Intel Inflates CPU Prices says AMD. We Investigate

We have all heard in recent news that Intel was slapped with a hefty fine by the European Union ringing to the tune of $1.4 billion. This fine is even larger than the one Microsoft was handed, which was already a record $1.3 billion.

Comparing anti-trust rulings in the United States and those in Europe, one has to wonder why these trials rarely end in the plaintiff's favor here in the U.S., but seem to routinely punish the defendants with judgments of biblical proportions in Europe. While it's true that both sides of the table put up a good fight, it's not nearly the same as when Microsoft was in court with the U.S. Department of Justice. During that epic battle, it was Microsoft versus nearly the entire U.S.A. Yet, in the end, Microsoft won.

So why is it that Microsoft didn't win, and neither did Intel, against the EU?

One of our best partners at the time, was Hewlett-Packard. While we had our own marketing budget, HP made sure that we would receive a lot of money every month to spend on marketing if we sold more HP products. This was wholly legal. They're called marketing development funds, or MDFs. Many large companies offer this, and while it may differ in name from company to company, the intent is the same.

In this situation, who wouldn't want to receive free money?

We realize that the EU accused Intel of actively paying vendors to outright avoid AMD technology. But it's important to bear in mind that there are valid forms of incentivizing sales."

In a recent press filing, AMD's executive VP of legal affairs, Tom McCoy, said that Intel's CPUs were sold with inflated pricing. Dirk Meyer, AMD's CEO, also chimed in to say that thanks to the EU ruling, "we are looking forward to the move from a world in which Intel ruled, to one which is ruled by consumers."

Indeed it's clear that Intel hold's the majority market share. Even many who are new to computers know the Intel brand name very well.

In the first quarter of 2009, AMD spent a total of $287 million to market (PDF) its products. During the same period, Intel spent $1.2 billion (PDF). Intel also spent $1.31 billion on R&D, while AMD spent only $446 million. Clearly we can see where all the partner support and customer demand stems from. I see Intel TV spots almost daily, and they're even showing up often on sites like Hulu. Even the Intel chime rings clearly in my mind. I cannot honestly think of something catchy to associate with AMD.

AMD is a lower price option, with a CPU ASP price difference of 45-percent during the last 10 years according to Mercury Research. So it's obvious that when you exclude AMD from the market, computer manufacturers are forced to use higher-priced Intel chips. It's simple math. So the conclusion is obvious: the EU decision targets Intel's attempt to exclude AMD, the lower-priced competitor, from the market through coercive contract terms and simple impropriety--like paying computer makers to delay launching AMD-powered computers.

But this still doesn't make Intel's pricing inflated--since McCoy stated that Intel has inflated pricing--by default. This only makes Intel's behavior anti-competitive. Intel's pricing is higher, but Intel trying to make customers pick its products over AMD products, by coercing vendors or other means, doesn't make the products' pricing themselves inflated by default.

AMD: We're not in a position to coerce anyone... but putting that part aside.

Why else limit choice if not to ensure their products don't have to compete on merits... with pricing being a component.

Performance-wise, Intel is in demand. I think AMD doesn't focus on performance like Intel does, rather, AMD focuses more on price-performance value systems instead.

At the end of the day, one thing is clear: Intel aggressively competes with AMD. If the EU's findings are indeed true, in that Intel did illegally coerce partners and vendors to actively avoid AMD technology, then it's also clear that Intel perceives AMD as a big enough threat to take on these types of strategies.

TOPICS
  • P1nky
    How can you say "If the EU's findings are indeed true"?? Who do you think UE is?!

    This article is a joke. You try to find out the truth when Japan, South Korea and Europe already found it and took action against Intel.

    Intel fan boy or Intel paid article?
    Reply
  • tenor77
    Well I don't think you can expect AMD to not try to put a positive spin on this. If you come to them directly and ask what they think of their competition they're not going to give them a raving review.

    AMD: "Well shucks, Intels alright. Sure they do some illegal things, but they're good people all the same"

    No I don't think Intel inflates CPU prices. By the vary nature of competition both companies help to lower prices.
    Reply
  • dingumf
    To P1nky

    Toms Hardware isn't as good as the good old days.
    Reply
  • But can it play Crysis?
    Reply
  • dman3k
    So by the very nature of competition, it's ok for one company who has significantly more resources kill their competition by selling things at ridiculously low prices that the competition cannot survive?

    Great!
    Reply
  • tenor77
    dman3kSo by the very nature of competition, it's ok for one company who has significantly more resources kill their competition by selling things at ridiculously low prices that the competition cannot survive?Great!
    Did I say that? Umm no. The question is, "Does Intel inflate CPU prices?"
    No. Competition lowers prices.
    Reply
  • turboflame
    We realize that the EU accused Intel of actively paying vendors to outright avoid AMD technology.

    You sure? The entire article pretty much sidesteps this issue.

    The article also focuses purely on today's CPU situation. Back when the Pentium 4 was facing the Athlon 64, Intel made no real attempt to price it's CPUs competitively as it does now. They were still selling $1000 extreme edition CPUs that were beaten by AMD CPUs that cost less than half as much.
    Reply
  • snowysoul
    I own only AMD home built desktops, and yes thought it was great that Intel was getting a fine. But who else thought this was just a bunch of misconstrued garbage for EU to get money? What is next, Cisco getting sued by EU for being competitive?
    Also I was appalled to learn that AMD does not have the same level of interaction with company system builders in a previous article on this website. You reap what you sow.
    Reply
  • gzhang
    well, is it ridiculously low price or inflated prices?
    Reply
  • porksmuggler
    one has to wonder why these trials rarely end in the plaintiff's favor here in the U.S.
    Here in the U.S., anti-competitive practices rarely see the light of day in court, unless there's strong public outcry.

    We realize that the EU accused Intel of actively paying vendors to outright avoid AMD technology
    But yet you are determined to sideline that real issue in this article.

    This only makes Intel's behavior anti-competitive
    Let's focus on AMD's key question. Why would Intel act to limit customer options? You need to revisit your understanding of the nature/root of anti-competitive behavior.

    I leave it up to you to study what AMD said
    I get it, you dont, hopefully most that read this will, despite the anecdotal evidence you seem to rely on...





    Reply