Intel a scammer?

[nightscope]

I know this has been noted before, but I just want some opinions of others about this matter.

I'm looking at the Nehalem architecture today, and I'm saying to myself, this is very similar to AMD's architecture. So, has Intel stole AMD's ideas about it's architecture?

For example, Intel implemented the on-die memory controller on it's upcoming Nehalem processors which is, of course, AMD's idea at first. They didn't try to come up with something better, they just played it safe and stole what they knew would improve their processors.

Secondly, Intel implemented the quickpath interconnect, which looks very similar to the hyper transport AMD has in it's processors.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem a bit selfish from Intel to do that since they're already on top? Don't get me wrong, having better processors available is better for us, but using for a company to achieve that by using unlawful schemes like this doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to start ANOTHER thread of AMD vs Intel flaming, so please don't turn it into one. I just want your input on this matter.

And no, I'm not a fanboy of either company.

 

[BadTrip]

what else do you expect this to be. STFU Flame girl!!!

 

[nightscope]

And have they ever lost to these law suits?

Did Intel try to better the IMC? Or just used it exactly how AMD does?

 

[Murissokah]

I sure wouldn't vow for intel's fair play, but you have to admit they are big enough to do their own homework. It just so happens that sometimes the solution used by the other guy is actually the best possible at the time, so it's either do the same or fall behind.

 

[Grimmy]

Reverse Engineering works both ways.

AMD was the 2nd Company CPU company that did reverse engineering on Intel's processor. I pretty much view this the same way with the IMC.

And besides that.. who really cares about what other people think on AMD's ideas? They are not on top, it didn't get the speed crown, and so now Intel is taking the same/similar approach to another architecture.

Why not just sit it out and wait for AMD to out do Intel again? What's the point in talking about something that just isn't doing better on the desktop arena?

 

[B-Unit]

As I understand the wording of the x86 licence, there allowed to copy each other, its one of the basic ideas behind it. Remember that AMD got their big break making 386 clones for IBM.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Actually, DEC Alpha had the first IMC. AMDs new CEO was the VP responsible for it.

 

[Grimmy]

Oh doodie... Looks like we will only have AMD for a CPU maker if Intel does go broke over law suits that you guys seem to want to happen.

This crap about the companies is a 2 edge sword. It cuts both ways for customers when you want better products to be affordable, but yet most fanboys bitch and praise about crap that generally will affect us all to a point, and the bitching just isn't doing anything for anybody.

 

[rtfm]

I think there are far too many bullsh*t patents anyway. Companies should not be able to patent a concept, especially when a patent is applied for without the intention of bringing it to market [/vague rambling]

Gene patents spring to mind as an example of the abuse of the patent system.

 

[zenmaster]

I know this has been noted before, but I just want some opinions of others about this matter.

I'm looking at the Nehalem architecture today, and I'm saying to myself, this is very similar to AMD's architecture. So, has Intel stole AMD's ideas about it's architecture?

For example, Intel implemented the on-die memory controller on it's upcoming Nehalem processors which is, of course, AMD's idea at first. They didn't try to come up with something better, they just played it safe and stole what they knew would improve their processors.

Secondly, Intel implemented the quickpath interconnect, which looks very similar to the hyper transport AMD has in it's processors.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem a bit selfish from Intel to do that since they're already on top? Don't get me wrong, having better processors available is better for us, but using for a company to achieve that by using unlawful schemes like this doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to start ANOTHER thread of AMD vs Intel flaming, so please don't turn it into one. I just want your input on this matter.

And no, I'm not a fanboy of either company.

No, Intel designed their chips to work with that years ago with RAMBUS.
However, they realized that it was not useful at the time since other methods could deliver more than enough memory bandwidth.

Now that Intel is going to be moving to Octo-Cores and beyond, they are moving to it because it know makes design sense.

If there was the slightest truth, AMD's lawyers would be at work.
However, no need for facts in this fourm...............

 

[San Pedro]

^ Um AMD lawyers have been hard at work for quite a while. Just not about this, but for Intel paying off PC makers to not ship PCs with AMD chips. I believe Intel just lost a suit in the EU over it.

I like how people don't care if Intel steals patents or uses other people's technology without compensation or permission. Would any of you like to patent something only to have a huge corporation steal it, make billions off it, and then give you nothing?

 

[njalterio]

The on die memory controller is too general to sue Intel over. This concept does not belong solely to AMD. IBM does this with their POWER5 and Sun Microsystems as well with UltraSPARC T1.

Saying Intel is cheating for making an on die memory controller is like saying motherboard manufacturers cheat graphics card companies for making an integrated graphics controller.

 

[Grimmy]

You like how people don't care? Would it be also in terms of:

How about people who share copy righted music that pisses off bands?

Or software companies of people who somehow end up getting a free copy of their software?

How about how many people on this forum has any patents that Intel just stole to make money off it?

What.. am I suppose to buy products based upon how trustworthy they say to be, when I know money is the root of all evil?

