AMD chief condemns Intel 'abuses'

When were we paying $1000 for a CPU when AMD had the lead? Even the FX chips were $700 or so... my last three systems (from 2003 on) have all been AMD, and none of them I spent more than $129 on for the CPU (paid $119 for an AXP 2200+ in March 03, $129 for an A64 3000+ in August 05, and $59 for an AX2 3600+ a month and a half ago). The last chip I spent top dollar on was back in 1995, in the days of Intel hegemony... $500 for a 486 DX/4-100.

Admittedly, I haven't been buying high-end CPUs, but what I have gotten has been impressive value for the money; something that both AMD's and Intel's product lines are doing quite well at as of late. I can remember back when Intel wanted over $1000 for a 386, though, and those are the days I'm hoping never come back.

Dude, even the X2 3800+ was 400 bucks

If anyone on this world really has to be accused of anything, then its AMD.
They are abusing courts, laws, buyers, stock owners, OEMs and so on.

Not saying that no company does abuse certain things, but not to the extent that AMD does.

Ycon is right and that´s what makes the article so ironic. While Ruiz is basically right with what he says, pointing at intel doesn´t do him or AMD any good. Right now intel has the performance lead AND offers it´s product for cheap. And just like Ycon said, those x2 3800 were up to almost 400$ where now you can get them for almost 60$. If all a monopoly does is driving prices down then it can´t be that bad.

X2 3600+ is leaps and bounds, tech wise, ahead of the 386 and 486 it isn't funny. While the 386 and some 486 parts cost $1k, the X2 3800+ didn't touch that, and lets not forget about inflation, which would say that the 3800 SHOULD have been more expensive, which it wasn't.

Why?? Because of competition. Intel had none during the 386/486 timeframe and not only charged what they wanted, but also milked a processor for along time before it would even move to the next jump in speed.

Don't know about you short term memory Intel Fanbois, but honestly, I don't want to go back to that, and honestly, from your posts, you Intel fanbois write like you believe ONLY Intel should make processors.

Those who fail to learn from their past are doomed to repeat it.

While I usually root for the underdog, I don't make excuses for their stupidity. AMD is being really, and I mean REALLY STUPID at this point, and no one should be making excuses for them. AMD shouldn't be trying to place blame on anyone else either.

But..

Even Intel Fanbois have to admit that Intel did use their clout to keep AMD out of some market places, i.e. Dell. That is against the law, and factual. AMD has already proven, in Japan, that Intel has played foul.

Now you claim an awful lot about AMD, can you PRODUCE FACTS on those allegations? Or are you just spouting off libeling AMD because you are THAT much of an Intel Fanboi?

But the lawsuit was filed when AMD had the perf crown. Yes, the 3800+ was close to $400 but what's wrong with that? The prices were based on market value and was fair. There were still cheaper single-core chips at higher speed and a lower price.

If a man sees a wrong and doesn't try to right it then he's doing himself no good.

You all make it seem like Hector forced Intel to break the law and then forced Japan and Korea, etc to take them to task. Someone mentioned MS and they are absolutely correct. monopoly abuses are monopoly abuses.

The difference is that the "good ol boys" see CPUs as the Final Frontier for them. Everything has been infiltrated (or at least filled) by women and minorities and foreigners.

Oh well, screwed up stuff never lasts forever.

According to Forbes, Hector Ruiz' total CEO compensation in 2006 was $14.0 million.

Paul Otellinii made $5.04 million.

Not only is Ruiz a jackass. He's a very expensive jackass.


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/1 [...] _Name.html

Different methodology. I assume. But in the interest of comparing apples to apples, Forbes reports Ruiz had 4,950,000 stock options totalling $68,860,587 in FY2006.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktg [...] nId=939780

Since you don't get all the same details about each of them to compare lets just keep it simple!

Otellini Salary! 700K

Ruiz Salary! 1050K

Ruiz is getting more in his salary, as for looking at stock options, bonuses, and other such items, well honestly, if Ruiz wasn’t such a moron, and AMD Stocks were higher, he would be doing much better!

Side thoughts, sometimes including all the data when quoting something helps, looking at the numbers, 9,806,400 in 2006 with 4,853,600 stock options, and saying it totals 14,660,000, the number you have quoted is a total package, including non-exercised options, it really does not match up well, plus these figures include future dollars, which are mis-leading as well.

Actually, if you also look at the whole package, in terms of actual present value, the comparisons are like this:

Salary + Stocks + Bonus (You should not include undefined future values as we do not know what they are)

So,

Otellini = 700K + 0K + 4,426K = 5.126M

Ruiz = 1000K + 2600K + 0K + 9280K= 12.880M (We can't count other because we don't know what it is, here his excerised options well exceed Otellini)

This is all rather crude, but it really looks like, at present (yearly) packages Ruiz earns a bit more than Otellini.

