Latest: AMD Accuses Intel of Stalling.

[badge]

Intel's legal team...stalling? Way.

Quote:

Intel has been accused of abusing its dominant position in the computer chip market, and more specifically, of attempting to shut its nearest rival AMD out of the CPU market.

Intel allegedly sold chips below cost and paid rebates to a computer maker and a chain of retail stores, which have not been named officially, in exchange for a commitment to only sell the company's processors and not rival products. The chip maker also allegedly paid the computer maker to delay the launch of products based on AMD chips.

Intel claims it is innocent and has said it expects to be cleared of the charges.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20081204/tc_pcworld/amdaccusesinteloftryingtostallecantitrustcase

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Below cost, due to Intel marketshare and paying computer makers to delay are things , if found true, thatll bring penalties

 

[enaher]

Well Intel has always been an aggressive opponent i bet they don't even care to pay up the penalties, either way i just don't get why hammer AMD if its no even necessary at this point... but lets hope AMD brings GAME hehehe no pun intended and becomes competitive again.

 

[spathotan]

Stalling what, the death of AMD? Come on, enough with this legal crap. Put up a product or shut up. Im looking forward to Phenom II benchmarks as much as the next AMD fanboi, but legal matters just piss in the punch bowl.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Stalling what, the death of AMD? Come on, enough with this legal crap. Put up a product or shut up. Im looking forward to Phenom II benchmarks as much as the next AMD fanboi, but legal matters just piss in the punch bowl.

Its th only crutch they have left really.

Think about it. Core 2 comes out and smashes the crap out of X2 on top of the fact that they don't have the manufacturing capabilities to produce as many chips that are being demanded.

They then bring out Phenom which was a flop in its own ways. So instead of working on Phenom II and making it better they are going to blame Intel.

They wont blame it on the fact that they bought ATI at the wrong time. They wont blame it on the recalls and stop shipments of their bread and butter earning server market Barcelona chips for months (4-6 to be exact which is a lot of time and sales) where Xeon was soaking up the left overs they couldn't fill. They wont blame it on the fact that they have lost money (mostly due to the aquisition of ATI) for 8 quarters straight.They will blame Intel until they are blue in the face.

Its sad really. Because instead of just shutting up with the same crap again and again and working on a better chip they pull the same BS every few months.

TBH I think AMD is stalling.

 

[Crashman]

Below cost, due to Intel marketshare and paying computer makers to delay are things , if found true, thatll bring penalties

Really? Because that's what large stores typically do to bring in customers. "Loss Leaders" often include things such as a $1 boxes of chocolate-covered-cherries and $500 big-screen TV's, which are advertised and sold in hopes of hooking the customers into less elaborate deals once they enter the store.

On the other hand, selling below cost is how Standard Oil put its competitors out of business to creat this nation's first oil monopoly. I have to wonder how our government has worded its laws to differentiate between loss-leaders and anti-competitive practices, because it seems like a good lawyer could find a loophole!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Those were the only 2 of the three in my mind that are worthy of finding fault. I believe because of Intels marketshare, doing something like that is forbidden, as theyre considered a monopoly, and selling for less than the parts worth I believe is illegal. However, AMD can do it, so can VIA, only because of their respected market positions

Take the largest store, wally world, they dont have anywheres near 80% of their market, so theyre exempt

 

[mtyermom]

I sure do like Intel processors, but if AMD's legal team and the Justice Department can substantiate the claims... I wonder what kind of effect it will have on pricing in the long run.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Im guessing it wont have alot. AMD needs to take the middle ground and be competitive, and let Intel have its halo products. The only way AMD is going to do this is to sell at an attractive price, and I dont see Intel letting them be undersold by much, if at all

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Sorry, DP

 

[desertdesign]

Intel is so far ahead of AMD its redic first of all projections show AMD wont be up to Intels technology level for proccessing until sometime until next year.AMD could easily fall under the pressure of Intel if intel wants it.

But we better hope not because you will see redic prices being set by intel for the cpu.

Intel does have a new threat and i would bank on Nvidia as coming into the market with the cpu/gpu on one chips.Intel has already shown moves from being threatened from the efficiency of nvidia new projects.Never know could be Nvidia and Intel soon battling out because it seems AMD is getting smacked around now bad and releasing a unfinished product (phenom) didnt help either.

 

[Cyclops21]

It worked for Rambus...

 

[DXRick]

So, they sold chips "below cost" and yet somehow managed to make billions in profits over the years. They must know something about economics that no one else does!

We have seen what happens when the airlines get into a price war and sell tickets below cost: they report huge losses and some go bankrupt.

Those Intel shysters have figure out how to sell for a loss and still make money! Bring them to justice!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Seller A has gotten an offer from AMD at a given price, Intel comes along and undersells AMDs quoted price for a loss on Intels part. Whats preventing the seller to look AMDs way? Intels illegal pricing schemes. This is hypothetical, tho it may have happened. Once you get the seller, you then say, Ill keep giving you deals over other sellers that sell both AMD and Intel if you only sell our product. Now, wheres all the "oh noes, we cant keep selling at a loss, we will go BK" ? This is more likely to have happened than what you proposed, wouldnt you say?

 

[werxen]

So, they sold chips "below cost" and yet somehow managed to make billions in profits over the years. They must know something about economics that no one else does!

We have seen what happens when the airlines get into a price war and sell tickets below cost: they report huge losses and some go bankrupt.

Those Intel shysters have figure out how to sell for a loss and still make money! Bring them to justice!

yeah.... OR it just shows you how much intel overcharges for their product! but wait! that cant happen!!! Intel is a reputable company!! oh nos! im talking crazy speak right now!! erroprrrr 100100110101001101

 

[Crashman]

So, they sold chips "below cost" and yet somehow managed to make billions in profits over the years. They must know something about economics that no one else does!

