Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Selling Lawsuits AMD Vs Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 10:07:09 AM
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 10:34:25 AM

thats BS
April 16, 2008 11:02:21 AM

Reynod said:
A great little article here.


Not really.


Its dubious in the extreme to say Intel is in the same boat as the NFL. Intel have already been convicted of abusing their position in some parts of the world.



Mistakes within AMD have contributed to their current position, as has Intel's dodgy dealings. Which has contributed more is anyones guess, and you can bet the earnings lost to AMD through Intel's anti-competition practices in the K7/K8 era (when AMD was very well run) amount to much more than 3 dollars.


If AMD can demonstrate Barcelona was compromised, and their process transition was compromised by lack of funds (which would have resulted from Intel's dirty work) then they could receive a very sizable payout.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 11:21:34 AM

.
April 16, 2008 11:56:45 AM

Reynod said:
Well the website is a UK based one ..

Why does that matter?
And I would say it was American based, judging by the date alignment, adverts for US stores and the fact it's talking about American football....
April 16, 2008 12:22:53 PM

Reynod said:
Well the website is a UK based one ..


Are you getting them mixed up with overclockers.co.uk?

An etailer? :) 
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 12:29:51 PM



What I want to know is what does it matter wether or not its a UK site...


These sorts of comments are out of order and unecessary...


Like all the other sites have been trustworthy... but at least we got some.

April 16, 2008 12:40:42 PM

AMD fans can complain all they want, but when AMD had the better product their factories were operating at full capacity and could not have supplied more processors if they wanted to do so. They were also in a position to charge a premium for their chips.

Where AMD failed is in the fact that it's been many years since they have created a great new product. The Phenom is a modest improvement at best over the old X2 chips. The only advantage it truly has is the extra cores. I suspect that AMD could have done just as well by making a simpler quad on the old technology.

If Phenom had shipped on time.
Had performed as touted.
AMD would be in the black and charging premium prices for their chips.

The truth is that AMD is producing chips that in general are inferior to Intel Chips which forces them to charge a low price. On top of that they are using 90nm and 65nm processes which are more expensive to run than Intel's 65nm/45nm processes. So they are getting caught from two directions.

Am I pulling for AMD?
Of Course! Competition is good.
Who is primarily responsible for AMD's current situation?
AMD.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 1:17:11 PM

.
April 16, 2008 1:19:10 PM

Reynod said:
Woah ... I wasn't knocking the UK.

That's the motherland for me ...

Us poor convict stock in down under come mostly from UK stock.

I had fish n chips for tea.

It probably is a US site then eh?

I just liked the article ... I thought it made some good points.

I know little about the US footy except the guys who play it must be scared to get hurt ... all that padding and the stopping and starting ... doesn't seem as manly as Rugby or Aussie rules.

You're let off then! ;) 
April 16, 2008 1:26:24 PM

Reynod said:
Woah ... I wasn't knocking the UK.



Knock away dude...


Everyone hates the poms :D 
April 16, 2008 1:28:00 PM

zenmaster said:
AMD fans can complain all they want, but when AMD had the better product their factories were operating at full capacity and could not have supplied more processors if they wanted to do so.


Erm, contract out - TSMC...


Quote:

They were also in a position to charge a premium for their chips.


And the bstarts did :fou: 

They pissed off alot of people charging hideous amounts for the X2s.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 16, 2008 1:33:00 PM

The only problem I have with this is that for the time K8 was on top AMD gained a massive amount of market share in that time. Of course there is no way that they could just take all of the market share.

Now the one reason I see that no matter what happens Intel will always sell more chips is due to the fact that they have a much larger manufacturing process and can make more chips and sell them for less. Plus Intels process is normally mature, like how P4 was with K8, therefore it cost them less to produce the CPUs.

I personally don't see how Phenom was effected by this. If they spent the money they used on ATI for Phenom there is no guarantee it would work better. But I mean come on. They spent all of their cash and got a loan for ATI and they want to say Phenom was effected by not having enough money to work on it? Thats a load of bull hockey.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 1:33:37 PM

.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 1:35:02 PM

.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 1:45:30 PM

Amiga500 said:
Knock away dude...


