Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD, Nvidia Conspire to Price Fixing; Sued

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2008 7:21:15 PM

Now where is thunderman to proclaim AMDs innocence?

I guess if it is true and they are both found guilty then BM will have to look elsewhere to buy his GPUs since he states he wont buy from a company that uses "dirty" tactics.
September 3, 2008 7:30:28 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Now where is thunderman to proclaim AMDs innocence?

I guess if it is true and they are both found guilty then BM will have to look elsewhere to buy his GPUs since he states he wont buy from a company that uses "dirty" tactics.


We can only hope he boycotts computers all together.

Word, Playa.
Related resources
September 3, 2008 7:41:27 PM

yeah give it to the MAN!!!

little guy 1 point
Big guy 13213516545646546546546546446 points
a c 96 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2008 7:44:45 PM

^^^^

Yup. Title to the thread and Tom's article are a little misleading ...
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2008 7:45:51 PM

Not this again...

If they were conspiring, AMD would have waited a bit longer on the 4xxx series, so NVIDIA would milk more profits on a $699 280 GTX.
September 3, 2008 7:49:07 PM

im happy there getting sued they charge way to much for high end cards. ati only dropped prices to remain competitive and nvidia jacked the prices of there gtx280 to 650$ now u can find them for 400$ and sometimes even cheaper after rebate. they could of sold for 550$ at start but no.
I think amd is only selling the 4series 4850/4870 cheap to make them look innocent. just my opinion.
=]
September 3, 2008 8:02:19 PM

When I had my business, we also conspired together. We selflessly promoted our area in unionship manner. The cpu currently isnt what it was then. The companies wetre ATI and nVidia then, AMD nVidia now. Intel knows that cpus have reached an edge for growth, and theres much more money to be had in graphics. Wow, amagine 2 companies getting together to promote their product! How eevile! They should at least be taken out and flogged. I hope Intel never gets the graphics promotion thing together with eother of these companies, someone could suspect them too! This sounds like something coming out of California, and San Francisco to boot. Wheres the slap down for Toms pushing this drivel? Its already been thrown out once, itll happen again. Good drama tho, but I still wish Toms hadnt printed this...shame
September 3, 2008 8:02:48 PM

If you bothered to take a look at the court evidence, the alleged price fixing began in 2003 and ended in 2006. AMD bought ATI in late 2006.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2008 8:05:34 PM

Quote:
the title is misleading and ignorant, this is about ati and nvidia, i ain't defending amd just that i don't like ati being called amd, they aint.


Malovane said:
If you bothered to take a look at the court evidence, the alleged price fixing began in 2003 and ended in 2006. AMD bought ATI in late 2006.


Here is the thing though.... AMD bought ATI thus anything that happens now is on AMDs shoulders. So even if it was ATI then since the lawsuit is now its on AMD and will end up making them look bad.
September 3, 2008 8:09:58 PM

or maybe to out compete Nvidia.... did you think of that?
I didn't see much hard evidence in that "proof" of them conspiring
edit: you people post too fast, that was in response to invisik
September 3, 2008 8:11:22 PM

Does this mean I can get a 4780 X2 for under $100?? [:xkm1948:1]. o O ([:thegreatgrapeape:2])
September 3, 2008 8:13:30 PM

I think Toms should drop in microphones at all the chambers of commerce, Im sure thed find all sorts of collusion going on there too
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2008 8:13:48 PM


Hey Thunderman,,

Now that your AMD are innocent claims are over.......


Please divert attention to MB Games Simon and press the colours in the appropiate order....


And dont worry, AMD BE happy...






AMD are evil, these are the Anti Christ..

Intel are not with out their sins, AMD has commited cardinal this time.


Praise the pipeline..

