could be momentaly superior in performance. And its not just some false acusations over intel, because its not 1st time intel is acused such thing and he was already find guilty at least once. Ans as someon already said AMD had great advantage in last 2-3 years and there was lots of sells in small shops or online, but almost none by big system makers especialy here in europe and its highly unlikely they dont make AMD systems if about 40% market is asking for it if there was not some secret deals with intel. I am just glad at least some big companies like IBM didnt get into those deals and did sell both and it was reason vhy AMD got so high into server market.
August 9, 2007 2:05:38 PM

BtK said:
Sounds to me like AMD is getting pretty desperate. They're getting owned on the market and are grabbing for any thing they can to downplay Intel's success.

Quote:
* Provided below-cost microprocessors for servers to prevent rival solutions from being chosen by strategic customers.


I dont understand this. If I had a buisness and were competing with another buisness in the same market, I'd try almost any thing I could (legally) to get people to buy my product.


The real question is whether or not the consumer was hurt...
August 9, 2007 2:35:48 PM

SO EVERYONE IS QUICK TO BLAME INTEL. Lets not forget people the OEM's were the ones to actually make the call, Intel might have said, if you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours. Im pretty sure they didn't kipnap anyone to force the OEM's to carry only their product. You know how everything is fair in love and war? Well this is war in the corporate level, quit crying over it and get over.
August 9, 2007 2:59:14 PM

Intel is Nike
Intel is Halliburton
Intel needs competition.
August 9, 2007 3:01:33 PM

As much as I hate AMD's constant crying foul to Intel, I'm almost hopeful AMD is able to get some money out of this suit, because they've proven they can't get it anywhere else.
August 9, 2007 3:12:47 PM

Intel is evil, the horror, $266 quads!
August 9, 2007 3:16:32 PM

Well, at least some people here are willing to admit the "appearance of impropriety." The evidence is all over. The Opteron launch was torpedoed. There was a time when the mighty ASUS wouldn't even put their name on an AMD mobo for fear of Intel.

I used ti use Intel but the overwhelming amount of FUD was too much. I mean people were shooting down the 3GHz Phenom demo and The Inq was forced to reply with pictures.

They're just two companies not the Second Coming. They should co-exist as IBM wanted. PERIOD!!!!
August 9, 2007 4:02:30 PM

rOck, good point. But imagine without AMD...$650-$800?...
August 9, 2007 7:30:50 PM

While we are at it, we need to sue Coke for anti-trust too, because they do many of the same things. We can probably get Pepsi for it too. I don't know how many restaurants I've went in where they only sell one type or the other and as a consumer I don't have a choice as to which company I get my pop from.
Sure if I go to the grocery store I can get whatever type of soda I want but not at other places. I had the same limitations at school and at work and at the ball park. I know when our town built a new high school Coke came in and bought us some score boards and a few other things and said we could only sell coke in the new school. The same thing happens with most advertising and merchandise in concert venues and stadiums and many other places. In every case the company pays more for the exclusive rights to the area then they would to purchase normal ad banners and they wouldn’t normally pay anything at all to have their goods on sale in someplace.
This sounds very similar to what is the cornerstone to the anti-trust lawsuit against Intel.

Take the auto industry. Cummins makes great diesel engines, arguably the best in the truck industry. And they worked out a deal with Dodge where Dodge was the only company that could sell trucks with the Cummins engine in it. If you wanted a Dodge with a different diesel engine you were out of luck, if you wanted a Chevy with a Cummins engine you were also out of luck.
Then there is the last step in the auto industry, the dealerships. There are some dealerships that will sell multiple types of cars but there are lots and lots of dealerships that only carry one type of car. In many cases the dealerships don’t have a choice, if they want to get good prices on their cars they can only sell cars from a single company. It is for several reasons, some are deals with the manufacturers, some just because they don’t have enough volume to sell cars from several manufacturers at once, and some because they can’t get certified to do manufacturer warranty repairs unless they do special training through the manufacturers and only exclusively sell cars from that one manufacturer.
Most dealership are independently owned, or at very least owned by big companies that are not the manufacturers. The majority of manufacturers don’t have their own dealership and the ones that do are few and far between.

Now apply that to the computer industry and you are in the same situation. The manufacturers and retailers also make deals where they will only work with one processor.

Many of the smaller computer retailers probably use only one brand of HD, and probably only one brand of RAM. Chances are the main reason the big companies would use several different manufacturer is because they sell enough that a single manufacturer couldn’t keep up with demand. Of course no one would notice is Dell only used Samsung drives and Micron RAM because that’s not the sort of thing that is usually printed anywhere.

