N.Y. AG accuses Intel of antitrust violations - Page 4
Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - N.Y. AG accuses Intel of antitrust violations
Last message on previous page:
| jaydeejohn wrote : Squander? Hmmm, ok lets look at this, AMD pays 5 billion for ATI, Intel pays OEMs 10 billion for corrruption and prevention.
|
The difference is Intel had plenty of FABS, plenty of money to throw around and always has. Just like IBM always had or MS always has.
Why is it hard to see that AMD did not make the right choice and that also lead to their current situation. Problem I have mainly is that while Dell was a large OEM back then there were plenty of other OEMs out there wanting AMDs chips but AMD wouldn't even look at them because they wanted the large OEMs to carry their stuff.
There was even rumor of AMD trying to give their CPUs away and some OEMs would take them, which is also not the way to do it. Marketing is also a big part of it.
Lets look at it this way: Intel was the main CPU maker up until AMD broke out with K7. Most people get used to two things: What they already have used and whats marketed. During K7-K8 name the amount of AMD commercials you saw. Then name the amount of Intel commercials you saw. Even now. I have never seen one AMD commercial on TV. Tons of Intel commercials though.
I am not stating what Intel did seems horrible. I also think Dell is just as guilty because they accepted it, unless of course there was a contract signed for that period of time which like a contract with your cell provider is legit and breaking it penalizes the end user.
What I am saying is if you look at everything there is a lot that has added to it.
BTW, how do we know AMD was cheated out of billions? Without knowing at the time the maximum capacity of their FABs per month we can't. It could have been billions over a certain period say the entire time or maybe only a billion or two.
| radnor wrote : I am with JDJ here. Read the PDF. Even if AMD management was pristine, they were just locked out of the market. The end result should more or less the same. This lock involved OEMs and distributors. So AMD could go DIY and small stores. And they had the best product at that time. |
AMD had eMachines, Gateway and a few other pretty high end OEMs at the time. At the time the OEMs offered both but Intel was normally marketed more because Intel has a large marketing team unlike AMD.
| jennyh wrote : Why are people not getting that intels behaviour set back AMD by at least 2 years? Phenom II would have been out with Core2 and AMD would probably be on bulldozer by now if intel hadn't engaged in monopolistic practices.
|
What I want to know is what stopped them from having K10 out either way? A CPUs planning phase has a certain time span. It would be nice to know when AMD started plans for K10 instead of guessing. Also, Phenom II would not have been mainly because AMD is always a step behind Intel process wise.
| jennyh wrote : What about the thousands of AMD jobs that were lost and the hundreds that are probably still to be lost as a direct result of intels behaviour?
|
You can only say that if you can link the jobs cut backs to Intels "crime". I think they were done as a result of losing money due to having a late noncompetative product and taking losses from the ATI purchase.
| jennyh wrote : Sure, let intel run a program of anti-competetive behaviour for years, run a much smaller company into the ground in order to maintain monopoly profits, hold back progress etc etc etc...
|
I still don't think AMD would have gotten K10 out sooner. There is no way to prove it. And considering its just a chip off the ol K8 block I don't see wht would have taken so long. Possibly them waiting for the HTT consortium to have a faster HTT (BTW, HTT was done in a consortium, not by AMD themselves)? Maybe they wanted to set on K8 and profit?
I remember a article one time where AMD and Intel sat down for a interview together about CPUs and technology. When Intel told them about Core 2, AMD laughed. Guess they don't laugh now. Guess AMD though Intel would never catch up to K8 or even beat it.
Its also interesting to think of the US market. Its supposed to be a free market meaning its open to everyone but it seems that these days we don't have one. The government consitently steps in to control it. I would almost guess that they have halted progress many times.
Oh and reynod, turpit was right on a lot of points. Biggest problem is that he had a lot of articles and evidence to back his claims up. Most people only go by what they hear or one part of the story and thats what I am getting at here but no one seems to understand that.
Did Intel seemingly do bad stuff? yea but I am pretty sure AMD has too as has every large corporation. Is it the only reason to AMDs cureent situation? No. There are multiple reasons.
Just like say GM for instance. One problem was that before the Japanese auto makers started to build the cars in the US, it was cheap to make them in japan and ship them here. In fact a Honda Civic cost about $4000-$5000 in parts and shipping to get it from Japan to the US. Then about another $1K to put it together. Most Civics go for $15K. Now are they the only reason why GMC is in the hole? No. They are part of it since they easily made more money to push into R&D but GMC was also poorly managed and cheaply made.