Intel for Life

AMD for Wife


by the look of the -3 its Thunderman again and his bunch of phonies
September 3, 2008 8:15:10 PM

spuddyt said:
or maybe to out compete Nvidia.... did you think of that?
I didn't see much hard evidence in that "proof" of them conspiring
edit: you people post too fast, that was in response to invisik


well even if its not true i think the prices of gpu r still quite expensive. nvidia pissed me off with there 650$ gtx280.
=]
the 4series is little to cheap i dont no y ati sold it that cheap even to be competitive.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2008 8:15:52 PM

^And we just stepped into the Twilight Zone of crazy people.
September 3, 2008 8:17:38 PM

Id heard Intel is working with Universities together, trying to promote multithreading, and ys know whats worse? Theyve even given em MONEY!!!!
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2008 8:24:43 PM


Oh thats why AMD paid 6 Trillion dollars for ATI.....


They thought they were getting 12 trillion of 1950gtx's


Wow, that was a bargain......



Bad Hellboy - must stop pressing the sarcasm button.
September 3, 2008 8:43:35 PM

Again......this is all alleged. I am not saying that they are not guilty.....but until the proceeding is completed, we can only watch and see.


Dont condem because some one says they are guilty. Let everything pan out.

Cheers,

-PM
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2008 8:47:15 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Id heard Intel is working with Universities together, trying to promote multithreading, and ys know whats worse? Theyve even given em MONEY!!!!


So Intel is giving Universities money to research multithreading in the hopes of possibly allowing programs to make use of the CPU power we have today and thats a bad thing?

particleman said:
Again......this is all alleged. I am not saying that they are not guilty.....but until the proceeding is completed, we can only watch and see.


Dont condem because some one says they are guilty. Let everything pan out.

Cheers,

-PM


Oh I agree. But it just goes to show that any company is capable of being guilty of anti-trust, even AMD.

This also shows that there is no 100% moral company. Remember they only worry about their bottom line.
September 3, 2008 8:59:47 PM

jimmysmitty said:
So Intel is giving Universities money to research multithreading in the hopes of possibly allowing programs to make use of the CPU power we have today and thats a bad thing?



Oh I agree. But it just goes to show that any company is capable of being guilty of anti-trust, even AMD.

This also shows that there is no 100% moral company. Remember they only worry about their bottom line.

Im just coming up with potential conspircy theories for Toms future articles. If you look at it juuuuust right, Intel must be doing some eeevile, colluding with those universities, especially the ones NOT from California
September 3, 2008 9:50:02 PM

Strange, the article quotes only seem to indicate co-marketing, nothing about price fixing.
a c 96 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2008 9:50:41 PM

Quote:
are you actually serious?


A company such as AMD in a major acquisition (like the one with ATI) would most like purchase liability insurance with an 'occurrence' clause to cover any unfunded liabilities that arise in litigation.

Now, whether they may have missed a payment or two on their insurance premium .... could be up for question :ouch: 
September 3, 2008 10:19:07 PM

jimmysmitty said:
This also shows that there is no 100% moral company. Remember they only worry about their bottom line.


You assume that something being good for the bottom line is immoral. One does not equate to the other.

For instance, AMD/ATI released their 4xxx series with a much lower price tag than they could have. Why? Well, there are lots of good reasons.

Number one is that PC gaming has been sliding with the prevalence of consoles. On the release of the GTX280, people could buy an entire PS3 for less than the cost of that single card.. and they would have more games to choose from with a console. Now even MMORPG's are making the move to console.. and that's really PC gaming's last real hope. Decent pricing of video cards will EXPAND the market and bring computer gaming back from the brink. This is good for consumers who are now offered more choice in the matter, and all lovers of PC gaming.

A second reason is that they want to regain some market share from Nvidia. Does this hurt consumers? Well, seeing the troubles with Nvidia's "Soldergate" and that the documents presented in this price fixing evidence showed the thing was being coordinated by Nvidia.. I can pretty much say that AMD getting the abundant market share would be pretty good for consumers.