Then there is also the case of markets of scale and the more you buy the less you pay for each. So if you were going to sell 500k PCs in a year you could either get 500k processors from one company for maybe 25% off, or you could get 250k processors from 2 different manufactures for maybe 15% off. Which one is going to cost them less? Then you add in that many of the manufacturers also get their motherboards from Intel and that same 500k PCs you sell you get to either buy 1M parts from one manufacturer, or 500k from one, 250k from another and 250k again from a 3rd.


Now lets go back to the P4 era when AMD had the better processors. AMD’s processors were much better then Intel’s for many things like gaming. Of course when enthusiasts look at benchmarking that the most important aspect and it was obvious AMD was better. But Intel was actually better in some applications because Intel focused on some multimedia extensions where as AMD focused on FP calculations. AMD was better for some tasks but not all tasks, so depending what you wanted to do AMD wasn’t always the superior choice.
Add in the consumer now, which generally speaking doesn’t know much of anything, they know a name or two and that’s about it. So if a general consumer that doesn’t know much about what he is getting he doesn’t know that AMD is better in gaming, and even if he did he doesn’t game much so it’s not much of an issue. The consumer probably doesn’t even know who AMD is, but Intel they know about, Intel has been around a while. They know the name Pentium since Intel had been spending a lot of money marketing it for years. The only way they would even know a Pentium 4 was better then a Pentium 1 was that 4 is better then 1. Then you also have the GHz race, where people know a bigger number is better and that’s it, they don’t know that a 2GHz Athalon is faster then a 2.4GHz P4. You present an uninformed consumer with something they don’t know about and they will pick the name they know the best and the number that is biggest. (my roommate just yesterday demonstrated to me he still believes GHz is the only way to tell which processor is better)
General consumers are still asking for P4s because it’s the only thing they even know to ask for. So of course the retailers present them with what they want.

It’s just a case of having the best performance doesn’t mean anything when your consumer doesn’t know how to tell you have the best performance or even who you are.
August 9, 2007 8:45:21 PM

What a load of rubbish that was, people gota scroll all the way past that now!

Facts are facts intel has obviously broken the law or this would of been over ages ago.

I think if they should be punished and AMD should be presented with some money from Intel as compensation, I dont care who sais "they whine they whine". Intel shouldnt have done it!

PS. I am not a fanboy I am buying Q6600 but the truth is just that, they did wrong.
August 9, 2007 10:52:46 PM

Some people really need to learn about fair competition - and what a great thing it's for customer and ultimately the companies that take part in it!

I only wish the legal system in the US would follow Europe & Japan, maybe AMD's plan is so much overwhelming evidence that a public outcry will happen against the democrats (house) if they don't take action.

Quote:
Now apply that to the computer industry and you are in the same situation. The manufacturers and retailers also make deals where they will only work with one processor.


I think you are missing the point, it's not that computer manufacturers didn't want to work with AMD they did, it's just that there only major supplier 'Intel' took away all there rebate incentives, threatened there supply, and made there business relationship generally unworkable if they even attempted to do this. Allegedly (although 90% proven if your are in Europe)
August 9, 2007 11:05:28 PM

cherie22984 said:
Just look at Nvidia now. They are pretty much charging whatever they want for their GPUs. They dont have much competition, so they think its okay for them to charge insane amounts of money for their Ultra cards. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130093

Greed!


Nvidia pretty much won out every area high-end, mid-range, and cookie-cutter markets because AMD/ATI was so late to the competition and won huge amount of market share because no card = no money = no market share.

Anyway, Nvidia and AMD are both on very friendly terms.
August 10, 2007 1:06:18 AM

Ive heard lots of people downing the Barcelona "benchmarks". Now theyre just rumors, no third party, etc, BUT those same people or alot of them, are defending Intel, going from "Its all lies" to now, hey this is business baby FUD. These things keep cropping up all over the world, and people change their minds from, its not real to well its just business as usual shows a fanboism that only deserves 1000$ cpus. If youre that stupid to defend this action, and choose to have no competition, then pay up, just dont drag me and others into that $1000 cpu area with you
August 10, 2007 1:26:51 AM

I have personally always wondered how the Coke/Pepsi business with restaurants worked. I hate that they always only have one or the other. I wonder how exclusive they have to be in order for the supply to be there.
August 10, 2007 1:46:05 AM

The problem for the coke vs pepsi thing is, the restruant owner ends up losing big time. Alot of people prefer coke over pepsi or viva vi, but the cpu buyer is generally unaware as he or she goes into a store and buys his HP or Dell etc. Has nVidia ever done such a thing? Havnt heard about it. Has ATI before the buyout? Never heard of it. No, this is a single , dependent wrongful action by a company that simply didnt need to do it.
August 10, 2007 2:10:37 AM

You see, the corporations
finance Team Intel.
And then Team Intel goes out,
and the corporations sit there in their...
In their corporation buildings,
and, see, they're all corporation-y,
and they make money.
August 10, 2007 2:14:03 AM

Thank of it this way, if something doesn't happen, because Intel it is very close to becoming a monopoly, and will if AMD Dies, then Intel will actually suffer more (remember M$).
a c 102 à CPUs
August 10, 2007 3:19:50 AM

paladin13 said:
How many years did the Athlon 64's and Athlon X2's exist in the market without Core2?