First off, is emachines and Gateway ever reached the levels of Dell or HP or going back, IBM?
No, they havnt, so squeezing hardest at the top does the most damage.
How many Dell systems used AMD, or, market wise, with a better product, HP?
Or, AMD makes a bid to Dell, to cover up the "rebates", and make it appear to still being that of an open market, except, Dell tells Intel what AMDs bids were.........................................................................................................
So, now comes the point on making enough money, making or taking enough marketshare with this happeing.
How? Thru gateway?
eMachines?
Im just trying to make this as commonsensical as possible, and it is as simple as just what I typed.
Sure, ommiting these facts, its easy to say that marketshare, large growth woudltn ever happen because....
not because theyre AMD
Nor because they didnt offer competing products, as Otellini said, theyre kickin aour butts with a superior product.
but by doing what was done in the PDF and whatever else thatll never be found.
Just like the devil said, surely eating the fruit from that tree wont make you die, and guess what?
By telling only half the truth, and omiting the rest, he still was right, but he was also wrong of course.
So, context, timing, not ONLY 2004 when AMD looked somewhat decent AFTER this had already been going on for at least 2 years, and who really knows how long? they still were kickin Intels butt, coming in smaller and taking marketshare.
So, please, dont point to the fruit of the tree, or AMDs success, and then tell me this or that wouldnt happen, until we find out the whole story, put it in context, and then actually come to admire just what AMD did accomplish under such circumstances
Reply to jaydeejohn
Is Dell guilty or did Intel give them no option?
* MOAP = Mother of all Programs, the name intel used for their cash for exclusivity with Dell, costing $6bn overall just to try to keep dell from accepting AMD cpu's. MCP is the later name for MOAP.
92. Dell periodically considered launching AMD-based products, notwithstanding
Intel’s fierce opposition. But its fear of Intel’s reaction, based on Intel’s explicit and implicit
threats, counseled strongly against any action. For example, in 2002, a Dell team explored a
potential switch to AMD for some of Dell’s CPU needs, in a project code-named “Boomerang”.
The study concluded, first, that “AMD offers a significant margin opportunity for [Dell’s]
Dimension and Inspiron” platforms, on account of price, cost and customer demand factors.
93. But the Boomerang study also identified Intel’s reaction as a “key question” in
the analysis and discussed the potential “opportunity cost” given Dell’s “[e]xclusive relationship
with Intel.” The study asked whether “MOAP [payments to Dell would] increase or decrease?
And over what time period – short term vs. long term?” The Boomerang study attempted to
quantify the projected margin benefit from adopting AMD, concluding that “[up] to 32% of
MOAP program could be risked” before Intel’s retaliation, in the form of reduced MOAP, would
outweigh the benefits of switching certain platforms to AMD CPUs.
94. The key Dell executive acting as informal liaison between the two companies
commented on the results of the “Boomerang” study. He warned that the “worst-case downside”
scenario is that Intel would “eliminate ~$250M of Dell meet-comp MOAP for some period,” and
moreover, that “Intel [would] give[] this MOAP to competitors to ensure that Intel does not lose
[market share] to a Dell AMD [system].” The “net effect” would be that Dell would “not only
lose ~$250 [million], we probably have to do incremental [discounting] on our Intel platforms
against competitors who [would] now [be] subsidized with an extra $250M from Intel.”
95. A confirming contemporaneous internal Intel email from Intel’s Dell account
representative to top Intel executives states that Dell must be made to understand two things:
First, that Intel’s payments to Dell would decrease “if they have AMD in their arsenal.” Second,
that Dell should be warned of the “possibility that [MCP] dollars that we’re (sic) applied to
DELL could go somewhere else” if Dell starts to offer AMD-based products.
96. The message was apparently conveyed in fact. A Dell executive testified that, at
the time of the Boomerang analysis, Intel had conveyed “the concept of their statement back that
… as long as [Dell is] Intel only, our discount structure is what it is.” He added that he understood
from Intel that, “[i]f there was a change in our Intel only [status], then our discount
program would have to be revisited.”
97. Under these circumstances, Dell decided not to launch AMD-based products at
that time. A Dell executive who was responsible for the “analytics” and “cost assumptions” of
the Boomerang study testified to the Attorney General that concern about Intel’s reaction was a
substantial part of that decision.
