bit-tech.net

Full coverage: EU fines Intel £948 million

Posted on 13th May 2009 at 15:11 by Alex Watson with 107 comments

Alex Watson
The EU has fined Intel £948 million ($1.45 billion) for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules on the abuse of its dominant market position. Commissioners found Intel guilty of illegal business practices on two counts - Intel had given wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Secondly, Intel was found guilty of making direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing AMD's CPUs.

We've rounded up the key quotes from all three major players in this case - the EU, AMD and Intel itself. Click the links to read the full stories.

"Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years. Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated" – EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes didn't hold back when revealing the verdict.

"Our experience to date has been that when investigators look at the facts, Intel loses" – Nigel Dessau, AMD's Chief Marketing Officer weighs in on the ruling.

"We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterised by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices, he continued. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal." - Intel CEO and President Paul Otellini responds.

107 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
liratheal 13th May 2009, 12:18 Quote
Hot damn.

That is one big fine.
Blackmoon181 13th May 2009, 12:26 Quote
that is certainly more than i'll ever make :P

however relatively speaking is that really a major dent in their income considering how much they make in a year ?
Bauul 13th May 2009, 12:29 Quote
Even for someone like Intel, a billion quid? That's gotta hurt.
Tim S 13th May 2009, 12:32 Quote
They do turnover around $37 billion a year to put that into perspective
Arkanrais 13th May 2009, 12:34 Quote
Where does the money go that intel gets fined for?
Also, it's a bit of a bad time to get fined that much.
Bauul 13th May 2009, 12:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
They do turnover around $37 billion a year to put that into perspective

True, but their net income for Q4 2008 was $234 million. If they continue through 2009 as they did at the end of 2008, the fine wipes out their income for over five quarters. Not a good time to be Intel at any rate.
liratheal 13th May 2009, 12:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
They do turnover around $37 billion a year to put that into perspective

...That's an even bigger number.

Well, comparatively speaking that's not that much, really. Ahwell.
TomH 13th May 2009, 12:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
They do turnover around $37 billion a year to put that into perspective

...That's an even bigger number.

Well, comparatively speaking that's not that much, really. Ahwell.
Almost 4% of their annual turnover is huge, considering that their profit will be a lot less than the turnover.
liratheal 13th May 2009, 12:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomH
Almost 4% of their annual turnover is huge, considering that their profit will be a lot less than the turnover.

Given that they're already planning to appeal the decision, I expect it will go down, probably by a lot, and if it doesn't, then I doubt there'll be an order to pay it one lump sum.
SBS 13th May 2009, 13:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Given that they're already planning to appeal the decision, I expect it will go down, probably by a lot, and if it doesn't, then I doubt there'll be an order to pay it one lump sum.

Not sure if appealing will help to be honest, the EU have excellent form in this sort of thing and their cases are often watertight. What you may see is Intel offering to meet some of the antitrust requirements early or even withdrawing from certain ongoing negotiations to the advantage of AMD, VIA, etc. Only then would the fine possibly be reduced.

Either way it's going to hit Intel rather hard but to be honest it's about time.
Xtrafresh 13th May 2009, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBS
...it's about time.
AMEN!

I think they are getting off easy. The charges are severe, basically they were holding the entire market hostage: OEMs, retailers, competitors, customers, everyone. And they have been doing so for a good number of years. The maximum fine that the EU can give is 10% of yearly turnover, so the nuber could have been almost four times higher. And even then, they are only counting the turnover for one year, not every year that this has been going on...

Anyway, 1B pounds is a good enough kick in the nuts for now i suppose. Now let's see how much damages AMD will claim after this.
mikeuk2004 13th May 2009, 13:15 Quote
Desktop wise I stopped buying Intel since the 486 days, however my last 2 laptops have been intel wich wasnt by choice, just because laptop as a whole was a good price or spec.
tank_rider 13th May 2009, 13:16 Quote
Good to see Intel being pegged back for shady practices. Lets just hope a decent chunk of the fine goes to AMD to allow it to get some more R&D done to get the next gen of cpus somewhere near the core i7 range.