AMD has been a driving force in the processor industry for many years, and their technology (and IBM's) really has been crucial to the developments in PC's in the past decade. Much of what they have done has been win-win for consumers and the industry as a whole. Now... you say AMD is an evil company because they care about their bottom line? They just barely warded off bankruptcy for gods sake. How are they going to bring us nice tech goodies without any income for 7 straight quarters? Hell, I care about their bottom line.

And this whole thread is ludicrous.. blaming AMD for something ATI (allegedly) did that Nvidia was orchestrating at a time when ATI wasn't even owned by AMD.
a b à CPUs
September 4, 2008 12:12:13 AM

Wait, i have to send a letter to these scum sucking, bottom feeding, shyster pieces of snot garbage so i can be excluded from having them represent me? That is really screwed up, they have no interest in me, they only have interest in screwing people so they can line their frigging pockets. You ever have a 3 minute conversation with a lawyer and then get charged $200 for crappy off the cuff advice ? Well i have and i'd rather have an ATI or nVidia GPU any day of the week. Low life lawyers suck.
September 4, 2008 12:39:24 AM

dirtmountain said:
Wait, i have to send a letter to these scum sucking, bottom feeding, shyster pieces of snot garbage so i can be excluded from having them represent me? That is really screwed up, they have no interest in me, they only have interest in screwing people so they can line their frigging pockets. You ever have a 3 minute conversation with a lawyer and then get charged $200 for crappy off the cuff advice ? Well i have and i'd rather have an ATI or nVidia GPU any day of the week. Low life lawyers suck.


Hah, was thinking the same thing, really. Since when did class action lawsuits become opt-out? How are they going to find everyone to give them their money back? Let me guess... any unclaimed money will be split between the lawyers and the couple people who filed the claim. Pretty disgusting.

Anyway, this will very likely be tossed out. The little evidence they had indicated that Nvidia was coordinating a marketing scheme with ATI to boost their sector of the industry over anything Intel might offer. "Hey, lets call our video card processors GPU'S!" says Nvidia... "OK, says ATI... "Fine by us". "Hey, lets help developers make more graphics intensive games" says Nvidia... "Hey, that sounds good" ATI says.

Honestly, if those letters are all the evidence they have, then I applaud Nvidia for going to ATI and trying to make the relations between them more civil and beneficial. I'd also be pretty pissed at AMD for letting these confidential emails leak to the public. I mean, it's a very interesting read, but it's harmless and fairly standard in any new industry to do this type of thing, and people get all conspiratorial about it. If they have more damning evidence.. well, that's a different story. We'll have to wait and see.
September 4, 2008 12:42:48 AM

$700 GPU that is the best on the market or $1500 for a CPU that can not noticeably beat out a $350 CPU, why isn't anyone suing Intel? This is totally ridiculous and neither Nvidia or ATI did anything wrong, its pretty obvious.
September 4, 2008 12:58:34 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
$700 GPU that is the best on the market or $1500 for a CPU that can not noticeably beat out a $350 CPU, why isn't anyone suing Intel? This is totally ridiculous and neither Nvidia or ATI did anything wrong, its pretty obvious.


Your mind seems to have forgotten the $1,100 USD cpus sold by AMD... Remember when they had the better product with the S939 FX series VS preshott?
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 4, 2008 1:06:13 AM

Hy I am not blaming AMD but my point is still valid. A few years from now do you think people will remmeber the details or the two companies that were involved?

If this turns out true then the ATI division is probably going to get fined or something so will nVidia. But whatever happens is that AMD will be the one losing for ATIs screw ups.

Malovane, thanks for taking my point way way out of context. My main point is there are those who believe that AMD is a hloy company that only cares about the consumer and will only buy AMD instead of whatever is the best bang for their buck. My point is that AMD is not holy, has had their share of screw ups and their main goal is to get you to give them as much money as possible for their product.