During that time, Intel managed to continue selling those crap CPU's

How did they manage that?

The above statement reveals how!
Time to pay!


Intel has been pulling stuff for quite some time, according the the legal briefs AMD had on their website. The complaints pretty much went back to the very early P4 days- well before the K8 was sold. The suit was filed about when the Core 2 came out, so the suit alleges that Intel *had* done bad things in the past, not necessarily that they are still doing them. The whole Core 2 vs. K8 bit was well after the suit had been put together and isn't part of the briefs or the case IIRC, so it's not germane to that argument.

However, it does certainly factor into the discussion about whether Intel is a monopoly *now* and is abusing its power. My two cents are that Intel currently does have a little more pricing power in the market due to a somewhat better product and being a larger company with more cash, but Intel could not get away with raising prices significantly without losing a bunch of business to AMD, unless AMD also raises prices. I think that Intel knows this too and is aggressively trying to sell chips at low prices to undercut AMD for overall value. This represents a healthy market and signifies that Intel either does not have or is not abusing its monopoly power at the present.
a c 102 à CPUs
August 10, 2007 3:44:08 AM

BaronMatrix said:
Well, at least some people here are willing to admit the "appearance of impropriety." The evidence is all over. The Opteron launch was torpedoed. There was a time when the mighty ASUS wouldn't even put their name on an AMD mobo for fear of Intel.


It was because they were nowhere near as large as they are today. Today, if Intel tried to pressure them, they could probably do more damage to Intel by threatening to not make any OEM boards for Intel chips. Voila, Intel would lose probably 1/3 of whitebox systems and almost all HPs and many other OEM systems unless the OEMs and such wanted to go out and find another Tier 1 motherboard supplier that would carry Intel boards. My guess is that quite a few would not, especially if they're not doing high-end builds.

It's kind of like Dell and Linux: Microsoft can't say much as Dell is their biggest customer IIRC and it would do Microsoft a tremendous amount of damage from lost sales if Dell called MS's bluff and dropped them as an OS supplier. Sure, Dell would lose some business, but not nearly as much as MS would lose and MS knows it. But some Tier 2 vendor would be a successful "dissuasion" target as their margins are low and MS could effectively make them non-competitive if they reduced their volume discount for meddling with competing software and the market for the competing software isn't big enough to completely sustain them. ASUS was in the same boat 10 years ago WRT Intel and AMD chips.

Quote:
I used ti use Intel but the overwhelming amount of FUD was too much. I mean people were shooting down the 3GHz Phenom demo and The Inq was forced to reply with pictures.


Huh? Did the CPU have a "FUD-sink" on top of it that spewed a stream of FUD into your den or something? Simply owning a product doesn't require that you become a fanboy of it. I'm no Intel fanboy yet I have a notebook with a Core 2 Duo in it. BTW, most people shoot down stuff in The Inq because it's The Inq. They sometimes do get things right, but they also get a lot of stuff wrong and thus aren't particularly trustworthy. There might be some fanboyism there, but most of it's anti-Inq than anti-AMD.

Quote:
They're just two companies not the Second Coming. They should co-exist as IBM wanted. PERIOD!!!!


What IBM wants AMD and Intel to do is meaningless today. IBM doesn't even deal that much in x86 any more after selling their consumer division to Lenovo. They pretty exclusively deal in servers and consulting now and have about as much influence on the PC hardware market as your local mom 'n pop computer store does. About the only thing that they do that is remotely related to PCs is that they contribute a lot of code to Linux and a significant amount of desktop and laptop PCs run that. But Linux doesn't care what CPU it runs on, so that is a moot point as well.
August 10, 2007 4:41:09 AM

rethdog said:
I think you are missing the point, it's not that computer manufacturers didn't want to work with AMD they did, it's just that there only major supplier 'Intel' took away all there rebate incentives, threatened there supply, and made there business relationship generally unworkable if they even attempted to do this. Allegedly (although 90% proven if your are in Europe)


This is the exact same situation that is with some of the car dealerships and other situations I was mentioning. Do you think Toyota is going to give the same supplier rates to Bobs Car Shop that sells Toyota, Ford, and Hyundai, or do you think Toyota is going to give the best deal to Bills Toyota Emporium that sells nothing but Toyota.