In addition with the fluctuations in the money market that are currently occurring Intel could save themselves a large chunk of cash by paying when the dollar to euro rate is at it's most preferable.
yakyb 13th May 2009, 13:17 Quote
are AMD going to see a penny of this?
Bauul 13th May 2009, 13:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBS
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Given that they're already planning to appeal the decision, I expect it will go down, probably by a lot, and if it doesn't, then I doubt there'll be an order to pay it one lump sum.

Not sure if appealing will help to be honest, the EU have excellent form in this sort of thing and their cases are often watertight. What you may see is Intel offering to meet some of the antitrust requirements early or even withdrawing from certain ongoing negotiations to the advantage of AMD, VIA, etc. Only then would the fine possibly be reduced.

Either way it's going to hit Intel rather hard but to be honest it's about time.

That's how Microsoft got their fine reduced, they released versions of XP without things like WMP and IE bundled in. I doubt Intel will just say "can we make it lower please?" and the EU going "Ok" without them meeting them halfway.
Xtrafresh 13th May 2009, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
are AMD going to see a penny of this?
Everyone asks this, the answer is no.
AMD filed a complaint with the authorities, and the authorities stop the behaviour per a fine (this one).

Now that the fine has been given (and the behaviour documented), AMD can file a claim at a civil court to retreive damages.
Tim S 13th May 2009, 13:40 Quote
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2009/05/13/intel-ceo-responds-to-eu-ruling/1

Intel has responded with a statement from CEO Paul Otellini
Tim S 13th May 2009, 13:44 Quote
Here's a transcript from a briefing call just held with Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Intel...
Quote:
Thank you all for attending.

I would like to read a short prepared statement and then I will take your questions.

A few moments ago Intel was informed of the Commission’s Final Decision and Order in a matter instigated by Intel’s largest competitor almost 10 years ago. The predicate for this investigation in 2001 was that Intel’s conduct would result in the demise of that competitor if not regulated. 8 years later, our competitor, and the sole complainant in this case is alive, healthy, and claims to be expanding its business. Moreover, in real terms, the cost of the products over which Intel is claimed to exercise monopoly power has fallen faster than that of any other of the 1,200 products tracked by the US government.

Against this backdrop, the Competition Authority today determined that Intel has violated the EC’s antitrust laws, and ordered Intel to modify certain alleged sales and pricing practices. We take great exception to the conclusions reflected in this Final Decision and we are dismayed that in a time of such acute economic turmoil the Competition Authorities have seen fit to intervene in what is by all objective measures an innovative, dynamic and competitive market.

The basic allegation against Intel is that it used lower prices, in the form of rebates, to prevent customers from buying or supporting AMD, or to punish customers when they did so. Such claims are false. Intel has never required a customer to agree not to buy from AMD in order to obtain a discount, nor raised a customer’s prices when it decided to buy from AMD.

Like every company Intel competes to win as much business as it can, and every time Intel wins a sale, or secures preferential marketing terms, one of our competitors loses out on that sale or marketing relationship. This is the essence of true competition. Intel provides incentives for customers to purchase our products and for customers to promote our products -- incentives which can and have been matched by AMD at various times in the past.

Intel believes that consumers benefit from lower prices. Regulations should not prevent one company, no matter how large that company is, from offering discounts or providing incentives. Today, the part that Intel might sell to computer maker for €10, provides the same computing power that in 2000, when this case began, would have cost more than €1000.

Furthermore, innovation abounds - today’s computing is an on-the-go experience with ubiquitous Internet connectivity, 21st century graphics, extended battery life; all at a much lower price. Intel believes this is good for consumers.

With respect to the fine imposed by the Competition Authority I will only say that the amount is arbitrary. It bears no relationship to any actual or proven harm or injury. But, so be it. Intel’s response will be as it has always been. We will respect the proper administration of justice within the EC. We will comply with all appropriate measures to secure an undertaking in the amount of the fine, and we will defend ourselves vigorously by appealing this matter to the Court of First Instance.

