Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Faces New European Charges(shocking)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 16, 2008 2:42:35 PM

Very interesting......
Article:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Infrastructure/Report-Intel-Fa...

Article Quotes:

Quote:
The new antitrust charges would expand the case against Intel. European regulators say Intel's antitrust actions hurt AMD


Quote:
(Reuters) - European regulators are preparing to file new antitrust charges against Intel Corp (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), expanding a probe into the chipmaker's marketing and sales practices, The Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter


Quote:
The potential new charges from European regulators would be another blow to Intel, which last month said it faces a formal investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.


Quote:
in June, the Korea Fair Trade Commission in Seoul ruled Intel had abused its dominant position in the local market and imposed a fine of $25.6 million


Quote:
Japan's trade commission also concluded in 2005 that Intel had violated that country's anti-monopoly act


Not looking good for Intel is it? Not just the EU who have had enough of Intel's cheating tactics!

Me Thunderman exposing the truths about Intel! AMD don't do dirty tactics!

AMD4Life!
July 16, 2008 2:45:06 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/16/...

Quote:

IN A BARELY-REPORTED development, a judge has lauded evidence in a case against apparent arch-rivals Nvidia and AMD which stand accused of artificially keeping the price of graphics cards high.

A San Franciscan law suit combines "at least" 51 separate civil complaints against the GPU makers, according to a report here.

District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California was shown an email that had passed between the two firms which suggested ways of appearing to compete with one another while keeping prices high.

"This is not a bad document for you," he told the plaintiffs after reading the email during a hearing held on July 1st. "It is not a home run, but it is a base hit," he said.

Lawyers from Nvidia and ATI were told off by the judge for claiming such documents were trade secrets.

"This court is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of your companies. I am against you hiding information from the public," he said, adding, "If we get to summary judgment in this case nothing will be under seal."

Even, "if it is under seal and it is the recipe for Coke, you have my permission to blurt it out," he said.

We like the sound of this judge already.

Some nine million documents have been put before the court. One, a 2002 e-mail written by Nvidia senior vice president of marketing, Dan Vivoli, to ATI's president and chief operating officer, Dave Orton said: "I really think we should work harder together on the marketing front. As you and I have talked about, even though we are competitors, we have the common goal of making our category a well positioned, respected playing field. $5 and $8 stocks are a result of no respect."

"A jury would like to see this," the judge remarked.

Complainants against the pair include Microsoft, Dell and Apple amongst others.


Big deal.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 3:22:29 PM

I just love how he thinks that AMD is a loving company. Yea let him think that. He will find out some day that they are just like every other corporation. Just after his money.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 126 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 3:25:06 PM

Quote:
You cant hide the fact that Intel plays dirty, and it did indeed hurt AMD big time and pump Intels pockets full of money.
They are being sued by every civilized country on gods green earth, not mention many private companies in the US alone. Transmetta being one of those companies that Intel put out of business because Intel stole their patents (copyright/patent infringement). Luckily, with all the millions Intel is currently paying them under a court award, they are actually back in business.


Are you still on about that? You do know that Intel also sued Transmeta for infringing on their copyrights too. It happens all the time. It is possible for 2 people to come up with the same idea you know.

Oh and where does it say that the money is going to AMD? More than likely the money is going to the country that is fining them.
A good example is Edison. There was another group that was creating a light bulb at the same time. Difference was that Edison got to the final design that worked first.
July 16, 2008 3:31:07 PM

Quote:
Good try YOMAMAFOR, but theres no way were paying more for graphics cards than we should. In fact with hudreds almost thousands now of stream processors, gigabytes of DDR5, 10's of millions of transisters and a ton of raw silicon, VGA cards should be prices much, much higher. Look at the price of cpus. 1-4 processing cores, mere megabytes of memory, miniscule amount of transisters (compared to vga cards) and tiny amount of silicon. VGA cards should be 10-15 times the cost of processors.


....oh god.. not this BM predatory pricing mentality again.
a c 108 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 3:31:31 PM

I wonder if all those missing Intel emails got lost in the same place as all the missing White House emails

I guess DAAMIT and nVidiot didn't learn from the masters

:lol: 
July 16, 2008 3:33:43 PM

I really don't see anything wrong with offering rebates and lowering prices to attract more retailers to offer more Intel CPU. Its called competition.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 3:36:21 PM

I think its because AMD couldn't do that (or didn't want to more than likely to try to make more money) so its seen as bad business practice.