---------
Dell sure as hell aren't innocent, but it is pretty clear that intel were pulling the strings, leaving Dell stuck between a rock and a hard place not knowing what to do.
Message edited by jennyh on 11-07-2009 at 04:58:35 PM
Reply to jennyh
| Quote : There was even rumor of AMD trying to give their CPUs away and some OEMs would take them, which is also not the way to do it. Marketing is also a big part of it. |
No that wasn't a rumour, it was a fact. After being consistently denied access to Dell's pc's, AMD offered a hundred thousand free cpu's to them with no strings attached except using them in Dell machines, and Dell still refused because they *had* to refuse.
That was when AMD knew that intel had been up to no good, and what started the lawsuit action.
Reply to jennyh
Jimmy, while your points may be valid or correct, it does not give Intel free reign to just pay off vendors. Nothing AMD did will change the fact that Intel BROKE THE LAW by going above and beyond what was necessary or reasonable in manipulating the market. Had Intel allowed Dell just 10% AMD products, this would never be a lawsuit, instead they insisted 0, and that is monopolistic behavior.
First point. Being held hostage and threatened, not only would Dell or any other OEM have lost their "rebates", those same units would obviously cost more, BUT, the oppositions units would be cheaper as well, or more than the original "rebate" would be lost, and Intel played them against each otrher, as they became dependent upon them and Intels "rebates"
Secong point.
Everyone and his dog says, AMD has no marketing approach, its lousy etc. Having a chance to enter the MAIN market by a MAIN OEM at NO CHARGE to the OEM still failed because of Intels corruption.
Building a household name with the current BEST cpu would have maybe built a lil you think?
But, they were denied this also.
When a company cant even give away their wares just for recognition, thats a strangled market
Reply to jaydeejohn
| jimmysmitty wrote : Did Intel seemingly do bad stuff? yea but I am pretty sure AMD has too as has every large corporation. Is it the only reason to AMDs cureent situation? No. There are multiple reasons. |
I understand the points you are making but, let's stop getting off topic and distracting everyone with what you believe AMD did wrong. There's no need for you to "balance" this conflict by pointing out every mistake AMD did along the way. Anything that could have happened or would have happened in the absence of Intel's actions over the past decade is a moot point; it's all hypothetical, even if we can make reasonable assumptions.
The point, jimmysmitty, is that Intel broke the law. Although you "are pretty sure AMD has too," does this make Intel innocent? No. If you break the law and you are caught, it should not go unpunished. Once AMD has an allegation brought against it, then we can turn our firepower back toward AMD and criticize what it did wrong. The only point we should be arguing is how much Intel will have to pay for damages (or having fun contemplating what the world would be like had this all not taken place.) And, while there are certainly multiple reasons AMD is in the position it is now, Intel has no doubt played a HUGE (detrimental) role. This is ultimately what is important here.
Any point that you make about AMD's mistakes is, at this point, difficult to make objectively. All mistakes made by AMD were in the presence of a monopolistic influence. If you are not on AMD's marketing team or engineering team, then I have little reason to agree with your subjective accusations.
Example: Should AMD have gotten K10 out sooner and without the bugs of the first phenom line? Sure, but how would that have turned out without Intel having done what it did for 10 years? We don't know. We can only speculate. Let us speculate for our entertainment, at least. Maybe AMD would have made some good marketing and engineering decisions. Maybe not. Again, you can blame this or that on AMD, but this thread is talking about Intel's illegal actions, not AMD's illegal actions and not AMD's mistakes. If you'd like to refute those who are completely blaming Intel for all of AMD's failures, then by all means, go ahead. But please, keep your bias to a minimum, as it is annoyingly clear that you are (unknowingly?) playing the devil's advocate. Your arguments are better posed as potentialities or possibilities (to prevent fanboyism from overtaking this thread), instead of self-proclaimed truths about AMD's mistakes.
Let me just make one biased point, since you've had your fun. Do you think it would have been worthwhile for AMD to market the s*** out of its products if (volume sellers and OEMs aren't even carrying their products? Honestly, I don't know. But, I would sure be hesitant to make that kind of spending.
P.S.