Thank you and now I would be glad to answer a few questions. However, I should mention at the outset that we have only been provided with a summary of the final decision, and that we have only had that for a little less than an hour. We have been told that the final decision itself is dense. We will be working through it as soon as we are given a copy, but we will likely need a little while longer to fully understand the basis, or lack thereof, for any particular finding or order.
Combinho 13th May 2009, 13:52 Quote
He's complaining about the fine being arbitrary. Isn't the point of a fine that it is arbitrary. Does he not understand the difference between a fine and damages.

Also, is not most of that statement completely irrelevant, other than the fairly weak defence in the third and fourth paragraphs.
b5k 13th May 2009, 14:02 Quote
Probably the most important question to come out of this:- How will it affect us, the consumer? Sharp rise in Intel prices?

"Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace...There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."

Just because there's no harm to consumers doesn't mean that harm isn't done?
Kúsař 13th May 2009, 14:04 Quote
"Intel never sells products below cost,"
LoL!

Whatever intel says, there must have been some shady deals going on back in P4 age. I've seen so many crappy P4 based PCs at schools, offices etc. despite AMD was offering cheaper or faster CPUs(but OEM's were selling AMD based PC's for unreasonable higher prices)
Bauul 13th May 2009, 14:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
Intel has never required a customer to agree not to buy from AMD in order to obtain a discount, nor raised a customer’s prices when it decided to buy from AMD.

I thought the EC was saying that Intel didn't just force customers to avoid AMD if they wanted a discount, I thought they were saying Intel wouldn't sell to them at all.

Either way, it's not the most water-tight of defences is it? Intel can't just turn around and say "The EC is wrong!". They must have done something to incur a billion pound fine.
faugusztin 13th May 2009, 14:09 Quote
Do most of you miss the point why is this fine ? Market can be competitive now, maybe... But this is not about 2009, this is about the time when the whole thing started, when Intel was simply requesting HP, Dell and other PC makers to use Intel only. And in that time yes, consumers and competitors were harmed by that.

Just to quote wikipedia :
In July 2007, the European Commission accused Intel of anti-competitive practices, mostly against AMD.[71] The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers buying most or all of its chips from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and providing chips at below cost to governments and educational institutions.
NuTech 13th May 2009, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
Here's a transcript from a briefing call just held with Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Intel...
Amazing statement, thanks for posting.

His argument against this ruling seems to be in the form of two points -

1. "AMD 'appears' to be doing well financially. No Harm No Foul, right...right?"
2. "The economy is in the toilet, so you shouldn't be fining us..." Seriously? Everyone is feeling the crunch so this should allow rules to be ignored/broken?

Out of curiosity has AMD filed a complaint in the US or any other territories? If so has there been any significant outcome?

In my opinion (a layman with no legal training) this case seems far, far more serious than the EU judgement against Microsoft and I'm glad the fine also reflects this.
b5k 13th May 2009, 14:13 Quote
If Intel appeals the €1bn goes into a trust to earn interest, and then gets dumped in the EU Membership fund. Which means bigger EU budget! o/
faugusztin 13th May 2009, 14:17 Quote
NuTech, they got fine in South Korea, in USA they are under investigation.
liratheal 13th May 2009, 14:18 Quote
I can't decide if they're incredibly sure of themselves or if they're just being stupid..
Star*Dagger 13th May 2009, 14:25 Quote
Another reason to Love the EU and its protections of its citizens!

As to the question about filing in the USA, let's remember that the last 8 years the show was run by people who held the Rule of Law in contempt AND tried to justify torture.
It will be interesting to see if, under the new administration, corporations will have to actually abide by the many American anti-trust laws on the books.