I mean even though McDonalds signed a deal with Coke and McDonalds is one of the most popular fast food joints in the US and you can only get Coke products there its ok. But Intel offering rebates on bulk CPU sales is not.
July 16, 2008 3:48:27 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I really don't see anything wrong with offering rebates and lowering prices to attract more retailers to offer more Intel CPU. Its called competition.


Nope, its called exclusivity and dumping.

Media-Saturn, or Media Market in some countries only sell Intel. They sell a bunch of brands, form-factors, but only Intel.
Because they know what is good ? nope, because they get payed to sell it. I don't mean they get a profit of it, im saying intel pays them. And it is not a dime per laptop sold. Or a price to reach a sales goal.

There other distributors that have the same modus operandi. Sorry mate, that isn't offering a rebate. That maybe enter in Cartel/Monopoly Laws and dumping laws as well. Ive worked (in darker sides) and i saw a bit what passes behind the curtains.

This should have been happened a long time ago.
July 16, 2008 3:54:25 PM

No its not called dumping. Dumping means a product sold at x price is reduced to y price in another region, in order to compete with another competitor. It usually involves entry to market, and this generally only happens to international markets.

Its also not called exclusivity, because no deal was signed.

What Intel did was using incentive to help retailers and channels to adopt more of their products. This is quite common in the market place. For example, Intel can offer a rebate to retailers if they sell Intel's product up to a certain quota.
July 16, 2008 4:04:21 PM

Oh.. the humanity!! How could Intel do such a thing. Looks like I'm chucking my Intel rig out in the street. No more PC's for me... I quit. I guess I'll go back to being a cave man...



[:sheytoonak:2]. o O (NOT)
July 16, 2008 4:11:49 PM

Guilty!

So they'll pay the bill and move onto the next court date. Same as always...
July 16, 2008 4:12:09 PM

thunderman said:
AMD don't do dirty tactics!AMD4Life!



AMD lies just like the rest of them!

If Intel is guilty of any wrongdoing I hope they gut punished.


Thunderman, why don't you go buy some AMD stock? I hear they are having a sale; steep discount.
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 4:26:02 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I really don't see anything wrong with offering rebates and lowering prices to attract more retailers to offer more Intel CPU. Its called competition.


That is a gross over-simplication of the Intel anti-trust issue and truly demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the of the issue as whole.

Also, -1 for posting links regarding the nVidia/ATI pricing article given that it w3as off topic from this thread and another -1 for linking to The Inquirer.
July 16, 2008 4:26:34 PM

I think I need to clarify myself a bit.

What Intel did was wrong, and should be fined for that. It IS illegal to offer rebates to coerce retailers and channels to not stock competitor's product, unless exclusivity deal is signed. It is ALSO illegal to hike prices if the retailers and channels refuse to play along.

However, it is NOT illegal to offer rebates to retailers and channels to purchase a certain amount of products.
July 16, 2008 4:27:55 PM

chunkymonster said:

Also, -1 for posting links regarding the nVidia/ATI pricing article given that it w3as off topic from this thread and another -1 for linking to The Inquirer.


yawn... :pfff: 
July 16, 2008 4:32:43 PM

On thing about this, can't retailers refuse what intel has to offer?

And how honest are retailers? Wouldn't other manufacturers like Dell/Sony/HP-Compaq/ect also be hurting AMD for accepting cash/rebates?

So... AMD doesn't offer rebates?

I mean... If a company signed a contract that stated... if you buy AMD products, we will no longer do business with you, sound childish? Or even, we will take you to court, sound absurd?

Or am I missing another point?
a c 126 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 4:40:15 PM

yomamafor1 said:
I think I need to clarify myself a bit.

What Intel did was wrong, and should be fined for that. It IS illegal to offer rebates to coerce retailers and channels to not stock competitor's product, unless exclusivity deal is signed. It is ALSO illegal to hike prices if the retailers and channels refuse to play along.

However, it is NOT illegal to offer rebates to retailers and channels to purchase a certain amount of products.