But believe me the second they have a CPU that blows Intels out of the water or a GPU that blows nVidias best out of the water you will see their stuff come at higher prices. Or did you forget, as TC mentioned, their $1K+ FX CPUs when they had the better chip against Intel?
September 4, 2008 1:18:05 AM

spud said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-amd-ati-graphics,6311.html

Gasp I thought AMD was one of the good guys.

Word, Playa.



How dare you post something anti-AMD you...you...you....Intel fanboy!

Dont you know, AMD is the morally righteous guiding light of the computing world and they would never mislead consumers!! They would never make any statement that wasnt totally true, they would never deliver any substandard products or blame anyone else for their troubles, and they certainly would never conspire with any onther company to artificially inflate prices for their own gain!! Nvidias to dirty a company for AMD to even communicate with let alone hatch evil schemes!


Mugzdam, AMD isnt even in business to make a profit!! There!!! Thats proves these allegations are false because everyone knows AMD doesnt care about money or profit! All AMD cares about is fulfilling the unicorn wishes of ailing children in an eco-friendly, non-partisan manner.


You Brood zealot!! :kaola: 
September 4, 2008 1:38:06 AM

Well, that was one of AMD's mistakes that you mention. They tried the lower volume/high sales price method instead of going for market share, and it bit them in the butt in the long run. With AMD's launch of the HD 4xxxx's, I think we saw what AMD's strategy will be in the future for a long while: push volume high and price low.. capture the market share.

No, AMD is not "holy". Philosophically speaking, holy implies perfection, and nothing is really.. not that we simple humans would know it if we saw it. Hell, perfection could be us humans sitting around in loincloths all day eating each others boogers. We have no clue.

However, most people seem to enjoy the fruits of technology and industry, and therefore we aim for companies to do business in ways that best suits the fullest expansion of those industries. ATI and Nvidia's collaboration is a fair example, and looking back at AMD's history, they have followed a business model that was critical in pushing the personal computer sector to where it is today.

Now, I'm one of those who will not buy Intel. I'll buy AMD (working on one right now).. had a Cyrix, some Suns, and an Alpha. But Intel's position historically has been basically to bleed the market dry, then give a minor upgrade when the market is saturated. Screw the industry, just give us money for our lame R&D schemes. Hey, AMD is finally a threat.. lets pull some dirty tricks, then finally make a decent cpu to crush AMD! Hey, that Phenom chip is pretty good in the server market.. let's basically copy it and put in some cool new features.. even though we've been badmouthing that architecture all this time.. yeah!

Sorry, just don't like Intel as a company, and as a result, I won't give them my money. AMD may not be perfect, but the money is better spent there for the future.
September 4, 2008 1:59:41 AM

I posted this on the article but i thought it deserved to go here...

Is it just me or does anybody else not care? I don't feel ripped off at all and i don't think setting a minimum price segment is "fixing".
Everyone bring up that flagship gpus used to cost less, "so what"?
New materials and designs that haven't been used before shouldn't be expected to cost the same as the generation from 6 years ago.
I also used to be able to get candy at the store for 75 cents. Now its $1.50. Same thing, no new materials or building process. I think i am getting a good deal on my GPU.

Someone please give a proper rebuttal.
September 4, 2008 2:33:22 AM

Depends on whether you choose to believe monopolies are bad or not.

If there are only 2 competitors in a market, and they cooperate with each other in such a manner as to define a pricing standard which both agree to follow, they essentially create a monopoly, in practice not name. By doing so, they eliminate the competition factor, as their pricing is set by an agreement, and not by consumer demand, and cannot respond to consumer demand.

But this goes beyond simple pricing...they can agree to time releases of new technology, further limiting the competiton factor and in doing so allowing themselves more time to recoup R&D expenditures by extracting tha maximum psoobile profit from a single product line.

So it depends on your perspective. Regardless of whether you feel its good or bad, the results are the same, higher prices, longer, with slower technology turnover.