Yours in EU Plasma,
Star¤Dagger
karx11erx 13th May 2009, 14:26 Quote
Bruce Sewell (deliberately) misunderstands that just because a felony has been committed years in the past, and just because the victim happened to survive the attack and more or less prosper (which I wouldn't call what AMD is currently going through), there still has justice to be done and punishment to be executed. Furthermore he is talking Intel out of having committed clearly illegal deeds, labelling it "being competitive": It is hard to believe the EU would have fined Intel w/o having clear and convincing evidence of what Intel has been fined for. So STFU Intel, hand over your money and let AMD go from your immoral financial stranglehold. You have good, competitive products - apparently you just cannot live with not being the sole ruler of the silicon world and being in a position to press everything on the customer you would like to. Get some of the business morale back you have sacrificed to your loathesome greed.

I very much hope Intel's appeal will fail and AMD will be able to charge Intel with some mighty big compensation.
pizan 13th May 2009, 14:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
NuTech, they got fine in South Korea, in USA they are under investigation.

I believe there is multiple lawsuits and investigations going on in the US-Federal, Delaware and NY at least.


EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
As to the question about filing in the USA, let's remember that the last 8 years the show was run by people who held the Rule of Law in contempt AND tried to justify torture.

DO you mean enhanced interrogation?:|
oasked 13th May 2009, 14:33 Quote
Serves them right.

They need to pay something for all of those shitty late P4 boxes around the world because consumers couldn't buy anything else easily.
karx11erx 13th May 2009, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizan
DO you mean enhanced interrogation?:|
Is that some kind of sarcasm, or are you serious about calling waterboarding "enhanced interrogation"?

(I think the further, but you can never be sure about that with Americans ... )
[PUNK] crompers 13th May 2009, 14:48 Quote
seems to me amd will always struggle to put out as many chips, they dont have as many fabs anyways. as far as antitrust goes and holding the market to ransom i disagree. people buy intel procs because they are cheap and powerful, not because they dont know amd exist
FatMikel 13th May 2009, 14:53 Quote
TBH, this whole thing says more about the EU for going after Intel instead of the companies that AGREED to play by Intel's rules.

If any of the OEM manufacturers had the balls to tell Intel where to stick it and went with AMD, Intel wouldn't have been able to get away with it.

There's no point pointing (¬_¬) the finger at big bad Intel when companies actively let them get away with it in the first place.

It's a bit like saying a bank robber is bad and demanding he repay what he stole when the bank manager left the safe and doors unlocked, rang the police and told them them to ignore any robbery.

IMHO, with this case and Microsoft's, it appear the EU's ego has gone to it's head. It's helping David beat Goliath, even though it knows that David will be just as bad and naughty.
sear 13th May 2009, 14:53 Quote
Both statements posted here (in the news and in the comments) are laughable at best. He is completely skirting around the issue at hand, which is that Intel was essentially ensuring less AMD sales by offering financial incentives for their OEM customers not to stock them or use them in their machines. No matter how much bitching you do about the bad economy or AMD's supposed lack of damages will actually change anything. But, of course, what are they actually going to say? The proof that they did it is there, they can't just deny it, and a "we disagree with the court" hardly sounds impressive.
lp1988 13th May 2009, 15:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by karx11erx

I very much hope Intel's appeal will fail and AMD will be able to charge Intel with some mighty big compensation.

I just hope that the juge simply dubles the fine, or just says 10 of the 37 bill in turnover. 3,7 billions now that would give them some serious problems.
faugusztin 13th May 2009, 15:07 Quote
FatMikel, you totally missed the point. Those big companies were also the victims, even if it doesn't look like that. If you will get the CPU for $80 and your competitor for $70, you are forced to make similar agreement with Intel too, or you are out of the business. And if Intel wouldn't make such offer, no one would did that at all.