I think its the exclusivity that Dell had with Intel thats getting Intel the most in terms of harm for this. Even though this does happen all the time in other markets when Intel does it it is considered wrong yet Dell is not held responsable at all even though they were helping in doing this so called "harm" to AMD.

I think Dell should be fined as well since they signed a contract. But meh what do I know.
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 4:55:32 PM

Great news ... but will it really change anything?

a c 126 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 5:01:39 PM

^Meh. Intel has already stopped doing whatever they were doing. I still think a lot of AMDs current misery is due to taking the wrong steps and directions.

I mean if it was me, I would have built FABs and ramped the production to help meet the demands that started to build as well as fund my R&D department more while not paying a CEO a butt load more than he is worth.

But hey what do I know?
July 16, 2008 5:13:48 PM

yomamafor1 said:

Its also not called exclusivity, because no deal was signed.


This is the main problem. Let them start digging a bit. It was.
July 16, 2008 5:14:37 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I think its the exclusivity that Dell had with Intel thats getting Intel the most in terms of harm for this. Even though this does happen all the time in other markets when Intel does it it is considered wrong yet Dell is not held responsable at all even though they were helping in doing this so called "harm" to AMD.

I think Dell should be fined as well since they signed a contract. But meh what do I know.


The problem is, look at what happened to Dell after they went to AMD. AMD simply doesn't have the manufacture capacity to satisfy Dell AND channels. Its one or the other.

I believe Dell went to Intel for a reason, and Intel's so called "illegal" rebate is just one minor reason.
July 16, 2008 5:16:27 PM

Questionable tactics or not, I wonder how happy the EU would be if Intel just up and left Europe and refused to sell them any processors. Not that this would actually happen, but I hope the EU realizes they need Intel more than Intel needs market share in Europe. I wouldn't be too quick to bite the hand that feeds.
July 16, 2008 5:18:38 PM

radnor said:
This is the main problem. Let them start digging a bit. It was.


If it was, then we shouldn't have this "illegal rebate" debate/ argument/ flame isn't it? Because if the deal was signed, it became legal for channels and OEMs to exclusively offer Intel products.

I think the main problem was that Intel did not sign exclusivity contract with OEMs and channels, yet they use discounts and rebates to lure channels and OEMs to exclusively offer Intel.
July 16, 2008 5:45:13 PM

njalterio said:
I hope the EU realizes they need Intel more than Intel needs market share in Europe.


That could be very debatable, sure right now AMD's processors aren't that close to Intel's but if they had the EU market all to themselves for about a year, I think there a good chance AMD's R&D would have gotten a nice lil boost.

That and the fact that having an AMD porcessor won't kill you.
July 16, 2008 5:47:05 PM

njalterio said:
Questionable tactics or not, I wonder how happy the EU would be if Intel just up and left Europe and refused to sell them any processors. Not that this would actually happen, but I hope the EU realizes they need Intel more than Intel needs market share in Europe. I wouldn't be too quick to bite the hand that feeds.


hehe intel fights for every market share against amd, so why would they want to give so easily all europe market to amd. and it's no big deal for europe to switch on amd products.
July 16, 2008 5:50:39 PM

njalterio said:
Questionable tactics or not, I wonder how happy the EU would be if Intel just up and left Europe and refused to sell them any processors. Not that this would actually happen, but I hope the EU realizes they need Intel more than Intel needs market share in Europe. I wouldn't be too quick to bite the hand that feeds.



Do you live in a fantasy land or something? Why would a group of nations need intel? If what you said was true that would mean intel has a Monopoly... So please think before you post.... If Intel pulled from the EU market it would hurt Intel not the EU because it would mean it would become a AMD market.


As for this crap. If Intel is doing something wrong then they should be punished. Its simple. There should be no "AMD IS AWESOME" or "INTEL FOR LIFE" stupidity. Any company doing illegal actions should be punished regardless of their brand.


July 16, 2008 5:56:42 PM

yomamafor1 said:
If it was, then we shouldn't have this "illegal rebate" debate/ argument/ flame isn't it? Because if the deal was signed, it became legal for channels and OEMs to exclusively offer Intel products.

I think the main problem was that Intel did not sign exclusivity contract with OEMs and channels, yet they use discounts and rebates to lure channels and OEMs to exclusively offer Intel.