If you'd really like to unload more blame from Intel and place it on AMD (to argue why AMD is in its lowly position in the market), then you should:
a) Find a new thread that is title something like "Reasons Why AMD is in its Lowly Position in the Market"
b) Start your own and title it "Reasons Why AMD is in its Lowly Position in the Market"
Message edited by sseyler on 11-07-2009 at 07:40:27 PM
Well in jimmys defence at least he's taking his medicine in this thread. Failzers gave a half-heartedly defiant post, TC is notable by his lack of 'INTEL ARE THE EVIL EMPIRE' posts and Scotteq is nowhere to be seen since his first post on page 1, maybe he choked on his popcorn?
Message edited by jennyh on 11-07-2009 at 06:31:05 PM
Reply to jennyh
Id ask, because of Intels actions, did IBM, HP and Dell also make mistakes?
None of them are on trial as yet either, which could happen, but, the driving force behind all this corruption is Intel, and its actions.
I find it callous when people point out with how "pitiful" AMD is when they have to lay off workers, then others say, why do something bad to Intel, when they started it all to begin with?
This isnt the NFL. It isnt the guy that retaliates here that gets punished, its the guy with the fingers in the face mask that gets it here.
Its not a game is what Im saying, and that applies to AMD and its employees as well.
If Intel had used that 10 billion on R&D, and left AMD alone, wed be far better off at this point in time, so dont tell me or anyone else how AMD did the pooch, while Intel blew 10 billion corrupting this industry, to me, thats doin the pooch
Reply to jaydeejohn
OEM's who didn't get bribed by intel and subsequently went bust are probably in line to sue also. This could go on and on and on with not very many blameless companies left at the end of it.
Reply to jennyh
Or evem private, smaller bulders. Its happened to them as well, because, if theres a certain amount of monies in the pool, yours not only gets taken away, but what you dont get, your competitor does, small medium or large, it effected the entire industry. We all know how effective Intel is, other than working competitvely in a fair market that is
Reply to jaydeejohn
Looking at Intel today, it reminds me of a bunch of hoods beat the crap outta some poor guy, and while hes all beat down, a lil punk comes up and kicks him too.
Not that that lil punk could have handled the poor guy prior to the beating
Reply to jaydeejohn
Itll be interesting when they have all the depositions in from Dell etc
There could be possibly a clearer, deepening of what came down, and the "missing" emails may become redundant
Reply to jaydeejohn
"The New York case is a case about the past," Balto said. "The FTC case will be a case about the future. It will be focusing on dynamic competition, the impact on innovation, on how Intel's conduct ... is going to harm competition and consumers in the future, stifling the ability of new rivals to emerge..."
"It will take Intel's case from a whole different perspective and bring a whole new dimension of concerns," he said.
Also, from the man hisself:
Rob Enderle, an analyst with the Enderle Group, said he thinks Cuomo timed the New York suit so it would precede the FTC's own action.
"I doubt [New York] would do this if they weren't pretty certain the FTC was going to act relatively soon," added Enderle. "My guess is they are just trying to grab the spotlight before the FTC, which has more money, gets it.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/art [...] inst_Intel
Reply to jaydeejohn
So, it appears the FTC could make Intel their poster child, and this wont be a pretty picture either
Reply to jaydeejohn
sseyler , thats my main point exactally. problem is that people keep bringing up that everything is all Intels fault yadda yadda. I am awaiting the case overall to see what Intel can try to put out as counter evidence cuz I am sure they will like they tried to in the EU case.
The only real problem on the topic at hand for me is no one seems to care that Dell had a choice. They could have gone mainly AMD and partially Intel thus promoting AMD since people went to Dell first. So why don't they get into it with Dell as well is beyond me.
| jaydeejohn wrote : So, it appears the FTC could make Intel their poster child, and this wont be a pretty picture either |
Probably much like AT&T was for the phone companies.
Either way the only outcome I want is for it to be fair in the end and not cost thousnads of jobs for US based Intel employees. They don't deserve anything because of what some head of the company did.
And as long as it doesn't kill Intels current competative strategy I am fine too. Even if you hate Intel, you have to admit their tick-tock is great and what AMD needs to try to ramp up on. keeps the PC market all live and tingley.
Thing is, all those employees will have a place to go to, AMD 
Reply to jaydeejohn
I dont think anyone here is dismissing the OEMs here at all.
But, it all starts with Intel. First the corruption offers, then the lawsuits.
I think its very possible that this continues to others as well, and the FTC filing, if laid out as per my previous post, will seek out the corruption, the results, and possibly other offenders as well
Reply to jaydeejohn
But the cycle will start over again. AMD will get to be the biggest, they will become corrupt, Intel will be the nderdog and thus the cycle repeats.