In terms of dealerships, their incentives and relationships are even more important. A dealership that can't do warranty work on the cars they sell or doesn't get to take part in any of the special "manufacturer sales incentives" is going to be very badly hurt by that. The manufacturers make the dealerships jump through hoops to be recommended shops for work, to have the certified used car programs, to have first picks at the cars that are released.
When I was last looking at buying a car it was no suprise when the one manufacturer dealership had the best selection of cars and had some of every option and had the newest released cars. But when I looked at another dealership (a much bigger dealership in fact) that was selling several different manufacturers, they were complaining because they were only being sent the version with leather seats, which cost more and sell very poorly here in Arizona because of the heat, and that they got very few of the newly released models. Dealerships have to go through a lot of work to keep the manufacturers happy and giving them the best deals. The manufacturers make it as hard as possible to make sure that when someone goes to a dealership they only see their cars and not their competators. Big dealerships have more control over that sort of thing, but its still there.

That is almost exactly the same as what Intel is being charged with as anti-trust. Of course people don't notice it because no auto company has a decisive advantage over their competitors and they have a lot of competitors. But that doesn't change the fact that it either has to be ok for everyone or illegal for everyone. They can't change the rules for specific companies or you just end up with governments trying to regulate everything and taking all control away from the companies.



As far as "dumping" as it is called when a manufacturer selling parts for less then it costs to make, it may be but it really doesn't seem like it. Intel was obviously making money all those years so they couldn't be dumping too much. There was also no retail company that was able to sell their computers for considerably less then their competitors, and you would think if they are getting this super cheap processors and rebates and all sorts of other incentives then they would have been able to sell their systems for less.

The practice of selling your parts for less for each unit when a lot are purchased all at once is very common and its done everywhere. If Gateway orders 100k processors from Intel one year and Intel says, well since you're buying so much from us we'll drop $25 of each processor, and then next year Gateway comes back and says, we only want to order 50K processors from you this year because we are also ordering 50K processors from AMD, well then it would be very reasonable to think that Intel is not going to give them the same $25 off on each processor that they did before. They may only give $10 off this time (discount and order price don't have to be linear). That is normal business practice for any manufacturing company, the more you buy the more you get off. To Gateway though that means its going to cost them an extra $750k a year just for the Intel chips if they want to buy processors from two different suppliers (not counted the price different in AMDs processors vs the Intel processors they got before at a lower price). Thats going to be a bit cost for Gateway to justify in moving to AMD as well as Intel, and it seems like Intel is charging them more, but they just aren't giving as big of a discount. That could very well still be the same $10 off they give to Acer that only buys Intel but sells less so they only get 50K processors a year in the first place.
August 10, 2007 5:19:08 AM

I love the fact that people say when AMD goes down Intel will charge 800 dollars just for a low end cpu. Wow oh do I laugh. Its called a business people and when your in business you have to sell things to people whether you have competition or not and Intel isnt exactly sleeping on the job and not paying attention to the market.
August 10, 2007 6:07:21 AM

Hmm, wonder how many people are screaming "bad, bad Intel!!" But were cheering for Mr. Bonds. :sarcastic: 
August 10, 2007 7:18:26 AM

erloas said:
This is the exact same situation that is with some of the car dealerships and other situations I was mentioning. Do you think Toyota is going to give the same supplier rates to Bobs Car Shop that sells Toyota, Ford, and Hyundai, or do you think Toyota is going to give the best deal to Bills Toyota Emporium that sells nothing but Toyota.

You are missing some points, Toyota dont own 60% market, not even close, there is actualy more then 30 cars makers (maybe even more i have not interest in this area).
Car market is quite diferent from procesor market, there doesnt matter if your car can go 250 or 350 kmph because in most cases you will be limiting speed to 60-130 kmph. If some car manufacturer try same deal as Intel, it will hurt mainly them, and will have realy low impact on customer or other car makers. And of course i can get most of cars customized and directly from factory and will get them cheaper then getting them from some reseler whitch sometime geting more then 25% of car price. This is ofcourse not possible from all manufacturers and not much ppl know it and also it take some effort to do so. This is possible beacause no reseler is seling milions of cars per month as it is in CPU and also cars are finished product and CPUs only small part of one.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 10, 2007 7:38:35 AM

But if Toyota told Bobs Car Shop that they would be given x amount of dollars if they convinced a customer to buy a Toyota rather than than the Ford or Hyundai that the customer requested then this could be seen as an underhand practice which is what Intel is being accused of.
August 10, 2007 10:54:34 AM

Yea, i don't particularly care who's on top of the CPU game, i'll buy which ever is the best value for money.

BUT if the guy who makes the worse product makes it nearly impossible for me to buy a system with the better, cheaper parts then i get pissed off.