We have seen what happens when the airlines get into a price war and sell tickets below cost: they report huge losses and some go bankrupt.

Those Intel shysters have figure out how to sell for a loss and still make money! Bring them to justice!

The trick of the loss-leader is to price only a few of very many products below cost. If Intel needs to "get rid" of it's worst functional processors, it can handicap parts that would be "defective" when fully functional, and sell the "fixed" parts for "below cost". These would of course be the cheapest models. Cache defects for example are quite common, if Intel disables a bank of cache and sells the processor as a lower-cache part it PAYS for them to sell it below-cost, rather than throw it away.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Actually JD the article states that AMD was syaing Intel sold them below cost.

Although how AMD knows this is beyond me.

Maybe they go based on the cost to produce their own chips. But wait..... Intel has more FABS, more people working on the process and whats that? More experience in any given process. So how in the world would AMD know how much it cost Intel to make a CPU? Unless they are doing illegal stuff to get the info, such as having someone on the inside giving AMD classified info then there is no way AMD can know the cost per chip.

Hell considering how new Phenom was (new arch) and how cheap it was when it came out that could have possibly been sold below cost. But they will never be accused of it because they are the "underdog".

Personally I think AMD needs to stop this crap and start actually putting out products that compete. ATI did it with the 4800 series so why can't AMD take a hint from their graphics divison and shut up or put up?

 

[werxen]

The trick of the loss-leader is to price only a few of very many products below cost. If Intel needs to "get rid" of it's worst functional processors, it can handicap parts that would be "defective" when fully functional, and sell the "fixed" parts for "below cost". These would of course be the cheapest models. Cache defects for example are quite common, if Intel disables a bank of cache and sells the processor as a lower-cache part it PAYS for them to sell it below-cost, rather than throw it away.

eghh... i feel dumb i dont understand what you are saying crashman. are you saying intel is selling refurbs for the cheap price therefore no real loss is inherited?

 

[jimmysmitty]

eghh... i feel dumb i dont understand what you are saying crashman. are you saying intel is selling refurbs for the cheap price therefore no real loss is inherited?

No what he is saying is that if Intel happens to have a stockpile of extra CPUs they cannot get rid of the would say cut the cache to lower and sell them so they make some money out of them.

I would say a good example is the Q6400. It was a really rare quad core lower in rank than the Q6600. It was a bit slower too.

Or the half cache Yorkfields (the ones with 6MB cache instead of 12MB).

 

[werxen]

oh interesting... i wonder what the procedure + costs are for the cache removal.

 

[enigma067]

Well Intel has always been an aggressive opponent i bet they don't even care to pay up the penalties, either way i just don't get why hammer AMD if its no even necessary at this point... but lets hope AMD brings GAME hehehe no pun intended and becomes competitive again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivx0XYMCZJw

Competitive again? AMD has been competitive.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_XG411Lik

Intel has windows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrfGDqnNowc

Intel ought to learn to write better drivers!

 

[enigma067]

Im guessing it wont have alot. AMD needs to take the middle ground and be competitive, and let Intel have its halo products. The only way AMD is going to do this is to sell at an attractive price, and I dont see Intel letting them be undersold by much, if at all

"....and I dont see Intel letting them be undersold by much, if at all"?

You're out of touch with reality....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4yxKNWehU

 

[Crashman]

eghh... i feel dumb i dont understand what you are saying crashman. are you saying intel is selling refurbs for the cheap price therefore no real loss is inherited?

A non-defective Core 2 Duo should be sold as an E8600, right? I mean, if it gets hot at 3.33GHz, that's a defect. Drop the speed and the defect goes away. Cache error? Cut that bank of cache, and the error goes away. Intel probably sells as many defective products as possible, by changing the speed or cutting cache to eliminated the defect.

So, if you have a processor that both won't run fast AND needs to have some of its cache disabled, well, that's a fairly poor product right? You could throw it away, or you could sell it as a low-end part. Throwing it away means you lose the total cost of production. Selling it as a below-cost low-end part means you only lose part of your production cost.

And then you can make money on the better parts.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The law is the law. It protects the underdog, even sometimes without asking for the help. Im sure AMD has an idea of Intels costs, but thats not the issue, as to whether AMD knows or not. If Intel is found guilty, its not AMDs fault is it? If AMD can prove it hurt them, and its accepted by the judge, is that ok? If Intel brole the law, is that ok? It doesnt change my attitude towards Intel much, maybe a lil, but not much. Id buy a decent cpu from them anytime, at a good price, but not if I knew it was done under illegal activity. My morals get in the way.

This will come to a head, and we'll find out , and hopefully have full disclosure. Like I said, when that day comes, and if Intels found guilty, it really wont matter to me. But, what will is that if theyre found guilty, then they should do the time, so to speak. Same with AMD or any one or thing (Corp.)

Its just like most companies , or smaller ones anyways, have 2 books, 1 they show the IRS, the other, they keep to themselves. Will I quir shopping at all the mom n pops out there? No, as they need the breaks they make for themselves sometimes, even tho its illegal. Its just that Intel neednt have done what they may have done

 

[zodiacfml]

i agree, it is AMD that is stalling Intel. hehe
why accuse, where's the evidence? maybe intel has been doing this before but not today's time.
its pretty stupid for any healthy company to sell something below cost.
maybe,AMD thought those chips were priced so low for their standards that it should be below cost.
it could also mean the computer maker thought AMD products weren't necessary to sell and selling them was to satisfy costumers which explains the delay.

fanboys, i am an AMD products user for my past computers but this is just the painful truth.