Free market my ass..... more like "get screwed no matter what" market.
Well, setting precendence may alter these actions in the future, and if thats truly the FTCs intentions, then the OEMs wont skate free either.
We have laws. The only way to make the laws work effectibely is to make the cost of breaking them greater than the actual benefits, and if this starts with Intel then they truly are in deep here.
Take the Ford Pinto exploding gas tanks etc.
Cheaper to produce and sell millions, and pay a few families a few million, after their loved ones burned to death because of bad builds.
That changed, and it looks like this may have too.
Prior to that Pinto lawsuit, you never really heard about recalls etc
Message edited by jaydeejohn on 11-08-2009 at 06:47:59 AM
Reply to jaydeejohn
| jennyh wrote : Well in jimmys defence at least he's taking his medicine in this thread. Failzers gave a half-heartedly defiant post, TC is notable by his lack of 'INTEL ARE THE EVIL EMPIRE' posts and Scotteq is nowhere to be seen since his first post on page 1, maybe he choked on his popcorn? |
Best post so far outside of the "factuals" ...
![[:jaydeejohn:7]](http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/images/perso/7/jaydeejohn.gif "[:jaydeejohn:7]")
Waiting.....
Reply to jaydeejohn
Actually, it would be good to hear the other side of things, see how solid peoples thoughts are on this, as certainly, whats been shown has been picked at.
If you cant convince a few knobs here on the internet, what chance has Intel?
Reply to jaydeejohn
The result of Intel's activities are that these days not many casual computer users really know anything about AMD.
The fact that Intel dominated the OEM's with Intel only based chips in the early to mid 2000's has effectively crippled AMD to where they can't compete anymore in the high end.
Intel's strategy was brilliant and has payed off for them even if they get slapped with a fine I think they would have no regrets because now they are so far ahead of AMD and still control the majority of the cpu market.
Massive regulation, freeing up of the 86 license, heavy fines and compensation of equal loss to AMD would change that quickly from slap to slap donw, and dont get back up right away
Reply to jaydeejohn
Remember, the 86 is IP, but its also important to the general wellbeing. When something becomes that important, it changes in the eyes of the law, and denial of x86 license may no longer be an option
Reply to jaydeejohn
The problem I have is, the lawmakers don't really care, neither do the politicians.
For the lawmakers it's all about money, that is why intel could end up paying a fortune - a real fortune. The politicians only care about being elected.
Nobody actually cares that intel is corrupt to the core, and nothing will change unless the people in control are forced out.
Reply to jennyh
jennyh, thats true for the most part, but you have to remember, theres always a few exceptions to the rule. Sometimes youll find a greater patriot NOT in the party of your choice, which can be a very good thing
Reply to jaydeejohn
Very damning evidence here:
62. Dell’s profitability also came to depend on Intel rebate payments. This was
dramatically illustrated by internal Intel emails in April, 2004, arising from Dell’s need to
finalize its earnings forecast for the coming quarter. Essentially, Dell asked Intel for an
additional $100 million; without it, as an Intel executive reported, Dell would “readjust their
margin guidance downward …” In other words, Dell would advise investors that it expected
lower earnings.
63. As Dell and HP both learned, once an OEM accepted Intel rebate payments as a
substitute for marketing AMD-based products, it became very difficult to break the habit
Now, is the actions done by Dell excusable? No. But, just as Dell took, Intel also gave, creating an even deeper dependency, which both companies knew would be crossing the line.
Once these types of actions start, a snowball effect starts to take place, and since it was Intel threatening to stop it, not because it was illegal, but because they used their monopolistic leverage as threats against each OEM, playing them against each other.
Intel knew they had them held hostage, over a barrel, and would have to tow the line.
Like the mafia, once you take that money, youre in for good
Reply to jaydeejohn
Never knew "discounts / rebates for buying in bulk" is a crime...
Reply to yomamafor1
Neither did Intel 
Especially when you ask to call on the phone, and no emails etc, guess they just wanted better communique eh? Not that they wanted to hide anything....
Reply to jaydeejohn
In an April 2006 email one executive concluded an emailed list
of “key issues” with the suggestion: “Let’s talk more on the phone as it’s so difficult for me to
write or explain without considering anti-trust issue.”
http://online.wsj.com/public/resou [...] nt1104.pdf
Now do you understand that yes, it is?