Everyone hates the poms :D 



We wont mention the type of women we sent over to populate Austrailia.....Will we...

Oh no :sol: 
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 16, 2008 1:48:59 PM

Amiga500 said:
Erm, contract out - TSMC...


Quote:

They were also in a position to charge a premium for their chips.


And the bstarts did :fou: 

They pissed off alot of people charging hideous amounts for the X2s.


Didn't AMD say they didn't want to do that? Or they might have to. But TMSC is what ATI uses so why wouldn't AMD do it to save money? Then maybe they could seel the chips for the same price but get a better margin.

I remember the crazy X2 prices. FX series was around 1k+. It was funny how people now go AMD to build a low end budget system but back then they couldn't unless it was a Sempron/Celeron POS.

Oh well. If Phenom had been the Core2 killer AMD was expecting, their CPUs would be high priced.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 2:05:36 PM

Quote:
:(  ......................



you mean you dont know.....
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 2:09:56 PM

.
April 16, 2008 2:10:55 PM

1811221,13,142837 said:
Erm, contract out - TSMC...
Quote:


Contracting out is not a simple task for CPU Fabs.

It would requie massive amounts of investments from both parties to get those lines up and running.
You can't simply make one type of chip one day and decide to make another the next.

The Path AMD chose was to build a large number of their own FABS to meet demand instead of contracting out.

Now, It would have been cheaper and faster to contract out than build their own fabs but that is not the path they chose.

One very logical reason why many major builders did not go with AMD lines is that AMD had a constant shortage of CPUs. This made introducing an AMD line risky. On top of that, the shortage meant that AMD Chips were not the low price they are today. As we know, most retail shoppers were looking more for price than performance.
That just made Intel the safe choice.

And that is the funny thing.
Today AMD has a chip surplus and is selling them much cheaper but are not inferior.
However, you will find more AMD chips in retail systems than ever before.
This is because the vendors have a guarenteed supply and are likely getting incredible deals from AMD.
Something they could not swing when AMD did not have surplus capacity.

a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 2:16:59 PM

Reynod said:
Eh??

I married one.

No regrets.



Im treading carefully here.....

You do know what I mean by what i said, dont you... What us Brits back in history did to populate Australia....

Unfortunately this is factual, as aposed to being antagonising...


Not that I am proud on some of what this country has done, but then again if it didnt then Australia and America wouldnt be the great countries they are today, would they
April 16, 2008 2:29:49 PM

Hellboy said:
We wont mention the type of women we sent over to populate Australia.....Will we...

Oh no :sol: 




Why did yez keep the ugly ones then? :??:  ;)  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 2:31:01 PM

Amiga500 said:
Why did yez keep the ugly ones then? :??:  ;)  :lol: 



We send them back next time round, when you were drunk

April 16, 2008 2:31:47 PM

Hellboy said:
You do know what I mean by what i said, dont you... What us Brits back in history did to populate Australia....



I'm Irish boyo - I know exactly what yez did.
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 2:32:47 PM

Amiga500 said:
I'm Irish boyo - I know exactly what yez did.




And were still being punished for it :pt1cable: 
April 16, 2008 3:10:53 PM

Well, considering some of the females Ive seen from oz, mustve been a good thing in the end
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 3:19:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Well, considering some of the females Ive seen from oz, mustve been a good thing in the end



Ive heard of a WW website...


I bet your on it....
April 16, 2008 3:24:40 PM

LOL Naw, just love those luvly ozziets
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 3:29:47 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
LOL Naw, just love those luvly ozziets




Youve gone all red...........
April 16, 2008 3:34:01 PM

Currently a green teamer heheh
April 16, 2008 4:06:49 PM

Couldn't help but laugh when I saw the AMD site with the friendly looking mob holding up the "fair and open competition" sign. Personally I think the cpu market is plenty "fair and open", it's just that AMD simply is not good enough to compete.