There are other aspects though which can easily be viewed as positive, not the least of which is corporate security. By limiting competition, regulating prices and delibertly sharing the market, companies can insure their own survival.
September 4, 2008 2:52:38 AM

turpit said:
Mugzdam, AMD isnt even in business to make a profit!! There!!! Thats proves these allegations are false because everyone knows AMD doesnt care about money or profit! All AMD cares about is fulfilling the unicorn wishes of ailing children in an eco-friendly, non-partisan manner.


Duh. We all know that AMD is a "non-profit company". They just filed the wrong paperwork and appear to be a publicly traded corporation.
September 4, 2008 2:55:15 AM

turpit said:
Depends on whether you choose to believe monopolies are bad or not.

If there are only 2 competitors in a market, and they cooperate with each other in such a manner as to define a pricing standard which both agree to follow, they essentially create a monopoly, in practice not name. By doing so, they eliminate the competition factor, as their pricing is set by an agreement, and not by consumer demand, and cannot respond to consumer demand.

But this goes beyond simple pricing...they can agree to time releases of new technology, further limiting the competiton factor and in doing so allowing themselves more time to recoup R&D expenditures by extracting tha maximum psoobile profit from a single product line.

So it depends on your perspective. Regardless of whether you feel its good or bad, the results are the same, higher prices, longer, with slower technology turnover.

There are other aspects though which can easily be viewed as positive, not the least of which is corporate security. By limiting competition, regulating prices and delibertly sharing the market, companies can insure their own survival.



Exactly.

But we don't mind price\supply fixing...COUGH...OPEC...COUGH...
September 4, 2008 2:57:28 AM

spud said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-amd-ati-graphics,6311.html

Gasp I thought AMD was one of the good guys.

Word, Playa.


This is actually really old info and the article on Tom's doesn't tell the whole story. Here is a good summary that was posted on PC Perspective a few weeks ago.

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=5986

Quote:
Essentially, the grand jury investigating the two companies was unable to find any evidence of price fixing on GPUs. A letter with these findings was sent to Judge William Alsup who then decided that due to the information the grand jury provided, the class-action lawsuit that was being filed against both NVIDIA and AMD was only going to take into account the graphics cards that were sold directly from both companies to the consumers. And since NVIDIA has never sold card directly to consumers, that means that Judge Alsup has essential left this as a class-action suit for buyers of ATI hardware from the ATI.com website.


Suddenly this doesn't sound so dire does it? The fact that a grand jury found no evidence of price fixing and that the class-action suit has been limited to such a small scope means that the suit will most likely be dropped as any potential damage award will likely not even cover the legal costs.

Honestly, this information was available over a month ago. Why is Tom's only just now posting an article about this and leaving out so many pertinent details?
September 4, 2008 3:09:32 AM

Look to my posts above
September 4, 2008 3:15:05 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Your mind seems to have forgotten the $1,100 USD cpus sold by AMD... Remember when they had the better product with the S939 FX series VS preshott?


I think that the point Blood Raven was trying to make is that difference in price between different GPU's is more indicative of the difference in performance that it is for CPU's.

For example a 4870X2 provides around 200% the performance of a single 4870 in most reviews for about 200% of the price. Fairly linear...

On the CPU side however, a QX9770 provides about 7-8% more performance than a QX9650 yet it costs 50% more. The slope of the performance/price curve seems to be much shallower on CPU's. I think this is the point Blood Raven was making.

September 4, 2008 3:28:39 AM

Cpu bad, gpu good, like angels heheh
a c 123 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 4, 2008 5:08:12 AM

Malovane said:
Well, that was one of AMD's mistakes that you mention. They tried the lower volume/high sales price method instead of going for market share, and it bit them in the butt in the long run. With AMD's launch of the HD 4xxxx's, I think we saw what AMD's strategy will be in the future for a long while: push volume high and price low.. capture the market share.