Message edited by jaydeejohn on 11-08-2009 at 08:55:05 PM
Reply to jaydeejohn
Unfortunately, we will never know how much Intels success can be attributed to this activity.
The heads at Intel failed them, using these actions, just to have it investigated is bad enough, but to have been found guilty in all corners of the world, save the west, with them now looking into it is a failure coming from the top.
I dont blame the good willed excellent employees at Intel, but its leadership, as they were the only ones able to make these decisions.
All the chest thumping finally resounds with a hallowness caused by such failure, and needs to be corrected
Reply to jaydeejohn
This isnt going away.
This isnt this weeks dead pony.
This is huge, and if things dont change, world changing in this industry, is the way I see it.
If people see this as something not worth considering, thats fine, but just as things done earlier had major impacts in this industry, so too will this.
It will obviously change our views on not only Intel obviously, but AMD as well. Thats more important than some are willing to concede.
When the decisions are handed down, they wont go unnoticed.
I wish things were different, but its where were at
One hopeful positive we may take away from this in the end is, this isnt the best from either AMD or Intel, but we may have more to come, in a fair market, who knows?
Reply to jaydeejohn
| jimmysmitty wrote : But the cycle will start over again. AMD will get to be the biggest, they will become corrupt, Intel will be the nderdog and thus the cycle repeats. |
Again, it doesn't matter. We're dealing with Intel's punishment here, not some hypothetical assumption about AMD. We have concrete evidence of Intel breaking antitrust laws. Thus, it should be punished accordingly. When AMD does the same thing, if it does, then it will be punished accordingly as well. As JDJ said, the punishment should be such that it creates costs that outweigh the incentive to engage in monopolistic behavior; this way, the incentive will be to play fair. This is why Intel needs to be punished hard. You can't just let Intel go because you like their competitive strategy now and want your CPUs to keep coming like they have been. We know for a fact that leaving Intel as it is now is not a Pareto efficient outcome and we need to fix it. Then, once the market it competitive again, we will see even faster improvement under competitive conditions, not the current, slowed improvement rate that is a result of stifling AMD's competitive chances.
| jimmysmitty wrote : Either way the only outcome I want is for it to be fair in the end and not cost thousnads of jobs for US based Intel employees. They don't deserve anything because of what some head of the company did. |
Unfortunately, if the punishments are severe enough, some Intel employees may need to be laid off. At this point, it seems Intel has plenty of funds to cover its damages, but we won't know for sure until the punishment is final. Employees will be compensated if necessary.
Once again, this has nothing to do with any other entity aside from Intel. You can't expect that punishments will be unfair as you seem to be worrying about. Intel will get exactly as they deserve as seen fit by the NY court and it will be fair and deserved. Punishments will not and should not be eased on Intel just for the sake of employees, for then it will defeat the whole purpose of punishment: to prevent wrongdoing in the future.
There are other ways to protect Intel's innocent employees, I promise. 
I know how scared you are for them, jimmysmitty... I am too, but I know they'll be just fine!
| yomamafor1 wrote : Never knew "discounts / rebates for buying in bulk" is a crime... |
Bad at trolling.
http://voicetalentproductions.com/ [...] bvious.jpg
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/ [...] _troll.jpg
Message edited by sseyler on 11-08-2009 at 11:33:12 PM
Things to think about to me is, if Intel lost some marketshare, allowed for more monies at AMD, yes, Intel would have the same amounts of monies they have now, AMD alot more, and PCs would have likely cost a bit more.
Having more monies, AMD may have done a few things that could have helped the cpu sector in moving progress forwards, put even more stress on Intel which in turn, would have to make something better than a C2D to have a lead.
This of course is all specualtion, but so have been all the failure comments and Intel domination comments weve been hearing ober the years.
The best performers over those years coming from Intel was their PR/Marketing depts, which kept AMD from becoming a household name, tho it to had these illegal advantages.
I for one, as an enthusiast would certainly welcome a Intel cpu that would crush a i7, or the next iteration of Bull Dozer in my box today, as I think everyone here would as well.
We cant claim whats happened by the merits of each company without wondering what may have been
Reply to jaydeejohn
Intel made what, a $2bn profit last quarter?
And some idiots here celebrate that as if it's a victory for them. Maybe they should be asking just how much cheaper chips could be, if intel wasn't making huge profits, wasn't bribing OEM's, wasn't paying huge lawyers fees.
How much better would it be for everybody if intel was breaking even and not engaged in full-on anticompetive behaviour?