So yes, that's why we are talking about big bad Intel and not about big bad HP/IBM/Dell/whatever.
b5k 13th May 2009, 15:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crompers
seems to me amd will always struggle to put out as many chips, they dont have as many fabs anyways. as far as antitrust goes and holding the market to ransom i disagree. people buy intel procs because they are cheap and powerful, not because they dont know amd exist
It's not about people who're buying direct from Intel (parts) it's about people buying pre-fabricated systems. When you walk in PC World, what's thrown at you? Intel, Intel and some more Intel. What do Dell stock? Nothing but Intel really. The majority of the market is dominated by Intel and if they achieved this by price fixing or financial incentives then AMD deserve compensation.
karx11erx 13th May 2009, 15:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp1988
I just hope that the juge simply dubles the fine, or just says 10 of the 37 bill in turnover. 3,7 billions now that would give them some serious problems.
And what would that be good for? I'd rather have AMD get another 1 billion Euros from Intel in compensation, and I don't want Intel to be ruined. Intel makes good products. All I want them is to behave. They have > 75% market share in the CPU market and big annual net income, that should really be satisfying enough.
JyX 13th May 2009, 15:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatMikel
If any of the OEM manufacturers had the balls to tell Intel where to stick it and went with AMD, Intel wouldn't have been able to get away with it.

If an OEM is required to fulfill an order of x chips, but AMD can't manage to supply enough, how do you think that OEM can stay in business? Its clients would just go to a different OEM which deals with Intel and which can supply what's demanded.

They're victims as well... because Intel "threatened" to entirely cut supplies to the OEMs that don't abide by Intel's law! Competitive, my ass!
Tim S 13th May 2009, 15:47 Quote
Xtrafresh 13th May 2009, 15:51 Quote
this is going to be quite the entertaining soap! Kudos to you guys for being so fast with your reporting guys! ;)

/me grabs a martini and sits back...
lp1988 13th May 2009, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by karx11erx
And what would that be good for? I'd rather have AMD get another 1 billion Euros from Intel in compensation, and I don't want Intel to be ruined. Intel makes good products. All I want them is to behave. They have > 75% market share in the CPU market and big annual net income, that should really be satisfying enough.

That was more of a joke, I don't petty Intel regardless of the fine, I trust the EU court. and true it would not make the market better.
But honestly, have them to "behave" sorry but i have a hard time seeing this happening, it is mentioned that they are still using elligal methods at the present day, and if they didn't stop doing it when the case first startet, I don't see a reason to stop now. It is like a drug dealer that still deals drugs even when he is allready in court, not sorry for s***t.
Intel has proberly calculated that it is worth the fine, if they hadn't done it they may not have had this big a market share today, a share big enough to be worth about 1 bill.
perplekks45 13th May 2009, 15:59 Quote
I think it's amazing they got fined, and that much as well.

BUT it won't stop any company [not even Intel] to just go and do the same thing over and over again. This is part of the free market we love so much!
Intel would've never done that if that hadn't gotten away with it before. Someone did that before on a smaller scheme, then someone else or the same company went for more and it's my honest belief there is no big company that wouldn't use their domination of a market to their advantage.

I don't say it's right because it isn't... but let's face it, Intel did it, MS did it, many oil companies did it, hell, even Rockefeller did it! There are others doing it right now and they won't stop just because 1/1000 gets caught and told off.
Sad but true.
FatMikel 13th May 2009, 16:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JyX
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatMikel
If any of the OEM manufacturers had the balls to tell Intel where to stick it and went with AMD, Intel wouldn't have been able to get away with it.

If an OEM is required to fulfill an order of x chips, but AMD can't manage to supply enough, how do you think that OEM can stay in business? Its clients would just go to a different OEM which deals with Intel and which can supply what's demanded.

They're victims as well... because Intel "threatened" to entirely cut supplies to the OEMs that don't abide by Intel's law! Competitive, my ass!

That's AMDs problem then, and it makes perfect business sense for Intel to capitalise on AMDs lack of supply.
FatMikel 13th May 2009, 16:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
FatMikel, you totally missed the point. Those big companies were also the victims, even if it doesn't look like that. If you will get the CPU for $80 and your competitor for $70, you are forced to make similar agreement with Intel too, or you are out of the business. And if Intel wouldn't make such offer, no one would did that at all.

So yes, that's why we are talking about big bad Intel and not about big bad HP/IBM/Dell/whatever.

