Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Latest: AMD Accuses Intel of Stalling.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2008 11:24:42 PM

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/...

December 3, 2008 11:46:47 PM

Below cost, due to Intel marketshare and paying computer makers to delay are things , if found true, thatll bring penalties
December 3, 2008 11:55:57 PM

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 :bounce:  and becomes competitive again.
Related resources
December 4, 2008 12:18:16 AM

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.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2008 4:02:51 AM

spathotan said:
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.
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 4:17:47 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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!
December 4, 2008 4:56:22 AM

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
December 4, 2008 4:57:50 AM

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.
December 4, 2008 5:23:46 AM

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
December 4, 2008 5:23:47 AM

Sorry, DP
December 4, 2008 5:56:39 AM

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.
December 4, 2008 6:02:20 AM

It worked for Rambus...
December 4, 2008 6:35:57 AM

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!
December 4, 2008 6:47:44 AM

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?
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 7:07:32 AM

DXRick said:
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 :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 7:11:47 AM

DXRick said:
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.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2008 7:12:53 AM

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?
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 7:14:04 AM

Crashman said:
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?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2008 7:19:08 AM

werxen said:
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).
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 7:23:18 AM

oh interesting... i wonder what the procedure + costs are for the cache removal.
December 4, 2008 7:24:03 AM

enaher said:
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 :bounce:  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!

December 4, 2008 7:27:25 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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



a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 7:32:34 AM

werxen said:
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.
December 4, 2008 7:36:45 AM

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
December 4, 2008 7:44:00 AM

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. :D 
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.
December 4, 2008 7:54:57 AM

Yes, it could mean nothing. Ill remind everyone that when this was filed, AMD was doing quite well, as stated earlier, they couldnt make enough chips at the time, or so some people say, tho like the claims as to costs of Intesl chips, who would actually have that info?

And all this could really be just AMD making this all up, but several countries have already found Intel guilty on several of these charges, but for some reason, were supposed to forget that.

The audacity of people suggesting its AMD stalling is astounding, as Im sure Intel didnt mind being found guilty earlier. And those lil snippets of this case here and there that end up mostly on forums like these really helps AMD also.Yep, theres the motive right there. Must be it. It doesnt matter what we think, or who we like here, its all up to findings and the judge
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2008 7:55:34 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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


Thing is if Intel is making CPUs and selling them for cheap, but not below cost there isn't a damn thing AMD can do about it. Its not against the law to compete price wise. And AMD knows that. They know that It probably cost Intel less to make CPUs than it does for them because Intel has more FABs and has had the tech around longer than them.

There is no reason to say its below cost if they can't present the info up front, which BTW they should not have at all since thats internal Intel info.

AMD is just finding reason after another to stall since they cannot fully compete on every level.

Its like people saying that the Q6600 is being sold below cost while the E6600 was more than half the price. Thing is that the E6600 went out of production a long time ago. Only the Q6600 is still in production. Its the only non 1333MHz FSB chip that will last till about mid next year. TBH I wouldn't doubt it if Intel is making killer profits off of each Q6600 sold. The 65nm tech is more than 3 years old and very mature. And its cheaper to produce two dual core dies than one quad core.

So as said before. AmD needs toeither put up or shut up. This is getting extremely old. We all know about it and nothing has changed for the past 3 years (since Core 2s induction is when it hit it big time, kinda funny huh). They keep accusing and no one has found them fully guilty. They say the same crap again.

As I said. To me it seems that AMD is just stalling. For what I have no idea. Maybe they know they are in deep s**t. Who knows.
December 4, 2008 8:08:32 AM

When the judge asks for the figures, Intel had better comply. Bottom line. Maybe they never did? But, if they did, they knew exactly what they were doing, or youre not giving them enough credit.

As to the stalling, whats the motive? How does that improve AMDs position? And howre they stalling? By not asking the judge to just hurry up? What does AMD have that the judge needs thats not being put forthwith?
December 4, 2008 8:14:03 AM

actually there really is no loss, intel makes profit.
so selling chips below cost is pretty blurry and murky thought.
what crashman is saying that intel is so profitable from average and highend chips that is enough to pay for everything that low end low cache chips won't be necessary to sell yet they can still sell them for bargain prices which is AMD's market.

what amd does is comparing intel's economy of scale to them.
can't think of a good analogy.....
but what amd is trying to say is they're hard at work making and selling those lowend chips at a price near their cost to make and here comes intel selling similar performing chips for lower prices which intel wouldn't mind since they already made money from the mainstream and highend chips.

werxen said:
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?


December 4, 2008 8:24:57 AM

zodiacfml said:
actually there really is no loss, intel makes profit.
so selling chips below cost is pretty blurry and murky thought.
what crashman is saying that intel is so profitable from average and highend chips that is enough to pay for everything that low end low cache chips won't be necessary to sell yet they can still sell them for bargain prices which is AMD's market.

what amd does is comparing intel's economy of scale to them.
can't think of a good analogy.....
but what amd is trying to say is they're hard at work making and selling those lowend chips at a price near their cost to make and here comes intel selling similar performing chips for lower prices which intel wouldn't mind since they already made money from the mainstream and highend chips.