It really makes me disappointed in AMD to see that they stoop to legal action to make money, as opposed to just making good processors. They have lost integrity as a company.

April 16, 2008 5:12:06 PM

The thing about stooping is, it wont pay off if it isnt true. So if Intel is found guilty? Will people then concede the fact that a company with far superior resources and abilities stooped so low as to illegally hinder a much more under resourced, smaller company? And if so, which is the worse? Who knows how itll turn out, but Im hoping our judicial system finds truth, and not just hands out other peoples/businesses money
April 16, 2008 5:41:50 PM

I cant believe some people are actually blaming INTEL for AMD making chips that dont perform as well. Or even nearly as well, for that matter.

Now I've heard everything.
April 16, 2008 5:48:09 PM

[#fff000][#ff0e00][#c60038][fixed]hjfrhgjdfdjfghjdfh
April 16, 2008 5:50:38 PM

wat is the best to amd or intel?
April 16, 2008 6:03:39 PM

rayzorblackz_16 said:
[#fff000][#ff0e00][#c60038][fixed]hjfrhgjdfdjfghjdfh


I totally agree.
April 16, 2008 6:09:48 PM

I dont give a arts rass which company gets my hardearned greenbacks. And if Intel is found guilty? Im just hoping they continue to make all their products with the quality and price weve all become accustomed to. Let the judges be the judges, and the facts lay where they will, in the end, I hope it doesnt change Intel, unless theyre guilty, and then of course for the better
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2008 9:17:39 PM

1811217,10,135498 said:
Woah ... I wasn't knocking the UK.

That's the motherland for me ...

Us poor convict stock in down under come mostly from UK stock.

I had fish n chips for tea.

quotemsg]



Was that with a bread roll and a pickled onion....
April 17, 2008 12:07:24 AM

Amiga500 said:
Not really.


Its dubious in the extreme to say Intel is in the same boat as the NFL. Intel have already been convicted of abusing their position in some parts of the world.



Mistakes within AMD have contributed to their current position, as has Intel's dodgy dealings. Which has contributed more is anyones guess, and you can bet the earnings lost to AMD through Intel's anti-competition practices in the K7/K8 era (when AMD was very well run) amount to much more than 3 dollars.


If AMD can demonstrate Barcelona was compromised, and their process transition was compromised by lack of funds (which would have resulted from Intel's dirty work) then they could receive a very sizable payout.


Im sorry, but Im afraid I must disagree. This debate is one that resurfaces about every 4~6 months, usually re-ignited by the "look -what evil Intel did to AMD" fanboys. And the facts never change. AMDs current situation has nothing to do with any "dodgy dealings", alleged or otherwise, on the part of Intel. AMD put themselves where they are now, and they would be hard pressed to prove Barcelona and their process transition was compromised by lack of funds due to illegal actives on the part of Intel.

As has already been pointed out in another post, AMD was at capacity, and charging premium prices prior to the advent of C2D. What wasnt noted was that at that time, AMD was consistantly consuming overall market share, quarter over quarter, and rapidly approaching their goal of 30% total market. AMD cannot claim Intel denied them funds when:

A) Due to a lack of competition from Intel, AMDs products were so far ahead as to create high demand for them.
B) The high demand for AMD products was so great as to strain their manufacturing capacity
C) Market demand was high enough that AMD was able to drive/set market prices
D) During that period of high demand/prices, AMD was enjoying high margins
E) AMDs success at that time, AFTER the alleged wrong doing, was so great that they pulled themselves into "the black" and were showing profits well above operating costs and debt.
F) AMD was increasing market share
>>>>this last one has bothered me for a long time. How could AMD justify high prices by claiming they were at capacity, yet still expand their total share in a market that is constantly expanding? You cant be "at capacity", yet still produce more to satisfy an increase in market share. There are several possible answers to this.
-1) AMD yields were initially poor , but being constantly improved, thus allowing them to get more products to market from the same capacity
-2) AMD yields were good, and it was using its contracts with Chartered Semiconductor to cover the difference
-3) AMD was not really at max capacity, but only just getting there
-4) AMD simply lied about capacity constraints to justify high prices
---Im sure there are other possibilities, but whatever, you cant be at capacity, yet still produce enough to expand market share, unless the market is shrinking which we know it wasnt.
E) Finally, at the time C2D was released, K10 was not even in pre production, nor had it been publically speced/announced
F) The large debt AMD currently suffers was the result of the purchase of ATI