This is exactly what intel did in the K8/Netburst days, i wanted to buy a K8 system because it was better value for money, but i had to build my own system because there simply was no K8 system for sale in my country.

So everybody who couldn't build there own system, like every business company looking for new computers got riped off by being sold Netburst systems, artificially keeping intel's market share high.

I say this sux because customers didn't get to choose what they wanted to buy, and got an inferior product.

I say Intel should pay up

P.S. if AMD had done the same i'd be saying that they should pay up

P.P.S. to all of you who've been saying that this is just how capitalism works, go back to school, you're morons because you obviously have no clue how any system of economics works, and you are apparently happy to pay what ever price is asked for. End of the day it's the customer who decides what to buy, taking away the customers right to choose is why we have anti trust laws!
August 10, 2007 11:35:33 AM

Intel shouldn't pay up. They make a rock solid product. AMD should increase it competitiveness and we will see that in the coming weeks with the release of its K10. What did Intel do when its Netburst processsors sales are about to be burnt to ashes by K8? More competition, and now Intel is ahead of its game. If AMD pulled this off with its K10 then they're back to cat and mouse chase.
August 10, 2007 1:44:26 PM

Quote:
skyline0511

Intel was already found guilty in japan and is sued in EU and Korea and will probably sued in other countries.
(in my country there was incident when most of major gas distributors tryed inreased they income by making secret deal and making huge increase in gas prices, they was cought, sued, lost and paid more then thay make by this deal).
There was lots of similar incidents in past few years, where other companies and customers was damaged so i think EU will take this reale seriously.
Right now petrol industry and electronics is where most moneys are make and they are carefully watched. Also those industry is where most coruptions and secret deals are make.
I hope if Intell is found guilty he will get some sort of exemplary punishment, to show other big companies that their money are not gona save them if they break laws.

August 10, 2007 1:45:51 PM

skyline0511: "What did Intel do when its Netburst processsors sales are about to be burnt to ashes by K8? More competition"

.... um, no, not more competition, the moral of the story was that it had a worse product so it forced retailers to buy them.

What would you say if AMD right now made Dell, HP, etc sell only its K8 line?

You'd bitch like hell is what you'd do
August 10, 2007 2:32:14 PM

xrodney said:
You are missing some points, Toyota dont own 60% market, not even close, there is actualy more then 30 cars makers (maybe even more i have not interest in this area).
Car market is quite diferent from procesor market, there doesnt matter if your car can go 250 or 350 kmph because in most cases you will be limiting speed to 60-130 kmph. If some car manufacturer try same deal as Intel, it will hurt mainly them, and will have realy low impact on customer or other car makers. And of course i can get most of cars customized and directly from factory and will get them cheaper then getting them from some reseler whitch sometime geting more then 25% of car price. This is ofcourse not possible from all manufacturers and not much ppl know it and also it take some effort to do so. This is possible beacause no reseler is seling milions of cars per month as it is in CPU and also cars are finished product and CPUs only small part of one.



lol, imagine your processor was only alowed to go at 3ghz maximum, anything over is classed as speeding and you can be fined :D 

Sorry im in my own little world.. but hey! sue Intel! If they are found to be truly quilty of coarse, which they most likely are :D 
August 10, 2007 4:02:15 PM

Hatman said:
lol, imagine your processor was only alowed to go at 3ghz maximum, anything over is classed as speeding and you can be fined :D 

Sorry im in my own little world.. but hey! sue Intel! If they are found to be truly quilty of coarse, which they most likely are :D 

3GHz cpu is not gona kill you like car going ofroad at 300 kmph :pt1cable: 
They maybe will be some diferent limits in distant future (imagine 10THz cpu generating high frequency EM field - microwave someon ? :ouch:  )
August 10, 2007 5:21:49 PM

If Intel manages to bury AMD then some other processor will gain in market share, the market is so big that SOMEBODY will put together a crash project to design/produce a new chip. Once they put another product out there then competition will bring prices back down again. Anybody remember Motorola?

(course, this is where somebody will fly in and list all the current cpu makers, as if that would somehow effect my arguement. I dont CARE that there's already more than 2 cpu manufactures, the point is that the #2 spot would just move on to the next team)

*raises tissue paper based anti-flamer defense system*
August 10, 2007 5:38:15 PM

xrodney said:
You are missing some points, Toyota dont own 60% market, not even close, there is actualy more then 30 cars makers (maybe even more i have not interest in this area).
Car market is quite diferent from procesor market, there doesnt matter if your car can go 250 or 350 kmph because in most cases you will be limiting speed to 60-130 kmph. If some car manufacturer try same deal as Intel, it will hurt mainly them, and will have realy low impact on customer or other car makers. And of course i can get most of cars customized and directly from factory and will get them cheaper then getting them from some reseler whitch sometime geting more then 25% of car price. This is ofcourse not possible from all manufacturers and not much ppl know it and also it take some effort to do so. This is possible beacause no reseler is seling milions of cars per month as it is in CPU and also cars are finished product and CPUs only small part of one.