And people wonder why I resort to calling these people idiots? It should be obvious by now.
Message edited by jennyh on 11-09-2009 at 12:40:09 AM
Reply to jennyh
| jennyh wrote : Intel made what, a $2bn profit last quarter?
|
Well you forget that its a US based company. They employ people here. Large profits mean more jobs and thats what is needed.
Breaking even is fine for a market where innovation is not needed. But in the x86 market you need to make money to go forward. Thats just a fact. Thats why when Athlon 64 was the best it was priced as high as Intels CPUs are now. they wanted to make money, mainly to reinvest in R&D but also to make the share holders happy.
Speculation could result in anything. Would we have 10GHz chips like Intel planned? Who knows. Or would we be right where we are at this time?
sseyler, what do you mean by a "slowed" rate? Intel has a nice strategy going that seems to bring about improvements every year.
BTW, improvements don't come all the time. Sometimes it takes a while. Look how long it took for car engines. Time is sometimes needed, to wait for that one guy with an awesome idea that can work.
Message edited by jimmysmitty on 11-09-2009 at 03:16:21 AM
Nobody celebrates Intel profits. Except people who actually have Intel stock. If any group of people around here celebrate a company's profit or not taking as big a loss as before.....We all know who they are. When some people say Intel-bankrupt Q2 of what ever year. Which has been going on for years now in these loons post. Its flat out funny
How much cheaper would chips be? Chips ARE cheap. Not to along ago a certain AMD fool on these forums was flaming Intel for selling the core2's for cheap. Por ol AMD could no longer sell 500 dollar x2's because of it.
Chips cheaper if Intel wasnt making huge profits? So now the tech industry should be a charity in your warped mind.
Any company the size of Intel will have lawyer fees.
And even with Intel bribing the OEM's. The prices of OEM machines CAME DOWN because of it. While it is dead wrong, it also defeats your logic in your entire post.
YOU calling people idiots. Look into the mirror.
I find it funny when people think $200-$300 for a quad core is expensive when just back in 2003 a single core of the same performance ranking at that time cost $400+.
Everything PC is cheaper. Memeory, CPUs, mobos. For what we get now it is much cheaper. Back in the 90s a decent Pentium PC ran about $2K. A high end was probabl 2-3x that.
By "slowed," I mean the current rate of progress in the absence of a competitive AMD. I am speculating that the lack of competition for over a decade has likely slowed the overall rate of progress.
| radnor wrote : That is easy, just free up the x86 license. Lets more people develop X86 and x64 licenses. And small fine (they deserve it) and that.
|
Would be interesting. In addition to the x86 and AMD64 license issues, there would also be the natural barrier to market entry of high start-up cost.
Does anyone know if there's any kind of patent expiration on x86? When would people be able to use it without having to pay?
My guess is that if there is such a thing I'm sure Intel and AMD will have moved on from x86 by then whether it be naturally or on purpose.
RabidFanboysSpreadingFalse.Info
Reply to TechnologyCoordinator
AMD has quad cores for 100 bucks. AMD's top quad core and cpu period is under 200 bucks.
The i5 is just under 200 bucks. The i7 860 and 920 are just under 300 bucks. Both if which if you live by a microcenter are even cheaper.
You can get a great cpu for less money then it takes to fill up some cars gas tanks.
| sseyler wrote : By "slowed," I mean the current rate of progress in the absence of a competitive AMD. I am speculating that the lack of competition for over a decade has likely slowed the overall rate of progress. |
By over a decade? So AMD has not been competitive since 1999? AMD being the LEADER for most of the P4 days all the way up 7/2006 when core2 came out that statement is rubbish.
| sseyler wrote : By "slowed," I mean the current rate of progress in the absence of a competitive AMD. I am speculating that the lack of competition for over a decade has likely slowed the overall rate of progress. |
I have to agree with someguy here. AMD innovated with K8 in 2003. Then Intel again with Core 2. We went from dual cores in 2005 to 6 cores coming in 2010 along with Intels 8 core planned (I am sure AMD has one planned too).
intel developed HK/MG to be able to contiune shrinking the core with less leakage and better performance.
The past ten years has been more innovative than the previous ten years. From 1989 to 1999 we went from the i386 to the Pentium III & K6-2/Athlon. Barely reached 1GHz. From 1999 to 2009 we went from 1GHz to near 4GHz, multiple cores, faster interface speeds and almost to 32nm.
