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.

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

And have they ever lost to these law suits?

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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...............

^ 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?

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.

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?

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!

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.