So the practice of giving incentives to companies that push your product is OK in the auto industry because there is a lot of competition there, but its illegal in the processor industry because there isn't a lot of competition? Thats not how laws work, it either has to be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone, legality of an action shouldn't be changed for everyone.

In terms of performance there really isn't that big of a difference between processors either. Sure the benchmarks show big differences and if you have a lot of systems side by side doing comparisions then you might see the difference, but your average consumer isn't going to even notice if that MP3 takes 3 seconds longer to transcode or if they get 56 FPS compared to 62FPS. All of the processors, even the inferior P4s, still functioned perfectly fine for everything, even if it was a bit slower.


Mousemonkey said:
But if Toyota told Bobs Car Shop that they would be given x amount of dollars if they convinced a customer to buy a Toyota rather than than the Ford or Hyundai that the customer requested then this could be seen as an underhand practice which is what Intel is being accused of.

This happens all the time too in the auto industry. A salesperson gets more money depending on which product they are able to push. If Toyota is giving them a better price and a higher profit margin then Ford is then they will pay their salespeople more per car sold if they can get people to buy a Toyota rather then a Ford. The commision difference between pushing one car over another could be a huge difference in what a salesperson makes per sale.



If Intel where going for a monopoly, they obviously had the money and a lot of influence, then it seems odd that at that time their market share did fall. They lost a fair amount of market share, so obviously they weren't pushing their implied monopoly too hard. They didn't loose it all and they didn't end up with a market share equal to the performance difference, but there is a lot more to market share then just performance. As has been pointed out several times Intel spend more money in advertising durning many of those years then AMD had to spend in R&D. The whole point of advertising is to sell your product over your competitors no matter which one is actually better. Its been shown many times that with superior advertising a company can gain a lot of ground even with an inferior product, and its easier to hold market share then it is to gain it so they had an easier job. Maybe we should make all advertising illegal too because it helps bigger companies with more money to spend on advertising get people to buy their product over their smaller competitors.
August 10, 2007 6:00:36 PM

if Intel had such a perfect product like many here believe then they would have never needed to engage in these childish & illegal ways. Build a better product and you will win...
August 10, 2007 6:18:31 PM

I'm with geoman, i am poor now. But, "in your face intel!" I think that if amd had done the same thing i would lose a lot of respect for them. Trusts suck. Look up 'telkom'.
August 10, 2007 6:36:48 PM

Reynod said:
I hope justice prevails and Intel has to payup.

The proceeds could wipe AMD's debt completely.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The damages bill is probably going to be between 2 to 10 Billion? Is that correct?

The ATI aquisition could actually end up being a freebee !!!

Go Barcelona !!

Stick that up your nose Ottelini ...You won't be CEO much longer.

I imagine this is the main reason Intel is desperately trying to push AMD to the wall ... how many successive price cuts has Intel made now??


Wow, simmer down everyone! This is only a preliminary finding and Intel has not been formally charged with anything or even formally tried yet. In fact, Intel didn't even know the entire details of what they were being accused of until this report came out. The process is such that Intel now has a certain amount of time to respond to these accusations and the commission will take it from there...meaning that the commission hasn't even heard Intel's side of it yet...just AMD's.

This is as bad as taking AMD or Intel benchmarks as gold...it ain't true until they've been vetted and verified. So, give it time, the facts will come out...then cast your stones.
August 10, 2007 6:37:11 PM

erloas said:
So the practice of giving incentives to companies that push your product is OK in the auto industry because there is a lot of competition there, but its illegal in the processor industry because there isn't a lot of competition? Thats not how laws work, it either has to be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone, legality of an action shouldn't be changed for everyone. .


Of course trying damage anyon is not right, but point is if you owe 5% market you dont have position to do so, because you dont have position for this, but its diferent if you owe 60% or more. Thats why mainly realy big companies are controled. If someon with small market share try those tricks, they will damage only themself because there is lots of cars to choose from.

Quote:

This happens all the time too in the auto industry. A salesperson gets more money depending on which product they are able to push. If Toyota is giving them a better price and a higher profit margin then Ford is then they will pay their salespeople more per car sold if they can get people to buy a Toyota rather then a Ford. The commision difference between pushing one car over another could be a huge difference in what a salesperson makes per sale.


Toyota dont give deals like "You will loose your premium price if start seling other cars" or even "we will give our cars to someon else if you dont sell only Toyota".
There is same problem as in 1st part, not strong enough position.