HKMG, BullDpzer and who knows what may have been here by now, if the monies were there for AMD.
The damage from whats been done isnt even over yet. or do any of you see AMD threatening for top perf?
This goes back to 2001, possibly further, so thats 8 years anyhow.
Go by percentage of improvement, not just a number. From C2D to today, weve gone up 10% or so, not so good eh?
Im thinking its more than 30% from 89 to 99.
If you buy the current line, then yes, what we have is all we could have ever had.
If you believe had AMD monies to push BD out the door already and a P2 type product in 07or so, possibly before, you see what were currently missing.
If you think a company that cheated , broke various laws, who has a set, timed, non threatened by competition tick tock scenario for growth is all we could have, Id point out a healthy AMD could have, and may still, upset that lil tick tock strategy, and push Intel to even higher heights, which is the point many here are making, without accepting this is enough.
Arent we enthusiasts first? Or are we just limited to the letters on the chip, as to how good things can be?
Reply to jaydeejohn
Its funny how some people have accused others as being thought of as for hoping pie in the sjy here,wanting more, while some of those same folks are happy with where were at, cant/wont see alternatives, other possibilities, just because their favorite is on top.
I have no favorites in this. I want more, its NOT enough.
Why do I make threads about cpus losing their clout? How bout we see real competition in a fair market, where competition truly exists like back then, where Id still be amazed at what was around the corner?
How many have said, ummmm may wait here, got my 6600, no need til I see more?
Lets have more, bring back competition, open your eyes, seek more, demand it, yes, even from your favorite chipmaker
Reply to jaydeejohn
| jaydeejohn wrote : HKMG, BullDpzer and who knows what may have been here by now, if the monies were there for AMD.
|
You are talking 10% from Core 2 to Core i7 in certain scenarios. Overall Core i7 beats Core 2 like a Mustang vs a Pinto. Phenom II is much better than Athlon 64 was.
And you are missing the point that others are making: We do not know what AMD would have done with any extra money. I think we would be at the same point, not because of Intel or anything. Just because of technology trends. We tend to have periods of time that no matter what any company does we will stagnate until one of them comes out with something better.
Storage space on DVDs was around for nearly ten years before Sony went to Blu-ray. Was it because someone caused it? No. It took time and new techs to be able to bring this tech out.
Personally I would like to go back to 2004 and see what AMDs plans were. See a road map. Prove that they planned K10. The actually didn't. They started many projects. K8L was one of them. When it didn't go as planned they threw it out.
Its just as Intel does. They had many plans and they change.
| jaydeejohn wrote : Its funny how some people have accused others as being thought of as for hoping pie in the sjy here,wanting more, while some of those same folks are happy with where were at, cant/wont see alternatives, other possibilities, just because their favorite is on top.
|
I am happy with my Q6600. it will last me for a few more years. You forget too that a lot of people here also have other parts of their lives and this is just a hobby. That means that even though we would like to, we can't spend all of our money on new PC parts every year.
You may say they are "happy" with what we have but thats not true. We want improvements, which is why a lot of people got dissapointed by the G90 series from nVidia or the HD2K series from ATI. Hell even Phenom/K10 or Prescott based Pentium 4s. We were not happy with them as enthusiasts.
but dragging in a good CPU such as the Q6600 is not right. Am I happy with it? Hell yes. As most others probably are. Does it mean I don't want to see improvements? Absolutely not. I hope that some day we have terascale like CPUs and GPUs. But it will take time.
OK, like you, all I did was include clocks, so your point?
As for your speculation on AMD, how many times have people laughed at BD being late?
Phenom? P2? AMDs timing.
Funny how that timing has gotten better since all this has come out?
Kinda goes against what you think?
This is fact. AMD is releasing early at times, on schedu;le for immediate, easy things.
The more expensive things?
Delays? laughter? This too goes against what they can do cheaply vs what costs monies, and mainly against your AMD wouldnt have a done a thing attitude doesnt it?
Are you really looking at this?
Reply to jaydeejohn
And my point is made by you ty very much
Hells yes the 6600 is exactly that, an excellent cpu, and theres not enough out there, due to Intels tic toc strategy with no competition to make people want to change, which IS my point.
Cant say its sooooo good, then turn around and say people arent happy with it, it doesnt jibe.
Its one or the other. My way, it wouldnt matter would it?
Reply to jaydeejohn
There are 10 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