There was an agreement. I worked a lot on the distribution "back office", and although the details weren't known in my layer, any CPU (notebook, Tower, UMLPC, whatever ) if it wasn't Intel, wasn't going to be bought or sold. I think its time they dig this up. Big Distribution don't give a fack witch CPU is better or its bang/buck ratio. Doesn't care much about pricing also, because the customer gonna pay up, not them. Big distribution only cares about money. And Intel has the money to buy up the retailers. That did happen. Still does i guess. The Distribution channels have commercial codes of their own, and some of them are quite international, because most trades are, in a International level.

I hope they dig up about Intel, and about other companies as well. There is another company i want to see it take the fall. Dont worry, its a just fabless brand, that is being acting real smooth. I hope they dig up more sh*t than they expect.

Because it is there.

July 16, 2008 6:05:56 PM

I think the "agreement" you're referring to is more like an underhand table thing. There's no legality issue regarding exclusivity agreement and becoming a exclusive seller. However if Intel, like I described above, forced resellers and OEMs to sign undertable agreement to keep AMD CPUs out of their stock, then its illegal.

Intel should really be punished for this. But its one thing to discuss their past actions, and another to treat them as if they're still engaging in this practice.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 16, 2008 6:14:08 PM

Heritor said:
Do you live in a fantasy land or something? Why would a group of nations need intel? If what you said was true that would mean intel has a Monopoly... So please think before you post.... If Intel pulled from the EU market it would hurt Intel not the EU because it would mean it would become a AMD market.


As for this crap. If Intel is doing something wrong then they should be punished. Its simple. There should be no "AMD IS AWESOME" or "INTEL FOR LIFE" stupidity. Any company doing illegal actions should be punished regardless of their brand.


And if Intel did pull out of the market in Europe then AMD would technically have a monopoly there (if they can fill the market demand) and if the EU does nothing to AMD in that type of situation it would be considered BIAS for what they are doing to Intel currently.

What he meant was they need Intel there no matter what to push AMD to spur innovation. If AMD was the only one in that market you better bett your hat they would suck every last penny out of whatever they have out at the time.
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 6:56:32 PM

Personally I've seen several chains of locally based retail stores refusing to carry any of AMD's CPU products,AMD based motherboards and even ATI graphics cards.
This I witnessed first hand several months ago.
It really disgusted me.I knew that Intel's products were faster but their underhanded business tactics I've found were so atrocious and mobster like that now I refuse to purchase any of their future products even if AMD goes belly up.
July 16, 2008 7:01:22 PM

njalterio said:
Questionable tactics or not, I wonder how happy the EU would be if Intel just up and left Europe and refused to sell them any processors. Not that this would actually happen, but I hope the EU realizes they need Intel more than Intel needs market share in Europe. I wouldn't be too quick to bite the hand that feeds.


People in Europe do actually buy computers you know, it would hurt Intel more.
July 16, 2008 7:01:49 PM

Who cares if Intel plays dirty - they have the better chip and that's all i care about.

Then again, killing competition is definetly a bad thing.
July 16, 2008 7:25:27 PM

QuantumSheep, why were they playing even dirtier when they didn't have the best chip? Several people have said "well, they stopped doing it."
July 16, 2008 7:27:52 PM

I care if Intel plays dirty, and I do hope they lose a lot of money over this debacle, hopefully it can fund R&D for AMD so they can once again have a decent product! but if it doesn't, then sod them
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2008 8:06:28 PM



What amazes me is that all you AMD plum suckers have come out of hiding now that AMD -- ooops i mean ATI have actually bought out some thing that we may just like...

Wooop..


i have got a 4870 comming tomorrow....

Now all these fanbois have not even mentioned the success of Intels 25% profit leap where AMD have just release their losses again...

Not to mention Intels 45nm processor will sell 100m by the end of the year where AMD hasnt even beginning to sell one yet...

And we get op titles posting Intel is still evil crap...

Thunderman - why dont you post something on even grounds for once and wait until AMD do what AMD should do and wait for a decent processor...

In anycase Intel can afford it... so get over it..
July 16, 2008 9:34:13 PM

Here is my 2 cents with over simplification.