Nice theory, but again, Ill remind you, at the time, AMD was making the K8, while Intel was making the P4. Equal in pricing, but unequal in performance. So, thses lessor chips, they were the ones being sold? Link? Cause at the top was K8, then the P4s
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2008 9:05:12 AM

^Celerons and Semprons. Yes AMD does the same thing.
December 4, 2008 9:19:56 AM

My point is, yes AMD also does this, but is the inferred chips were the only ones being offered at low prices, or below cost, then its still regulated by a standard, one which has been accepted by the industry standards, or a precedence standard, and if even they were sold below what is considered their "worth" at "cost", Intel can still be found guilty
December 4, 2008 9:22:50 AM

To go deeper into this, all chips, whether top or bottom are considered an aspect of the entire market, and also a companies bottom line, and are treated equally in this respect, as throwing them away would do harm to both companies
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 4, 2008 9:30:34 AM

We don't know if AMD only sells the chips that are defective as Semprons. No one knows. Either one could do it when they have a over stock.

I mean considering they didn't sell as many Phenoms as wanted you would wounder what they did with the extra B2 Phenoms after B3 Phenoms came out.
December 4, 2008 9:39:12 AM

Possibly their yields sucked really bad. Might actually be part of the Intel better process myth. It didnt necessarily become "known" that Intels yields were so much higher that AMDs, until recently.

I remember when the 65nms came out, that was Intels advantage over AMD right there. Everyone was talking much higher counts per wafer, not just yields of good vs bad chips. The struggles with 65nm quads may have majorly contributed to AMDs bottom line, in other words, yields were so bad, high clocking quads werent possible, and barely acceptable 2.3s etc were the top end, the rest were maybe garbage, because they simply couldnt sell such an underperforming chip.
December 4, 2008 10:24:24 AM

AMD is stalling. Intel is beating them in every possible way.

Soon AMD's health issues from toxic chemicals released from their heatpads will put them in real hot water
December 4, 2008 10:30:03 AM

I put my Tofu near a AMD setup, and it turned into a Big mac
December 4, 2008 12:55:11 PM

Quote:
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?



Watch the double standard, AMD began their cpu business making CLONES of Intels chips and undersold them to get where they are as a company, no out rage, just business. If Intel does the same thing their an evil & greedy company.
(Thats a double standard period)
December 4, 2008 1:48:06 PM

There is a double standard, and it's perfectly good.

Intel controls 80% of the market, therefore they are a monopoly. Monopolies are held to a different standard because they have the power to negatively impact the entire market (doing anti-competitive things).

AMD controls 20% of the market, not being a monopoly. If you're not a monopoly, you're incapable of anti-competitive actions because you don't have enough power to make a difference.
December 4, 2008 1:59:00 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Nice theory, but again, Ill remind you, at the time, AMD was making the K8, while Intel was making the P4. Equal in pricing, but unequal in performance. So, thses lessor chips, they were the ones being sold? Link? Cause at the top was K8, then the P4s


It's not a theory, it's called marketing.

Pentium 4 was sold using dancing bunny suited people, Homer Simpson, the Blue Men, and aliens. It also had the trademarked "Intel tones". Consumers knew what Intel was about, and what the Pentium 4 was. Those same consumers also didn't care if K8 was a better performer, you know why? Because name 2 AMD commericals. Name how AMD was marketing K8 back then. What? Can't. Why not?

So, to ask why these "lessor" chips were being sold, while K8 wasn't, is naive. AMD didn't have a marketing budget to compete against Pentium 4's marketing. You can't sell a product that no one hears anything about. It wasn't until AMD got good word of mouth from the enthusiast community, that trickled into consumer market, that AMD was even seen as a competitor to Intel.

You need a link proving Intel sold more P4s than K8s? Okay. Look at Intel's financial sheet during K8 years. See any "red ink" during those years?
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2008 3:44:38 PM

Seeing as how AMD just issued revised Q4 guidance, down by a HUGE WHOPPING 25% from their previous, I'm predicting ANOTHER HALF-BILLION DOLLAR PLUS LOSS for AMD this quarter. Sorry for all the caps & excessive language, but that seems the only way to get the fanbois attention :) .

In short, AMD may not be around to see the end of the litigation, even with the Yabba Dhabba Dhoo money...
December 4, 2008 6:25:44 PM

Quote:
There is a double standard, and it's perfectly good.

Intel controls 80% of the market, therefore they are a monopoly. Monopolies are held to a different standard because they have the power to negatively impact the entire market (doing anti-competitive things).

AMD controls 20% of the market, not being a monopoly. If you're not a monopoly, you're incapable of anti-competitive actions because you don't have enough power to make a difference.




What about the underhanded position of AMD in duplicating and selling for less.
Once AMD undercut Intel profit by selling their cloned chips for less, that's what
started all the dirty dealings.

You also have to remember if not for Intel, AMD wouldn't have the 20% they have now, because the cpu belong to Intel 100% before allowing AMD to clone
it, so 20% is good for AMD if they can hold on to it.
December 4, 2008 7:03:01 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Seeing as how AMD just issued revised Q4 guidance, down by a HUGE WHOPPING 25% from their previous, I'm predicting ANOTHER HALF-BILLION DOLLAR PLUS LOSS for AMD this quarter. Sorry for all the caps & excessive language, but that seems the only way to get the fanbois attention :) .

In short, AMD may not be around to see the end of the litigation, even with the Yabba Dhabba Dhoo money...


Yabba Dhabba Dhoo money... that sir made my day. :na:  :na:  :na: 

Word, Playa.
December 4, 2008 7:12:49 PM

i love it - amd marketing comparison from utube

amd chooses a $1000 cpu to compare with non cpu intensive game - who cares the cpu runs 4.2ghz on air!

extra 900 dollars???? lol! you could buy 450 shares of amd!
December 4, 2008 8:00:08 PM

jimmysmitty said:
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.


True. Like I said, and you say, its time to put up or shut up for AMD. No amount of lawsuits are going to turn the tables on Intel.
!