Prior to the release of C2D, AMD was operating from a position of strength, but only short term strength. Long term, their manufacturing limitations along with a constantly expanding market and the direction the enterprise/OEM segments were going(platforms) would have left them crippled. AMDs management recognized these problems, devised a plan to address their long term short comings and took advantage of their financial success at the time to implement that plan. They purchased ATI. The purchase of ATI was the solution to the long term platform/chipset problem ((((Contrary to the popular self centered 'enthusiast' belief, AMD did not focus on platforms for the home builder. They focused on enterprise/OEM because they are a business and enterprise/OEM is where the workstation money actually is, where the buyers are consuming 1000s to 10 of thousands of components a pop))))) Simultainiously, AMD was working to address their capacity limitations by beginning the process of planning another fab.

The purchase of ATI was a very wise move for AMD. Had AMD not purchased ATI, they would have retained a position of relative finacial strength (in the form free funds) much longer than they did, and easily through K10s developement, but they would have done so at the expense of their own long term viability. The catch is that in order for the purchase of ATI to work as planned, AMDs business/success would have had to continue on unabated, with increasing market share and strong margins. Unfortunately, for AMD, it didnt, and they clearly failed to anticipate the successful release of C2D. C2D was not the failure that netburst was, as many people expected it to be. It delivered on Intels hype, and it did so priced to sell.

Its quite possible if not probable that prior to K7 Intel did hold AMD back, however, looking at AMDs success since the advent of K7, in spite of any wrong doing on the part of Intel, (alleged or factual) about the only thing Intel could be succesfully accused of doing to hurt AMD was to develope a better CPU than netburst, the C2D.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2008 7:17:37 AM

turpit said:
Im sorry, but Im afraid I must disagree. This debate is one that resurfaces about every 4~6 months, usually re-ignited by the "look -what evil Intel did to AMD" fanboys. And the facts never change. AMDs current situation has nothing to do with any "dodgy dealings", alleged or otherwise, on the part of Intel. AMD put themselves where they are now, and they would be hard pressed to prove Barcelona and their process transition was compromised by lack of funds due to illegal actives on the part of Intel.

As has already been pointed out in another post, AMD was at capacity, and charging premium prices prior to the advent of C2D. What wasnt noted was that at that time, AMD was consistantly consuming overall market share, quarter over quarter, and rapidly approaching their goal of 30% total market. AMD cannot claim Intel denied them funds when:

A) Due to a lack of competition from Intel, AMDs products were so far ahead as to create high demand for them.
B) The high demand for AMD products was so great as to strain their manufacturing capacity
C) Market demand was high enough that AMD was able to drive/set market prices
D) During that period of high demand/prices, AMD was enjoying high margins
E) AMDs success at that time, AFTER the alleged wrong doing, was so great that they pulled themselves into "the black" and were showing profits well above operating costs and debt.
F) AMD was increasing market share
>>>>this last one has bothered me for a long time. How could AMD justify high prices by claiming they were at capacity, yet still expand their total share in a market that is constantly expanding? You cant be "at capacity", yet still produce more to satisfy an increase in market share. There are several possible answers to this.
-1) AMD yields were initially poor , but being constantly improved, thus allowing them to get more products to market from the same capacity
-2) AMD yields were good, and it was using its contracts with Chartered Semiconductor to cover the difference
-3) AMD was not really at max capacity, but only just getting there
-4) AMD simply lied about capacity constraints to justify high prices
---Im sure there are other possibilities, but whatever, you cant be at capacity, yet still produce enough to expand market share, unless the market is shrinking which we know it wasnt.
E) Finally, at the time C2D was released, K10 was not even in pre production, nor had it been publically speced/announced
F) The large debt AMD currently suffers was the result of the purchase of ATI