In the US, you have to show that the consumer was somehow hurt. US laws are designed to protect the consumer. So, if AMD can prove that INTEL somehow used its Monopoly position in the market to artificially increase prices, then they would have a case or at least something that it actually viable. However, many of us have enjoyed lower and lower CPU prices year after year for sometime now. So in the US, AMD is going to have an uphill battle.

Now in Europe and other parts of the world, those laws are different.
They are not setup to protect the consumer but rather the competition. So that’s why AMD is crying wolf to the overseas regulators and they are listening. “My view” is that Intel is not in the wrong by offering rebates or volume discounts because consumers are not getting hurt by this. It could even be argued the prices tend to drop when the retailer passes on these saving to the consumer. Unlike the US, these regulators look at Intel in a negative fashion because they are in a dominate position in the market and can compete very aggressively.
It’s kind of ironic, because outside of the US, Intel is forced to defend itself because they are too competitive in the eyes of the foreign anti-competitive laws..

I wonder how quickly most of the foreign laws would change if the US starting looking at all the foreign companies in the way. Just imagine the courts/regulators coming down on Toyota because they have to protect Ford/GM. Don’t think Toyota is considered Monopoly “yet”, but I think you get the picture.

Anyway, just my 2 cents…
July 17, 2008 4:43:00 AM

dvmoo7 said:

I wonder how quickly most of the foreign laws would change if the US starting looking at all the foreign companies in the way. Just imagine the courts/regulators coming down on Toyota because they have to protect Ford/GM. Don’t think Toyota is considered Monopoly “yet”, but I think you get the picture.

Anyway, just my 2 cents…


Bad analogy. There is a big difference between a component supplier like Intel and a supplier of finished products like Toyota. Apples and oranges really.

Furthermore, you need to take a better look around next time you go out driving if you think that Toyota is anywhere even remotely close to holding a monopoly. In fact, no single company controls even 20% of the US auto market http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/6/9/how-toyota-could-become-the-us-sales-champ.html. This is a true competitive market. If only we had this kind of competition in the CPU market.
July 17, 2008 7:12:24 AM

thunderman said:
Me Thunderman exposing the truths about Intel! AMD don't do dirty tactics!

AMD4Life!


I half believe you work for Intel. It would be great disinformation if you did.

Seriously, no company is perfect and all stumble into shady territory. Though I prefer AMD and will go 8750 on a Gigabyte 780G board soon, I will admit this:

Intel has better CPU's. Better at stock (though not much better). Much better when overclocked.

I'll go Deneb too. Then I'll wait for a new architecture. If I'm also "AMD for life" it's only for three reasons:

1. I'm a die hard ATI fan and AMD bought ATI. If they'd bought Nvidia, I'd have gone Intel and ATI.

2. I actually prefer ATI/AMD chipsets. I even have an old P4 630 on an ATI X200 chipset. I dislike Via and Nvidia chipsets and haven't owned an Intel chipset since the i865PERL with a 2.8 Northwood.

3. I'm really old fashioned. Once I got over having to install CPU's (started building PC's when 386SX chips were soldered on the motherboards), I struggled with LIF and learned to appreciate ZIF.

What that means today is that I prefer pins on the CPU, not the motherboard. So, AMD's a bit easier for me to install than Intel.

Yes, the OEM rebate program is one reason I went Athlon X2 instead of C2D, but I won't defend AMD's failure to match C2D head for head, CPU for CPU.

Why are you still doing that?

Have you noted that Dreamworks is going Nehalem/Larrabee? If AMD had decent CPU's then I'm sure they'd go Deneb/FireGL or Deneb/4870x2.

yomamafor1 said:
I think I need to clarify myself a bit.

What Intel did was wrong, and should be fined for that. It IS illegal to offer rebates to coerce retailers and channels to not stock competitor's product, unless exclusivity deal is signed. It is ALSO illegal to hike prices if the retailers and channels refuse to play along.

However, it is NOT illegal to offer rebates to retailers and channels to purchase a certain amount of products.


That's the difference. Intel went into shady territory because their CPU's were subpar at the time. Now that there are no OEM barriers to AMD, it's the OEM's that are keeping their subpar CPU's in the market.

That and old guys like me who just tolerate AMD CPU's because we like their other products -- and pins on the CPU's :lol: 

Thunderman, learn to laugh at yourself.