Quote:

If Intel where going for a monopoly, they obviously had the money and a lot of influence, then it seems odd that at that time their market share did fall. They lost a fair amount of market share, so obviously they weren't pushing their implied monopoly too hard. They didn't loose it all and they didn't end up with a market share equal to the performance difference, but there is a lot more to market share then just performance. As has been pointed out several times Intel spend more money in advertising durning many of those years then AMD had to spend in R&D. The whole point of advertising is to sell your product over your competitors no matter which one is actually better. Its been shown many times that with superior advertising a company can gain a lot of ground even with an inferior product, and its easier to hold market share then it is to gain it so they had an easier job. Maybe we should make all advertising illegal too because it helps bigger companies with more money to spend on advertising get people to buy their product over their smaller competitors.

Intel lost mostly on server market because companies seling servers are usualy bigger then companies seling normal PCs and even Intel cant compare to some of them (IBM for example). They was able to make illegal deals mostly only on PC market, damaging end users.
Do you count IBM and Samsung R&D budget into it ? Because AMD is closely cooperating in R&D with them.
About Intel spending so much moneys on advertising, well i am IT specialist curently working for IBM and i didnt saw Intel advertisement too many times. Maybe because I personaly trying avoid any advertising websites and rather get information from better sources.
August 10, 2007 7:20:04 PM

mordenkhai said:
I have personally always wondered how the Coke/Pepsi business with restaurants worked. I hate that they always only have one or the other. I wonder how exclusive they have to be in order for the supply to be there.

Um.. it's called exclusive contracting. The university that I attended had an exclusive agreement with Pepsi-co to provide for their vending machines and all campus-based restaurants. The upside for the University? Money! The company paid them almost $1 million a year in kickbacks. This is also how it works in your local school systems. Usually, the money is not paid outright (as in bribery), but rather funneled through philanthropic measures such as donating $500,000 to the new basketball stadium or what-not. They also funnel some of the money as a profit-sharing enterprise with the university in order to pad their general accounts coffers.
YahooAolComcast said:
I love the fact that people say when AMD goes down Intel will charge 800 dollars just for a low end cpu. Wow oh do I laugh. Its called a business people and when your in business you have to sell things to people whether you have competition or not and Intel isnt exactly sleeping on the job and not paying attention to the market.

Ummm.. huh... remember the 386/486 days? I didn't see much competition there and back in 92, I paid $2000 (about $3500 in today's money) for a 486DX-33 with VGA and a 120MB hard drive with 4 MB RAM and a 14" SVGA monitor (all used, all open-box from somewhere I will never admit buying from). If there HAD been competition in the x86 segment at that time, I would have been able to buy that system for well under $1200 considering that the new 486DX2-66's and 100's had just come out, so mine wasn't even top of the line. That's the difference between a monopoly and a real competitive environment.

erloas said:
So the practice of giving incentives to companies that push your product is OK in the auto industry because there is a lot of competition there, but its illegal in the processor industry because there isn't a lot of competition? Thats not how laws work, it either has to be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone, legality of an action shouldn't be changed for everyone.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG... the state of the market for the goods in question is EXACTLY the point of the laws in this area. If this were true, then why would it be that any hypothetical merger of AMD and Intel would be blocked by the FTC for creating a monopoly, yet if Chevy buys say, Volkswagen for instance, that it would more than likely go through? The amount of TRUE competitors in the market is a overriding factor in determining monopolistic behavior by the dominant market company.
erloas said:

This happens all the time too in the auto industry. A salesperson gets more money depending on which product they are able to push. If Toyota is giving them a better price and a higher profit margin then Ford is then they will pay their salespeople more per car sold if they can get people to buy a Toyota rather then a Ford. The commision difference between pushing one car over another could be a huge difference in what a salesperson makes per sale.

Ah, you're missing the entire point of what Intel is being accused of doing. Let me put it to you this way: would it then be OK for Toyota to make back-door payments for the Ford/Toyota dealer to intentionally not stock the latest/most sought after Ford products? Would it be OK for Toyota to dump their products below cost because Ford's are less expensive? Would it be OK for Toyota to pay the dealership to delay carrying the 2008 lineup until midway through the next year?
Commissions for your sales people is a decision made by the dealership, not the manufacturer. That's like saying that Intel was innocent because they weren't telling the OEM's what to actually charge for their completed products or how much to pay their employees when they sold them. Oh, and couple that with the fact that if you really wanted the Ford, you can still get it because it's AVAILABLE. What Intel was doing was making sure that the competition's product wasn't even an option for customers.

erloas said:

If Intel where going for a monopoly, they obviously had the money and a lot of influence, then it seems odd that at that time their market share did fall. They lost a fair amount of market share, so obviously they weren't pushing their implied monopoly too hard. They didn't loose it all and they didn't end up with a market share equal to the performance difference, but there is a lot more to market share then just performance. As has been pointed out several times Intel spend more money in advertising durning many of those years then AMD had to spend in R&D. The whole point of advertising is to sell your product over your competitors no matter which one is actually better. Its been shown many times that with superior advertising a company can gain a lot of ground even with an inferior product, and its easier to hold market share then it is to gain it so they had an easier job. Maybe we should make all advertising illegal too because it helps bigger companies with more money to spend on advertising get people to buy their product over their smaller competitors.

