Skip to main content

Intel to Settle With FTC (Upd: But Not This Week!)

Intel and Nvidia are currently locking horns over what's fair business. Nvidia claims that Intel priced its Atom processors as prohibitively expensive when purchased not in conjunction with an Intel chipset. This deterred computer makers from pairing the Atom with Nvidia's Ion chipset, which granted the CPU access to a GeForce 9400M.

According to Reuters, that sort of business behavior on Intel's part could be coming to an end, as the chipmaker is to settle with the U.S. FTC. The deal would spare Intel from paying Nvidia the same sort of monetary reparations it has to pay AMD, but would still restrict it from certain marketing tactics.

Someone close to the deal said that this could curb Intel's use of volume discounts when selling Intel CPUs together with its in-house graphics chips.

The FTC declined to comment on the story, and Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy offered only, "Discussions are ongoing, and we have nothing more to add at this point."

A decision, if it happens as reported, will happen on Friday.

UPDATE: The latest word from the Wall Street Journal is that we won't be hearing about any resolution this week, as the two sides haven't come to an agreement yet. The FTC has extended the discussions by two weeks, until August 6.

Marcus Yam served as Tom's Hardware News Director during 2008-2014. He entered tech media in the late 90s and fondly remembers the days when an overclocked Celeron 300A and Voodoo2 SLI comprised a gaming rig with the ultimate street cred.
  • joytech22
    which granted the CPU access to a the
    I lol'd

    And Intel are becoming more and more like that greedy blue/white fruit, they want more and more AND more profit.
    Although that's what businesses do.. if, for example, it cost's intel $200 to make a i7 980X extreme, i wouldn't charge any where near $1000 for it, probably $400, i mean double the profit of initial costs is pretty sweet.
    Reply
  • Ezence
    "The deal would spare Intel from the monetary penalties which it was ordered to pay AMD"

    Did i miss something? I know they (intel and AMD) that involved paying money to AMD but i didn't know they where forced to pay AMD anything by a court.
    Reply
  • rohitbaran
    Well, that is going to be one filthy fight.
    Reply
  • maydaynomore
    Ezence"The deal would spare Intel from the monetary penalties which it was ordered to pay AMD"Did i miss something? I know they (intel and AMD) that involved paying money to AMD but i didn't know they where forced to pay AMD anything by a court.AMD and Intel settled out of court...
    Reply
  • leon2006
    If ever this happen it will be just in time with the release of Sandy Bridge. Then the issue is mute.
    Reply
  • rohitbaran
    Why do you think that will happen? Unless someone puts checks on Intel's policies time to time, they will keep up with their marketing gimmicks even with future releases.
    Reply
  • santiagoanders
    leon2006Then the issue is mute.
    Dude, mute? Read a dictionary sometime.
    Reply
  • CaptainBib
    AMD/Nvidia/Intel.. They are corporations and the reason for their existence is to make money.

    Intel likes to make underhanded deals, Nvidia screws you with their drivers (can't use Physx with an ATI card on board), AMD just likes to ruin intel and nvidia's days by releasing products with 80-90% of the performance for $50 less.

    P.S. Intel walks right in to these lawsuits
    Reply
  • jomofro39
    santiagoandersDude, mute? Read a dictionary sometime.Yes...read a dictionary... I lol'd. Read more novels or something with a little spice!
    And you meant moot.
    Reply
  • vertigo_2000
    santiagoandersDude, mute? Read a dictionary sometime.I got a good laugh out of this as well.

    Reminded me of that episode of Friends where Joey said some issue was "moo". A cow's opinion on a subject means nothing... it's moo.

    But jumping on him like the grammar police is not necessary.
    Reply