Hence why I didn't say a single OEM was at fault, rather that all of them were for allowing this to happen in the first place.
Bauul 13th May 2009, 16:29 Quote
I've been hearing stories from people here who have worked with Intel stock retailers. Apparently in years gone by, Intel representatives would 'accidentally' leave unmarked brown bags full of cash at meetings with retailers. But, as the Intel CEO says, isn't that just good competition? :)
Turbotab 13th May 2009, 16:40 Quote
Intel does have something akin to 12 billion dollars in cash reserves, it will only wound the company, yet simultaneously fill it with a lot of anger. AMD best remember what happened when Intel's pride was hurt over the Pentium 4's failure. It will be years before they actually pay the fine, in fact has Microsoft even paid its fine in full yet? On a serious note, does this mean no i7 price cuts:(

HP/DELL etc can chose to stock any company's products, there is no legal requirement for them to do otherwise. However in the medium-term, allowing one company to monopolise the market, and thus dictate prices is not very smart corporate governance.
JyX 13th May 2009, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
AMD best remember what happened when Intel's pride was hurt over the Pentium 4's failure.

Were you high all this time?... to what has happened during the P4 era has just been given a verdict: €1.06 billion fine!

And I was always wondering why there are so few OEM options on AthlonXP's or even the newer AMD64's... everywhere I looked, only Intel!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
On a serious note, does this mean no i7 price cuts:(
LOL... yeah... the same Xmas price cuts that C2Q would have had to go through after the PH I launch... and mind you, it's would have! No competition, no price wars! But then, if there's no fair business, then how can there be a chance of competition?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
HP/DELL etc can chose to stock any company's products, there is no legal requirement for them to do otherwise.
Are you sure?... I called it "Intel's law".

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatMikel
That's AMDs problem then, and it makes perfect business sense for Intel to capitalise on AMDs lack of supply.
Dude, you've missed the point, by miles!... or kilometers, depending on where you live!

First, the talk was about the OEM's being fair or not... not about Intel capitalizing on AMD's lack of supply! BTW, use a spellchecker... as simple as it might be, it helps!

Second, no OEM should be hindered at buying from a manufacturer... and no manufacturer can limit an OEM's options of buying from another manufacturer. That's why your point of view on perfect business sense is far from Intel's.
Turbotab 13th May 2009, 17:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JyX
Were you high all this time?... to what has happened during the P4 era has just been given a verdict: €1.06 billion fine!

Classic, you fail to realise that the P4's failure inspired Intel to create the Core architecture, a pretty successful product by any benchmark. Their dubious sales strategy, has nothing to do with their R&D triumphs. My point was, and it should be clear to anyone who has not been smoking ketamine, is that AMD must concentrate hard on the competitiveness of the next-gen platforms, as Intel will aim for the jugular.

If AMD cannot match or exceed Intel's next-gen products, and given their much weaker financial status, they will not survive, a situation no objective tech enthusiast would enjoy.
n3mo 13th May 2009, 17:31 Quote
Well, finally. I hoped for a fine bigger than 1bn, but it's fine, given Intel's further problems all around the world. They got too arrogant and greedy. It's also a good time for intel to be fined, with lower CPU sales the financial blow will be much more powerful. Maybe some real competition will take place now, hopefully. I'm satisfied, now to wait for Microsoft to get what's coming to them.
trig 13th May 2009, 17:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JyX
BTW, use a spellchecker... as simple as it might be, it helps!

lol..definitely make urself, yes, i spelled it urself, smarter because u use a spell checker. congrats...too bad they don't have a really good punctuation checker. then you'd look super intelligent.

this is like so many things in life. lot of "must haves" and "probably did's". if i cared enough i would probably dig into it more to see whether (thank god i used the spell checker there, i almost spelled it 'whther') there was proof to these allegations or not, although i am "sure there is". i like to believe there is a cosmic balance to life. you do wrong, it will be returned. maybe...
pizan 13th May 2009, 17:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by karx11erx
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizan
DO you mean enhanced interrogation?:|
Is that some kind of sarcasm, or are you serious about calling waterboarding "enhanced interrogation"?