Prior to the release of C2D, AMD was operating from a position of strength, but only short term strength. Long term, their manufacturing limitations along with a constantly expanding market and the direction the enterprise/OEM segments were going(platforms) would have left them crippled. AMDs management recognized these problems, devised a plan to address their long term short comings and took advantage of their financial success at the time to implement that plan. They purchased ATI. The purchase of ATI was the solution to the long term platform/chipset problem ((((Contrary to the popular self centered 'enthusiast' belief, AMD did not focus on platforms for the home builder. They focused on enterprise/OEM because they are a business and enterprise/OEM is where the workstation money actually is, where the buyers are consuming 1000s to 10 of thousands of components a pop))))) Simultainiously, AMD was working to address their capacity limitations by beginning the process of planning another fab.

The purchase of ATI was a very wise move for AMD. Had AMD not purchased ATI, they would have retained a position of relative finacial strength (in the form free funds) much longer than they did, and easily through K10s developement, but they would have done so at the expense of their own long term viability. The catch is that in order for the purchase of ATI to work as planned, AMDs business/success would have had to continue on unabated, with increasing market share and strong margins. Unfortunately, for AMD, it didnt, and they clearly failed to anticipate the successful release of C2D. C2D was not the failure that netburst was, as many people expected it to be. It delivered on Intels hype, and it did so priced to sell.

Its quite possible if not probable that prior to K7 Intel did hold AMD back, however, looking at AMDs success since the advent of K7, in spite of any wrong doing on the part of Intel, (alleged or factual) about the only thing Intel could be succesfully accused of doing to hurt AMD was to develope a better CPU than netburst, the C2D.



Welcome back Turpit

AMD really have themselves to blame... Every AMD fan seems to be passing the buck and blame Intel...

Even if Intel did what they did with pc manufacturers, then at the end of the day they were only protecting their market place, which to be honest would you not blame them...

AMD got too cocky for their own good, just like the hare and the tortoise story... Intel came up from behind with out AMD noticing and slapped them to the floor..

Hector Ruiz and crew will go down in history as CPU version of the Phantom Console...

I cant see AMD sustaining for much longer as the ratio from AMD to Intel is widening.. Especially when they got some products out at last, they have just dropped 10% of their work force ( yes i know its crap times in the states at the moment) but AMDs 10% is 1600-1700 people. Intel's 10% is around 10000.

Even some of the hard core AMD fans are moving over to Intel...

Lets just hope that someone steps in and saves them so that we dont pay prices which Intel will want to command..

In anycase how long does a X86 licence last for... Do they get it for the length of the companies life...
April 17, 2008 7:52:34 AM

It's time for a history lesson.
AMD's suit was filed just after Intel had been found to have contravened Japan's anti-trust laws. The A64s had been in production for just over 2 years. The opteron was growing slowly, but had less than a 10% market share. The A64s were going nowhere. They had the same marketshare that the athlonxp chips had had.
Fab 30 was slogging along at ~ 7k WSPM.
Filing the suit put Intel under a lot of scrutiny.
In the six months following the filing, A64's market share jumped to 24%, while opterons crossed the 15% barrier, and AMD actually sold a recordable market share in laptop computers. Fab 30 was closing on 20k WSPM, thier theoretical limit, but fab 36 was just around the corner.
Turpit, any time you get above 75% of theoretical, it's acceptable to say you are at capacity.
With a few re-alienments, fab 30 was actually able to do almost 30k wafer starts per month, for the last few months before fab36 came fully online.
During the first two years of A64, Intel's anti-trust tactics screwed AMD out of about 10%+ of market share.
Maybe that extra $10B would have helped AMD's purchase of Ati. There might even have been enough to help out with R&D.
April 17, 2008 9:26:57 AM

turpit said:
Its quite possible if not probable that prior to K7 Intel did hold AMD back, however, looking at AMDs success since the advent of K7, in spite of any wrong doing on the part of Intel, (alleged or factual) about the only thing Intel could be succesfully accused of doing to hurt AMD was to develope a better CPU than netburst, the C2D.