TC, I'd buy AMD stock if I had the spare cash for stock outside of my 401K. Deneb won't be as far behind Nehalem as some people think, though it will still lose outside of stock speeds, and they have a winner with the 4xxx series. Eventually, all the accounting hassles for paying too much for ATI will be behind them.

IMHO, 65nm Phenom is AMD's Netburst (45nm Phenom will be Pressler) but they'll get their act together with the next architecture. They'll still be number 2 in the market, but that's the way it goes. Via's not much of a competitor and Nvidia doesn't have an x86 license.
July 17, 2008 7:52:44 AM

Quote:
Good try YOMAMAFOR, but theres no way were paying more for graphics cards than we should. In fact with hudreds almost thousands now of stream processors, gigabytes of DDR5, 10's of millions of transisters and a ton of raw silicon, VGA cards should be prices much, much higher. Look at the price of cpus. 1-4 processing cores, mere megabytes of memory, miniscule amount of transisters (compared to vga cards) and tiny amount of silicon. VGA cards should be 10-15 times the cost of processors.


Are you trying to compare the CPU L2 Cache to graphics memory?

Graphics memory is,far,far cheaper to produce.
July 17, 2008 2:07:04 PM

yipsl said:
I half believe you work for Intel. It would be great disinformation if you did.

Seriously, no company is perfect and all stumble into shady territory. Though I prefer AMD and will go 8750 on a Gigabyte 780G board soon, I will admit this:

Intel has better CPU's. Better at stock (though not much better). Much better when overclocked.

I'll go Deneb too. Then I'll wait for a new architecture. If I'm also "AMD for life" it's only for three reasons:

1. I'm a die hard ATI fan and AMD bought ATI. If they'd bought Nvidia, I'd have gone Intel and ATI.

2. I actually prefer ATI/AMD chipsets. I even have an old P4 630 on an ATI X200 chipset. I dislike Via and Nvidia chipsets and haven't owned an Intel chipset since the i865PERL with a 2.8 Northwood.

3. I'm really old fashioned. Once I got over having to install CPU's (started building PC's when 386SX chips were soldered on the motherboards), I struggled with LIF and learned to appreciate ZIF.

What that means today is that I prefer pins on the CPU, not the motherboard. So, AMD's a bit easier for me to install than Intel.

Yes, the OEM rebate program is one reason I went Athlon X2 instead of C2D, but I won't defend AMD's failure to match C2D head for head, CPU for CPU.

Why are you still doing that?

Have you noted that Dreamworks is going Nehalem/Larrabee? If AMD had decent CPU's then I'm sure they'd go Deneb/FireGL or Deneb/4870x2.



That's the difference. Intel went into shady territory because their CPU's were subpar at the time. Now that there are no OEM barriers to AMD, it's the OEM's that are keeping their subpar CPU's in the market.

That and old guys like me who just tolerate AMD CPU's because we like their other products -- and pins on the CPU's :lol: 

Thunderman, learn to laugh at yourself.

TC, I'd buy AMD stock if I had the spare cash for stock outside of my 401K. Deneb won't be as far behind Nehalem as some people think, though it will still lose outside of stock speeds, and they have a winner with the 4xxx series. Eventually, all the accounting hassles for paying too much for ATI will be behind them.

IMHO, 65nm Phenom is AMD's Netburst (45nm Phenom will be Pressler) but they'll get their act together with the next architecture. They'll still be number 2 in the market, but that's the way it goes. Via's not much of a competitor and Nvidia doesn't have an x86 license.



Finally, an AMD fan that has a brain. You don't ignore reality in some attempt to justify your preference of AMD.

Thanks for posting all that.


And yes, if AMD survives (which they hopefully and probably will), buy AMD stock would be a great long-term investment.
July 17, 2008 2:25:10 PM

Vista-Capable class action suit anyone? Consumers were seriously hurt. And still are. AMD\nVidia IGPs actually run Aero well.

And Dreamworks must be on drugs as Intel has yet to produce a worthwhile GPU for any use.
July 17, 2008 3:12:24 PM

They may know something that we don't, given that they're very interested in Larabee.
July 17, 2008 3:15:20 PM

yipsl said:

1. I'm a die hard ATI fan and AMD bought ATI. If they'd bought Nvidia, I'd have gone Intel and ATI.


I agree wholeheartedly. Its really sad to see that ATI is the scapegoat for AMD's own failures.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 17, 2008 3:20:22 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Vista-Capable class action suit anyone? Consumers were seriously hurt. And still are. AMD\nVidia IGPs actually run Aero well.