(I think the further, but you can never be sure about that with Americans ... )
sarcasm
Was i not being transparent enough? (see...the new president is having an effect)
FeRaL 13th May 2009, 17:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5k
Probably the most important question to come out of this:- How will it affect us, the consumer? Sharp rise in Intel prices?

"Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace...There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."

Just because there's no harm to consumers doesn't mean that harm isn't done?

Gee, I would like to see the equation they used to determine that no harm has been done to the consumers...
thehippoz 13th May 2009, 18:07 Quote
yeah the p4 was crap.. god who was buying those things anyways? I always wondered how the hell they sold the p4.. least they saw the light and the c2d came along effectively neutering amd.. ruiz suki suki

/grabs a linguine, martini, bikini..
Cptn-Inafinus 13th May 2009, 18:20 Quote
I think the greatest irony in all of this is that the money they will have made out of their questionable behaviour will probably a fair bit more than this fine.

The fine should be alot more harsh IMHO.
Faulk_Wulf 13th May 2009, 19:51 Quote
You can rant and rave about Intel, and what they did was unquestionably wrong, but do we want them to actually go UNDER?

I think this would be a faux pas honestly. They are sleezy, they have hurt the market, and they nearly ruined AMD. --BUT-- they have made many many advances in the CPU industry. Advances that I don't think would have happened without trying to beat other companies in the ground and advances other companies wouldn't have made themselves if Intel hadn't existed.

If Intel was to get fined hard enough that they essentially belly-up, then that leaves AMD as pretty much the only maker IMO. AMD has not done shady practices as far as I know, but if they are the only CPU maker that matters with Intel gone, then you can not tell me in honesty and good faith that they would keep their prices as low as they could be.

Every company is out to make money. Every single one. If Intel dissolves and AMD steps up, it will be just the same as when Intel was paying off companies. Sure, AMD will be legit, maybe their products will have a higher quality (maybe not?) but at the end of the day if they are the only one in the market, they can charge whatever they want.

'Course maybe i'm way out in left field when the ball was a line drive to the right.
HourBeforeDawn 13th May 2009, 20:55 Quote
Well now AMD needs to file with a Civil Court to recover damages and so forth, lol this is simply awesome. I mean its no surprising news that Intel had bad business practices come on that was a given but ya this shall be interesting, I mean it wont hurt Intel any as thats a drop in the bucket for them.
AngryNapkin 13th May 2009, 21:08 Quote
Could Intel just give the big FU and threaten to stop supplying them with products? "Fine me One Point What?!? Billion?" "Ok nm we wont carry products in the EU any longer have fun"?
Psy-UK 13th May 2009, 21:13 Quote
So what would the money payed out from Intel be used for?
Turbotab 13th May 2009, 21:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psy-UK
So what would the money payed out from Intel be used for?

Ensuring that bananas conform to EU directive 12798342875963762886 and other useful stuff
b5k 13th May 2009, 21:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryNapkin
Could Intel just give the big FU and threaten to stop supplying them with products? "Fine me One Point What?!? Billion?" "Ok nm we wont carry products in the EU any longer have fun"?
Intel stops supplying the EU and they lose a massive portion of revenue which will be taken up by AMD. It'd be like saying "Here, have several billion dollars."
JyX 13th May 2009, 22:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
Classic, you fail to realise that the P4's failure inspired Intel to create the Core architecture...

The whole story is about Intel's past doing and you rant about some lame progress that Intel needed badly so it wouldn't lose market share! Even if they created a new P III, they only succeeded by not letting AMD to compete in a fair matter! AMD64 was superior, but, as it was, without cash there was no significant progress! Where do you think AMD's cash comes from? Sitting around?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trig
lol..definitely make urself, yes, i spelled it urself, smarter because u use a spell checker. congrats...too bad they don't have a really good punctuation checker. then you'd look super intelligent.

this is like so many things in life. lot of "must haves" and "probably did's". if i cared enough i would probably dig into it more to see whether (thank god i used the spell checker there, i almost spelled it 'whther') there was proof to these allegations or not, although i am "sure there is". i like to believe there is a cosmic balance to life. you do wrong, it will be returned. maybe...