The losses are compounded down the line - its not a linear relationship. If AMD had enough income to open up FAB 36 a bit earlier, they would have had even stronger income. Its a snowball effect.




Endyen has pointed out just how near "capacity" AMD were for a considerable time period.
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2008 12:12:42 PM

.





a b à CPUs
April 17, 2008 2:15:38 PM

Hellboy said:

Not that I am proud on some of what this country has done, but then again if it didnt then Australia and America wouldnt be the great countries they are today, would they



<Inserts joke about "Brits can't be all bad 'cos they're at least half right>


<Opines in that this case which half is which remains very much open to interpretation>


<Grins 'cos he basically p*ssed off everyone in one shot> :lol: 




Oh - On topic:

(1) I agree that Intel is/has been rather predatory and less than diligent about business... niceities. I opine that, given the means/opportunity, their green counterparts would do the same thing.

- - Having spent time in a highly competitive Sales organization, I understand why maybe a little better than some others might.. Make Quota?? Stay Employed. Don't?? and well... you don't. Not perticulary pleasant, but it makes for some highly motivated individuals. Individuals who will do what it takes to make the sale.


(2) Shame on AMD for making it possible/easier for Intel to do it. Sitting on your butt making refinements is a *bad* choice in the technology arena. Perform or Perish, and hype/fanperson~ism aside, AMD haven't made good. Good enough?? Perhaps. Add in the.... delays... in making good on the cash expenditure involved in the ATI aquisition and Intel's job was easier.

I agree with an earlier poster that proving Intel's aggressiveness has hurt AMD in the light of AMD's own fiscal and performance missteps won't be easy. But lawsuits are a fact of business life, so... <shrug>

a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 17, 2008 3:28:25 PM

endyen said:
It's time for a history lesson.
AMD's suit was filed just after Intel had been found to have contravened Japan's anti-trust laws. The A64s had been in production for just over 2 years. The opteron was growing slowly, but had less than a 10% market share. The A64s were going nowhere. They had the same marketshare that the athlonxp chips had had.
Fab 30 was slogging along at ~ 7k WSPM.
Filing the suit put Intel under a lot of scrutiny.
In the six months following the filing, A64's market share jumped to 24%, while opterons crossed the 15% barrier, and AMD actually sold a recordable market share in laptop computers. Fab 30 was closing on 20k WSPM, thier theoretical limit, but fab 36 was just around the corner.
Turpit, any time you get above 75% of theoretical, it's acceptable to say you are at capacity.
With a few re-alienments, fab 30 was actually able to do almost 30k wafer starts per month, for the last few months before fab36 came fully online.
During the first two years of A64, Intel's anti-trust tactics screwed AMD out of about 10%+ of market share.
Maybe that extra $10B would have helped AMD's purchase of Ati. There might even have been enough to help out with R&D.


Or AMD could have not decided to spend ALL of their money and a large loan on ATI and put that into Phenoms R&D. Obviously since they decided to purchase ATI, Barcenlona obviously was through with R&D. AMD is not so ignorant and stupid to put themselves in a large debt to purchase a company and let their R&D suffer while having a rival companies product dominate the market.

Phenom not performing is all AMD's responsability. Even if they had the extra $10B it wouldn't have changed that because no right minded company would even think of purchasing another company a risking their main product line. The fact is that Phenom/Barcy just wasn't what AMD was expecting it to be.