No, AMD is not "holy". Philosophically speaking, holy implies perfection, and nothing is really.. not that we simple humans would know it if we saw it. Hell, perfection could be us humans sitting around in loincloths all day eating each others boogers. We have no clue.

However, most people seem to enjoy the fruits of technology and industry, and therefore we aim for companies to do business in ways that best suits the fullest expansion of those industries. ATI and Nvidia's collaboration is a fair example, and looking back at AMD's history, they have followed a business model that was critical in pushing the personal computer sector to where it is today.

Now, I'm one of those who will not buy Intel. I'll buy AMD (working on one right now).. had a Cyrix, some Suns, and an Alpha. But Intel's position historically has been basically to bleed the market dry, then give a minor upgrade when the market is saturated. Screw the industry, just give us money for our lame R&D schemes. Hey, AMD is finally a threat.. lets pull some dirty tricks, then finally make a decent cpu to crush AMD! Hey, that Phenom chip is pretty good in the server market.. let's basically copy it and put in some cool new features.. even though we've been badmouthing that architecture all this time.. yeah!

Sorry, just don't like Intel as a company, and as a result, I won't give them my money. AMD may not be perfect, but the money is better spent there for the future.


Have you not met thunderman? And from your entire post you sound just like BaronMatrix.

Every company bleeds the market dry until there is need for change. American car companies have had us setting on gas guzzlers and now that the Japanese car companies offer more economical engines the American car companies are doing the same.AMD and Intel keep eachother in line there. If Intel never came out with Core 2 Phenom would have been a long way off.

The dirty tactics I don't comment on because I am not someone with access to the full info of what went on. But you are mad that Intel made a CPU (Core 2) that beats Athlon X2 and causes the prices to go down? It wasn't made to crush AMD it was made to compete against AthlonX2 since Prescott didn't. Would you have prefered Intel to just stand by and let AMD sell the same chips while moving nowhere?

Actually Intel is not copying Barcelona. It has some of the same features such as the IMC and the high speed link between cores and I/O devices but it is nothing alike really. Intel has never bashed the IMC, they have always said its a good design but they felt there was no need for it back in 2003. That was their own choice though which obviously was a bad one to make. Either way if it benefits us end consumers why would you be mad?

Personally your entire argument ia just excuses. Instead of buying whatever performs the best at the time you try to only support one company. Well thats your own choice and I respect it. But don't use lame excuses like "Intel created Core 2 to crush AMD....". AMD knew about Core 2 as early as 2005. In fact at a meeting they had (AMD and Intel) Intel told AMD about Core 2 and AMD just laughed as if it was a joke. But hey I guess they stopped laughing when on the desktop and the 1P & 2P server markets started to buy Core 2 instead.

Just_An_Engineer, thats weird. Nice info though.
September 4, 2008 7:39:24 AM

Its funny that Dan from Nvidia even mentioned about working on the "legality" side of the deal...

If there's seriously nothing wrong with the collaboration between two companies, I wonder why Dan would say that....
September 4, 2008 8:56:46 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
I think that the point Blood Raven was trying to make is that difference in price between different GPU's is more indicative of the difference in performance that it is for CPU's.

For example a 4870X2 provides around 200% the performance of a single 4870 in most reviews for about 200% of the price. Fairly linear...

On the CPU side however, a QX9770 provides about 7-8% more performance than a QX9650 yet it costs 50% more. The slope of the performance/price curve seems to be much shallower on CPU's. I think this is the point Blood Raven was making.


CPU pricing at the top end is ridiculously expensive which skews the argument somewhat. Hardly anybody buys the QX9770, so its hardly relevant to 99.9% of the market.

I actually think CPU pricing is fairer at the lower end than GPUs are. For example, a $50 BE-2400 X2 @ 2.3GHz is probably overkill for the Average Joe, but a $50 GPU (HD3650 after MIR) will struggle running modern games at native LCD resolutions. To get reasonably good performance in games you need to spend at least $100 on a 9600GT class card.