 

[thunderman]

AMD is the market leader if you look at this from a technological point of View. Intel is considered the Market leader by those who just look at the finance and ignorant of the truths about what Intel actually are.
AMD was humiliating Intel for quite sometime, then when AMD released the Athlon 64 this REALLY hurt Intel. AMD were the first to bring Dual core technology to the server market, then AMD offered the AMD X2 to the desktop market. Intel's solution was to stick two Pentium 4's together, this resulted in a very hot and not very efficient chip. Why did Intel survive? Well we know Intel was Bullying and bribing Companies to use their Chips and I hope Justice prevails in the Anti-trust Cases currently happening. Intel's fight back was the Core2Duo chip ..which was certainly a leap for them especially after the awful Pentium D CPU. What do we learn some months on? Core2Duo was supposedly a stolen patent from a university and it looks like Intel is facing yet another lawsuit. This is the kind of company Intel are and that's why it's unjust that AMD is in such a financially crippled position presently. AMD are the real innovators...not Intel.
It's obvious that Intel has once again hit a dead end and that dead end is the FSB. It does not take rocket science to see Intel has followed AMD's approach to quad core. If AMD does go bankrupt then Intel would have to think for themselves for a change...The Computer industry would be in real trouble I do believe

Support the Honest company! Support AMD!

 

[caamsa]

I agree that AMD was never able to get their fair share in the CPU market when AMD had the better product because Intel played dirty.

But now Intel clearly has the better product.

But if you compare the size of the two companies and their resources etc. then IMO AMD is still doing rather well.

 

[zenmaster]

AMD is the market leader if you look at this from a technological point of View. Intel is considered the Market leader by those who just look at the finance and ignorant of the truths about what Intel actually are.
AMD was humiliating Intel for quite sometime, then when AMD released the Athlon 64 this REALLY hurt Intel. AMD were the first to bring Dual core technology to the server market, then AMD offered the AMD X2 to the desktop market. Intel's solution was to stick two Pentium 4's together, this resulted in a very hot and not very efficient chip. Why did Intel survive? Well we know Intel was Bullying and bribing Companies to use their Chips and I hope Justice prevails in the Anti-trust Cases currently happening. Intel's fight back was the Core2Duo chip ..which was certainly a leap for them especially after the awful Pentium D CPU. What do we learn some months on? Core2Duo was supposedly a stolen patent from a university and it looks like Intel is facing yet another lawsuit. This is the kind of company Intel are and that's why it's unjust that AMD is in such a financially crippled position presently. AMD are the real innovators...not Intel.
It's obvious that Intel has once again hit a dead end and that dead end is the FSB. It does not take rocket science to see Intel has followed AMD's approach to quad core. If AMD does go bankrupt then Intel would have to think for themselves for a change...The Computer industry would be in real trouble I do believe

Support the Honest company! Support AMD!

LOL!!!
They are the leader from a Technology Point of View?

Even AMD does not even try to claim that anymore.
They now admit they shoot for the "Value" segment because they can't compete from a technological POV.

Sadly, they don't even offer value since their production costs are higher.

 

[zenmaster]

^ Um AMD lawyers have been hard at work for quite a while. Just not about this, but for Intel paying off PC makers to not ship PCs with AMD chips. I believe Intel just lost a suit in the EU over it.

I like how people don't care if Intel steals patents or uses other people's technology without compensation or permission. Would any of you like to patent something only to have a huge corporation steal it, make billions off it, and then give you nothing?

No, they did not lose a lawsuit.
The EU has admitted it's getting involved to ensure "Competive Balance".
They are taking action to assist a company which has a strong manufacturing presence in Europe.
It's protectionism at it's finest.

AMD was never able to produce enough chips to fully satisfy demand.
As a result, AMD would be hard pressed to ever prove harm.

What harmed AMD is they were busy investing in new production facilities and not improving their product.
As a result they doubly hurt themselves.

The lack of technological advancement has forced them to slash prices since their products are no longer competitive and significantly reduced demand.

The reduced demand is now forcing them to sell the expanded capacity they built at a loss since they do not forsee themselves being able to need that capacity due to non-competitive products.

The problems faced by AMD are AMD's doing.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I know this has been noted before, but I just want some opinions of others about this matter.

I'm looking at the Nehalem architecture today, and I'm saying to myself, this is very similar to AMD's architecture. So, has Intel stole AMD's ideas about it's architecture?

For example, Intel implemented the on-die memory controller on it's upcoming Nehalem processors which is, of course, AMD's idea at first. They didn't try to come up with something better, they just played it safe and stole what they knew would improve their processors.

Secondly, Intel implemented the quickpath interconnect, which looks very similar to the hyper transport AMD has in it's processors.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this seem a bit selfish from Intel to do that since they're already on top? Don't get me wrong, having better processors available is better for us, but using for a company to achieve that by using unlawful schemes like this doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to start ANOTHER thread of AMD vs Intel flaming, so please don't turn it into one. I just want your input on this matter.

And no, I'm not a fanboy of either company.

Technically Intel had a IMC way before AMD did. AMD was just the first to impliment it. Oh and AMD can thank IBM for their lovely IMC. The reason why Intel never used it was due to 2 factors. 1 it didn't bring enough improvement and 2 the memory that they planned on using (Rambus) was too frickin expensive at the time.