My Opinion, if I was as heavily invested in the company options as Ruiz is I would be crying too!

Hey, Kronos . . .

What that means is that he has *options* to purchase 4,853,600 shares of stock with a market value $23,219,800.

Some of those shares of stock may cost him $5.74/share. At the current price of $23.74/share he will make an instant 400% on his money upon exercising the options and selling the shares (minus, of course, the 15% tax rate on capital gains).

Welcome to corporate America, Baby!

To be fair some of those options may be for $30/Share (not many, I bet!) I imagine he will let those options laspe (unless he needs to generate a quick loss to offset a capital gain - funny how that works, huh?)

I believe his options have a value of $23,219,800 to him. That is his cost to exercise them. Of course all things being equal that would place a value of the 4,853,600 shares of stock at around $115,000,000.00. Not a bad profit, huh?

Intel SEC filings have this information in them somewhere - though they may not specificly list Paul's Booty.

I wanna be YOUR CEO!

boy o boy folks- you know- if intel were so criminal you would think they would have lost a major suit by now and been pushed back. wait lemme think- i bet you think intel buys the gov't too....LOL. next time you go in McDonald's///look for a dam pepsi- you won't find one will you....many businesses with very similar competing produscts use this odd logic off exclusivity, not saying I think it's right but it sure heck is all over the markets.
And bitching about some of the first real processors being so expensive is really sad, you folks act like intel knew it could make bettter parts, they were fumbling their way thru and blowing a lot of money in the process. Yes they made alot---innovators deserve to.
Face it- Ruiz is toast- he blew ALL the companies money on a side business project as opposed to his core business- these kind of moves put companies under every day. AMD will be lucky to survive this debacle, lucky for you amd'ers that IBM has sunk too much in to let amd go under. they sure as hell need to purge management over there though.

flame on

cheers

Intel still holds a monopoly on the cpu market when it comes to the pc makers.
The article listed several companies like Sony, NEC, and HP as not building any AMD based pc's and they still aren't building them today.
Some companies are slowly starting to incorporate AMD into their lineup buit it's usually for the budget user with Semprons.
I do like the Turion X2's from Dell (Dell Japan) though, they cost 150 dollars less than the Core Duo models.

In the three years that A64 held the crown, Intel's tactics sold more than half a billion chips. If you dont think foisting that many prescotts on people was a crime, you are sick.
If, on the other hand, AMD had garnered the market share they earned, what would that have done to thier R&D budget?
Intel doesn't want AMD to have too much market share, because the competition is too tough already. Just means that we are stuck with a slower dev cycle. We loose.

I think the thing that makes Ruiz's words so ironic is, of course, AMD's collaborative partnership with Microsoft. Does AMD cry foul when MS shafts rival software developers? If they think monopolies are so unethical, then why are they supporting one with this?

http://microsoft.amd.com/us-en/Home-Page.aspx

I remember getting a Cyrix 486-DLC because I couldn't afford an Intel CPU when I upgraded from an AMD 386-SX 40 soldered on to some motherboard or other. Though I started building my PCs back then, I didn't know squat about chipsets.

The only Intel CPUs I owned for awhile after that were hand me downs from friends. The CPU I had the longest was an AMD K62-450 because I couldn't afford a Pentium 3. My latest Intel processor, a P4 2.8 Northwood was a used processor from Newegg for less than $135 at the time.

I went Athlon 64 X2 this time around because of bang for the buck. That's where the X2 4600+ was at the time in Tom's charts.

AMD might be in the budget position once again, but Intel's still charging too much for their CPUs; especially considering they conned all the "dude you got a Dell" buyers during the overheated 31 pipeline Netburst days.

Both companies should succeed fairly, but let's face it, AMD had the best product and the market didn't care all that much. Now that Intel's got a good lead, the market forgets Prescotts and Smithfields, and damns AMD with faint praise.

That's why I want Barcelona to succeed and will probably buy AMD for all my systems. As long as they have a processor in the bang for the buck position, I won't go back to Intel. As is, I only went Northwood because of Tom's Hardware's fry and egg on an Athlon XP video.

Different methodology. I assume. But in the interest of comparing apples to apples, Forbes reports Ruiz had 4,950,000 stock options totalling $68,860,587 in FY2006.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktg [...] nId=939780

I'll never defend the suits of any company when they make such a huge windfall from stock while laying off employees during a time of intense competition and restructuring. I will defend the engineers and hard working employees who get both companies products out to the customer.

Executive compensation nowadays makes me think of the movie "They Live". It's just so unreal it's like an alien invasion of the capitalist economy where the stockholders, employees and customers pay the ultimate price.