September 4, 2008 9:45:49 AM

epsilon84 said:
CPU pricing at the top end is ridiculously expensive which skews the argument somewhat. Hardly anybody buys the QX9770, so its hardly relevant to 99.9% of the market.

I actually think CPU pricing is fairer at the lower end than GPUs are. For example, a $50 BE-2400 X2 @ 2.3GHz is probably overkill for the Average Joe, but a $50 GPU (HD3650 after MIR) will struggle running modern games at native LCD resolutions. To get reasonably good performance in games you need to spend at least $100 on a 9600GT class card.


Thunderman i call thee, to defend AMD name is the second cometh....

Oh wait, those are really, really old news. The Judge never found nothing. Those accusations were made by partners/OEM. Poor partners aren't making enough cash.
September 4, 2008 10:46:43 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
I think that the point Blood Raven was trying to make is that difference in price between different GPU's is more indicative of the difference in performance that it is for CPU's.

For example a 4870X2 provides around 200% the performance of a single 4870 in most reviews for about 200% of the price. Fairly linear...

On the CPU side however, a QX9770 provides about 7-8% more performance than a QX9650 yet it costs 50% more. The slope of the performance/price curve seems to be much shallower on CPU's. I think this is the point Blood Raven was making.


Thanks Engineer, been to busy to comment. Anywho sorry TC, didn't mean to single out your beloved Intel, and yes AMD still counts in the server market.
September 4, 2008 12:24:03 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Thanks Engineer, been to busy to comment. Anywho sorry TC, didn't mean to single out your beloved Intel, and yes AMD still counts in the server market.


You keep me honest, and I'll keep you honest. :D 
September 4, 2008 1:21:06 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
This is actually really old info and the article on Tom's doesn't tell the whole story. Here is a good summary that was posted on PC Perspective a few weeks ago.

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=5986

Quote:
Essentially, the grand jury investigating the two companies was unable to find any evidence of price fixing on GPUs. A letter with these findings was sent to Judge William Alsup who then decided that due to the information the grand jury provided, the class-action lawsuit that was being filed against both NVIDIA and AMD was only going to take into account the graphics cards that were sold directly from both companies to the consumers. And since NVIDIA has never sold card directly to consumers, that means that Judge Alsup has essential left this as a class-action suit for buyers of ATI hardware from the ATI.com website.


Suddenly this doesn't sound so dire does it? The fact that a grand jury found no evidence of price fixing and that the class-action suit has been limited to such a small scope means that the suit will most likely be dropped as any potential damage award will likely not even cover the legal costs.

Honestly, this information was available over a month ago. Why is Tom's only just now posting an article about this and leaving out so many pertinent details?


K can't say this really concerns me anymore I saw the front page link and linked it then went on to more important things.

Word, Playa.
September 4, 2008 1:47:52 PM

Emails allege ATI-Nvidia price fixing conspiracy

Quote:
A more detailed breakdown of the case, including charts illustrating pricing and release schedules before and after the alleged conspiracy period can be found in the complaint (PDF warning)


Just more info, even a PDF file that documents 2007.
September 4, 2008 7:35:47 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You keep me honest, and I'll keep you honest. :D 


Haha, deal.
a b à CPUs
September 4, 2008 7:41:47 PM

Grimmy said:
Emails allege ATI-Nvidia price fixing conspiracy

Quote:
A more detailed breakdown of the case, including charts illustrating pricing and release schedules before and after the alleged conspiracy period can be found in the complaint (PDF warning)


Just more info, even a PDF file that documents 2007.



Im sure that Nvidia and AMD have never lied or mis-led the business sector or public in anyway..


Oooh hang on im just getting flash backs to mis-leading 3d Mark results and promise of a fast Phenom processor..


Hang on a minute no ones posted anything about a Phenom lately - has Phenom-ness dried up of late
!