QPI is like HTT but its still different. If we wanted to go the route you are talking, before K8 AMD still had the FSB.

From what I understand, Intel originally developed the IMC not AMD. AMD just perfected it and when Intel saw how well it worked they went with it.
However.....Intel has stolen many other companies copyrighted patents and have been and still are being sued for it. Transmeta comes to mind. Intel stole 11 of Transmeta's patents. They do play dirty.

Ar you seriously going to go this route again? Considering that Transmeta was counter sued for infingement on Intels patents you would think you would learn to shut up and accept the fact that in the world market companies always have the chance of using something that another company has patented without knowing of it especially when they just patent it without using it and wait for some company to use it without their permission just to get a lawsuit and money out of it.

And have they ever lost to these law suits?

Did Intel try to better the IMC? Or just used it exactly how AMD does?

Look to my explination above. Every company runs into this now and then. In technology its very common. Right now RAMBUS is suing NVidia.

They basically took their MC and put it on die. But they did of course try to make it better. But the thing is with a MC even though AMDs is on the chip it does the same thing as what Intels current CPUs do with their MC on the Northbridge. It connects the CPU to the memory. The IMC of course has the ability to use more of the potential bandwidth given by the memry but still it does the same thing.

I think there are far too many bullsh*t patents anyway. Companies should not be able to patent a concept, especially when a patent is applied for without the intention of bringing it to market [/vague rambling]

Gene patents spring to mind as an example of the abuse of the patent system.

Agreed. I especially hate how Universities will patent something, never use it and when they see someone else come up with the same idea they sue them.

Oh well. What can you do right?

As for the OP, overall it doesn't matter. Consider that AMD got its start by reverse engineering Intels x86 chips. In the technology world they always use whatever the other created as along as it helps the consumer (and their wallets). But let us not forget that AMDs main resource for a lot of things is IBM who still works with Intel on a lot of things too.

 

[jimmysmitty]

AMD is the market leader if you look at this from a technological point of View. Intel is considered the Market leader by those who just look at the finance and ignorant of the truths about what Intel actually are.
AMD was humiliating Intel for quite sometime, then when AMD released the Athlon 64 this REALLY hurt Intel. AMD were the first to bring Dual core technology to the server market, then AMD offered the AMD X2 to the desktop market. Intel's solution was to stick two Pentium 4's together, this resulted in a very hot and not very efficient chip. Why did Intel survive? Well we know Intel was Bullying and bribing Companies to use their Chips and I hope Justice prevails in the Anti-trust Cases currently happening. Intel's fight back was the Core2Duo chip ..which was certainly a leap for them especially after the awful Pentium D CPU. What do we learn some months on? Core2Duo was supposedly a stolen patent from a university and it looks like Intel is facing yet another lawsuit. This is the kind of company Intel are and that's why it's unjust that AMD is in such a financially crippled position presently. AMD are the real innovators...not Intel.
It's obvious that Intel has once again hit a dead end and that dead end is the FSB. It does not take rocket science to see Intel has followed AMD's approach to quad core. If AMD does go bankrupt then Intel would have to think for themselves for a change...The Computer industry would be in real trouble I do believe

Support the Honest company! Support AMD!

You talk about people being ignorant yet you seem ignorant to the fact that AMD is a company. They will screw you as long as it help them make money.

The patent lawsuit was for a feature in Core 2 Duo not the chip itself. Look it up before posting. funny thing is Intel has had that in their chips for a long time.

As for your whole AMD innovation BS. Dude AMD has yet to truly innovate anything since K8. Its all been IBMs handy woork that AMD uses and takes the glory for. If IBM was not there to give them the IMC for K8 they would be screwed. If it wasn't for IBM AMD wouldn't have a HK/MG that IBM is currently working on.

Seriously you are hilarious. If I were too look at the two companies, Intel and AMD, Intel would have more innovations that they created on their own than AMD has. But between IBM and Intel its harder to say.

 

[the last resort]

I dont think it is fair to say that Intel is the only one playing dirty and stealing others technology. Yeah, Intel is going to adopt the IMC and QPI. But if you look on AMD's side, their next gen processors are going to incorporate the high-k metal gates and ultra low k dielectrics. These are the same technologies that Intel is using in the Core 2 line which make them exceptionally well. IMO, the next line of CPU's, the Deneb and Nehalem, could be very similar in performance since they are using quite similar technology. The only difference that will probably be seen is the price, since Intel will once again have the $1500 Extreme Edition, since that is what Intel does. IDK what AMD will release for their "high-end". Maybe another FX processor, which would be really cool if they did.

 

[shadowthor]

tbh, all companies are out there to get your money, they don't care what happens and seriously this thread is just turning into a amd vs intel thing and should be closed.

 

[the last resort]

lol, true.

 

[jonisginger]

/flame

 

[nightscope]

It doesn't have to be turned into an AMD vs Intel thread so don't try to make it one.

I forgot about the L3 Cache too that Nehalem. I still don't get why have l3 at all if you can squeeze it all in l2... Oh well

When is AMD's next lineup supposed to be being released?

 

[the last resort]

first are supposed to arrive early 4Q '08.
samples arrive in 3Q '08.