Oh... here we go again... The only reason that Intel didn't lose MORE market share than they did was because, as the largest player in the field, they had the cash reserves to take the losses in the short term in order to maintain some semblance of their "dominant" market share and push money onto their OEM's and vendors to not use their competitors (at the time) superior product. If the market forces were left unmolested, then Intel would have lost their asses until they got their products up to par. That's a fact. The advertising is important. I'm not discounting that because it is. BUT, at the end of the day product availability comes into play because I can guarantee you that 90% of computer buyers that buy OEM products DO NOT HAVE A PREFERANCE of CPU manufacturer. They just want the most bang for the buck. In light of the fact that Intel made direct payments to suppress the availability of AMD chips into the OEM stream, they took their competition out of the running before they even got started.


About Intel spending so much moneys on advertising, well i am IT specialist curently working for IBM and i didnt saw Intel advertisement too many times. Maybe because I personaly trying avoid any advertising websites and rather get information from better sources. said:

About Intel spending so much moneys on advertising, well i am IT specialist curently working for IBM and i didnt saw Intel advertisement too many times. Maybe because I personaly trying avoid any advertising websites and rather get information from better sources.

Not pushing their products too hard, huh? Then why is it that ANY commercial fielded by ANY of the vendors/OEM's that Intel sells to is CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to include the little jingle and the "Intel Inside" logo at either A) the very start of the commercial B) at the very end of the commercial or C) in a prominent place somewhere in their print advertisement?[/quotemsg]
Look... don't be niave and don't be ignorant: Intel is full of intelligent, dilligent people. They knew what they were doing was wrong and so do you if you give any credance to the fact that Intel engaged in these subversive behaviors (TBD if they were illegal). They knew that they would have to have defenses in place to counter the arguments against them. One of those counter-points is the Advertising issue. Another counter-point is that they did not vigorously defend their market share, but instead let it slip A LITTLE before going full-tilt on their anti-competitive behavior. It's a veil of BS IMO. They knew (as we all do) what was REALLY going on. They were losing their asses to a competitor who was small potatoes with a hell of a lot better product at the time and they engaged in some highly questionable practices in order to maintain ANY sort of dominance of their market. Case closed.
August 10, 2007 7:25:32 PM

Ever since the Core 2 Duo came out AMD has been complaining. If this is even remotely true, why didn't AMD complain about it back then? I find that Intel is using their marketing strategy better then AMD. Intel is larger, has more money, can spend more time on R&D, and right now is better then AMD.

This reminds me of when I play risk or monopoly with someone who is losing... Heck, If you play any RTS (real time strategy) or FPS (first person shooter), whoever is losing is always complaining that you cheated. But the question is, did you?

This, my friends, will have to be left for the court system, not some fanboy.

I am not a fanboy for Intel; I am a fanboy for benchmarks. I follow the best and leave the rest.
August 10, 2007 7:33:48 PM

skyline0511 said:
Intel shouldn't pay up. They make a rock solid product. AMD should increase it competitiveness and we will see that in the coming weeks with the release of its K10. What did Intel do when its Netburst processsors sales are about to be burnt to ashes by K8? More competition, and now Intel is ahead of its game. If AMD pulled this off with its K10 then they're back to cat and mouse chase.



first, AMD DID increase it's competitiveness launching A64 from athlons XP.
Intel just had to pay manufacturer to pass prescott in front while there was nothing new on it.

now, if AMD wouldn't do this, then release a better CPU, Intel will continue this little game changing a socket with no new features but ddr3 support, they would allow ddr3 costs to drop by paying manufacturers to prior intel's chipset compatibility then, again, AMD will see it's product faded by intel's while it could be way better.

intel's compiler was performing less on AMD.
hack the system and tell him your AMD cpu is an Intel CPU and it's now faster on AMD's cpu...
why ? intel's compiler was checking CPU brand, if not intel, it would compile without any SSE.
this have been blamed and corrected but i doubt it was an error.

Phenom WILL be stronger, it's a younger architecture, performance/clock will be better.
phenom could be surprising, still actual feature product from intel seems rock solid...
the next few steps will be awesome for consumers...

then, AMD just want to be sure Intel won't cheat the market.
!