And Turpit, +1BILLION points for one of the best thought out, detailed and written replys on this thread.
April 17, 2008 3:59:52 PM

turpit said:
AMD cannot claim Intel denied them funds when:

A) Due to a lack of competition from Intel, AMDs products were so far ahead as to create high demand for them.
B) The high demand for AMD products was so great as to strain their manufacturing capacity
C) Market demand was high enough that AMD was able to drive/set market prices
D) During that period of high demand/prices, AMD was enjoying high margins
E) AMDs success at that time, AFTER the alleged wrong doing, was so great that they pulled themselves into "the black" and were showing profits well above operating costs and debt.
F) AMD was increasing market share
>>>>this last one has bothered me for a long time. How could AMD justify high prices by claiming they were at capacity, yet still expand their total share in a market that is constantly expanding? You cant be "at capacity", yet still produce more to satisfy an increase in market share. There are several possible answers to this.
-1) AMD yields were initially poor , but being constantly improved, thus allowing them to get more products to market from the same capacity
-2) AMD yields were good, and it was using its contracts with Chartered Semiconductor to cover the difference
-3) AMD was not really at max capacity, but only just getting there
-4) AMD simply lied about capacity constraints to justify high prices
---Im sure there are other possibilities, but whatever, you cant be at capacity, yet still produce enough to expand market share, unless the market is shrinking which we know it wasnt.

Don't agree with you on some points there... (I do on some and as such have deleted them, as there is no point in me reiterating the same points :) )
Firstly, yes AMDs products were better than Intel's, but this isn't a question of who was better. The discussion is with regards to OEM rebates, meaning that the OEM would be tied to Intel chips. The fact that AMDs chips were better, is neither here nor there.
I have no idea (and I'm sure no-one outside of AMD knows if they were running at capacity or not) whether they were at capacity, but if OEMs had been using them, do you not think they would have contracted out CPU manufacture to another company, IBM perhaps?
As construction costs are not released (AFAIK) then how could you make a judgement on how much profit they were making (on the admittedly expensive chips). They may have cost a lot to make and hence the high cost was to cover overheads? They were only able to really access a small part of the market with the OEM rebates, so enthusiasts were stung by high prices as they couldn't make more chips to lower costs...
I personally believe that OEM rebates did exist and as such have assumed in my above comments have assumed that they did exist. If the playing field had been level, AMD would have been able to sell to the OEMs, where their name would have become more visible with consumers with their better product. If that was the case, they could have made more money producing more chips (as I said, regardless of whether they were at capacity or not. They could have contracted manufacture out) and been in a stronger position prior to the launch of Core 2. As you said, I doubt an extra $20bn. would have aided R&D with Barcelona, but it would have helped their long-term financial situation though!
April 17, 2008 4:12:43 PM

As they say, timing is everything. If at the time of the filing, AMD was being held back, then thats whats pertinent, not now. If they had opened their doors earlier on their new fab, then they could have dedicated more money into their R&D. If you dont keep this in context, you can make it look like anything. Remember, 90% of statistics can be manipulated 50% of the time, and time is what were talking about. Since some have manipulated the pertinent time/activities to show what they want for an outcome, then let me do the same. AMD doesnt/isnt affected by Intels possible misdoings, their R&D goes great, and they release the Barcy early, before C2D, then the C2D wouldnt have had the impact it had.. Just switching when things actually happened can lead to disastrous ends. Im sure, when this is all ironed out, the judges and the lawyers will be in context, unlike some statements here, and theyll find whats really happened, not a mess of statistics that are out of context. And if Intel is found guilty, so be it. Whats the big deal? People act like if they are found guilty and liable, and have to recompense AMD, that this is some sort of tradgedy. Well it isnt, its just called business, and sometimes in business, things arent fair on either side of the aisle
April 17, 2008 5:43:39 PM

Turpit acticulated it very well.

I don't think Intel is innocent, but they're also not to blame for the self-destruction of AMD.
April 17, 2008 7:55:10 PM

Maybe I missed a post or misread the article, but I dont recall the suit being that Phenom sux because Intel is mean.

Intel is being sued because they broke the rules. Period. When you break the rules, someone is gonna blow a whistle. If it can be proved that Intel payed OEMs to use there procs, then Intel should have to hand some of that phat cash over to AMD. I dont care if Netburst outperformed A64 2:1, if Intel was paying people to use it, they were wrong.
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!