And Dreamworks must be on drugs as Intel has yet to produce a worthwhile GPU for any use.


Well I would expect a GPU based IGP from ATI/nVidia to run something like that better than a IGP that has to be run through the CPU like Intels IGPs.

You do realize that Intel has technically never produced a GPU right? They have always had IGPs but never a true GPU that is seperate from the CPU (much like AMDs 780G mobo which just has a 3450 GPU on board).

Don't judge without knowledge.
July 17, 2008 3:23:11 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Vista-Capable class action suit anyone? Consumers were seriously hurt. And still are. AMD\nVidia IGPs actually run Aero well.

And Dreamworks must be on drugs as Intel has yet to produce a worthwhile GPU for any use.


Here we go.

First, I use a laptop with an Intel IGP, running Vista Ultimate with Aero, and it runs fine. In fact, it runs better than my 630i HTPC IGP (which I cannot run Aero on without the drivers crapping out). Also, it was Microsoft that gave out the "Vista-Capable" stickers. Who exactly is getting sued for that? Intel? Nope. So, what does that have to do with this topic?

Also, Dreamworks on drugs because they dropped AMD? Okay. Guess Pixar has been on drugs for years then, too. And who said that Dreamworks will be using an Intel GPU right away? And what does this have to do with the EU adding charges?

Geez, you are stirring up a pot of nothing again, in hopes of starting a new argument. It's nice to see that you haven't changed your tactics since your sabbatical.
July 17, 2008 5:43:08 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Bad analogy. There is a big difference between a component supplier like Intel and a supplier of finished products like Toyota. Apples and oranges really.

Furthermore, you need to take a better look around next time you go out driving if you think that Toyota is anywhere even remotely close to holding a monopoly. In fact, no single company controls even 20% of the US auto market http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/6/9/how-toyota-could-become-the-us-sales-champ.html. This is a true competitive market. If only we had this kind of competition in the CPU market.



Your right, not a good an analogy. Maybe i should have used samsung. But my point was that anti-trust laws are different in the US vs most other countries.
July 17, 2008 8:59:08 PM

It's interesting to note on this board that "allegations" are accepted as fact. If it were so cut and dry, black and white, wouldn't we be discussing an EU "sentence" or "fine" instead of an EU "charge". Look, "if" Intel is guilty under EU law, they will be fined accordingly, but that won't help AMD as I understand those proceeds go to the EU, not the company that initiated the claim.

This really seems like the same old, same old from AMD, and you can't discount the NY/Germany-AMD connection. The German gov't pumps millions AMD's way... Yes, I'm "alluding" without fact, but it seems suspicious that AMD shops it's lawsuits around to places that are likely to be favourable to it. NY state? c'mon...
July 17, 2008 11:53:24 PM

NMDante said:
Here we go.

First, I use a laptop with an Intel IGP, running Vista Ultimate with Aero, and it runs fine. In fact, it runs better than my 630i HTPC IGP (which I cannot run Aero on without the drivers crapping out). Also, it was Microsoft that gave out the "Vista-Capable" stickers. Who exactly is getting sued for that? Intel? Nope. So, what does that have to do with this topic?

Also, Dreamworks on drugs because they dropped AMD? Okay. Guess Pixar has been on drugs for years then, too. And who said that Dreamworks will be using an Intel GPU right away? And what does this have to do with the EU adding charges?

Geez, you are stirring up a pot of nothing again, in hopes of starting a new argument. It's nice to see that you haven't changed your tactics since your sabbatical.




Gee, I meant to say, see where there's smoke there's fire. It would seem as though they would slow down after the initial inquiry if they found they were not finding reason to.

Everyone knows Intel's practices. People just look the other way. Back when MS got investigated people suggested that Intel should have been under the microscope. I would actually wonder why the OEMs aren't being sued for the Vista Capable sicker as they attached it to their HW.

I guess I should feel bad, or maybe ripped off, because I don't buy Intel but I don't. I still haven't upgraded from my 939. Maybe in September.
!