Looking intelligent has nothing to do with this... it's about character. There are people that like to do things the proper way and there are people that just don't give a f. Kinda like you... tell me if I'm wrong. You also like Bush!

If you like to write like a 10 year old kid, that's fine with me! Bush didn't mind to talk like one either and YouTube is full of that to back it up... but don't get all whiny on me for disagreeing. And there's nothing wrong with using a spellchecker... technology is made to help up do things faster and better. My punctuation is just fine... if you don't know what an ellipsis is, I suggest to look it up... oh, wait... you don't give a f. Then why did you reply to my post? To whine? You shouldn't have because I don't give a f. And this is one of the situations where it's actually required not to!

BTW, COSMIC BALANCE?!?!... since Bush got away, guess not!
flibblesan 13th May 2009, 22:18 Quote
Quote:
AMD has consistently been a technology innovation leader

Yeah... right
trig 13th May 2009, 22:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JyX
If "looks" matter so much for you, you are either a woman/girl or a fag (the kind that gets the female role in the relationship). ROFL!

Looking intelligent has nothing to do with this... it's about character. There are people that like to do things the proper way and there are people that just don't give a f. Kinda like you... tell me if I'm wrong. You also like Bush!

If you like to write like a 10 year old kid, that's fine with me! Bush didn't mind to talk like one either and YouTube is full of that to back it up... but don't get all whiny on me for disagreeing. And there's nothing wrong with using a spellchecker... technology is made to help up do things faster and better. My punctuation is just fine... if you don't know what an ellipsis is, I suggest to look it up... oh, wait... you don't give a f. Then why did you reply to my post? To whine? You shouldn't have because I don't give a f. And this is one of the situations where it's actually required not to!

BTW, COSMIC BALANCE?!?!... since Bush got away, guess not!

lol...wow. your punctuation is just as bad as his spelling was my point. as to the rest of your rant/calling people fags...show a little maturity. wtf are you talking about? and i didn't vote for bush, but that really isn't what this topic is about, is it? but hey, thanks for your contributions to the forum...
JyX 13th May 2009, 22:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by trig
show a little maturity
A kid like you wouldn't be able to recognize maturity... as for the rest, leave it! It seems as your single threaded neuron can't handle it!
Bindibadgi 13th May 2009, 22:47 Quote
Welcome to your 24hr ban JyX for flaming others. If you can't be mature, don't bother coming here. If you return and still can't be play nice with others, we'll show you the door.

EDIT: Didnt see which forum this was in.
fathazza 13th May 2009, 22:53 Quote
im quite shocked at that statement from Intel... you'd think given how big the fine is the chap making the statement would have bothered to have a glance at EC competition law ( the relevant section they got done by is only about 6 lines long as well! and btw antitrust is an americanism), rather than spouting a load of ignorant crap.

edit: thought id add in what they actually are meant to have done:

Intel awarded major computer manufacturers rebates on condition that they purchased all or almost all of their supplies, at least in certain defined segments, from Intel:

* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer A from December 2002 to December 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs
* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer B from November 2002 to May 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 95% of its CPU needs for its business desktop computers from Intel (the remaining 5% that computer manufacturer B could purchase from rival chip maker AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below)
* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer C from October 2002 to November 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 80% of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook computers from Intel
* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer D in 2007 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook computers exclusively from Intel.

Furthermore, Intel made payments to major retailer Media Saturn Holding from October 2002 to December 2007 on condition that it exclusively sold Intel-based PCs in all countries in which Media Saturn Holding is active.
Major 13th May 2009, 23:15 Quote
Watched this live on CNBC today, and the CEO I think it was was very calm about the whole thing, and he stated in confidence that they will have a very strong appeal against this fine.

I personally don't think they will win a full appeal i.e. no fine, but it will go down a lot i.e. $100m.
perplekks45 14th May 2009, 01:00 Quote
As I said before:

So what? It's wrong and EVIL but as everybody does it this fine won't change much. Sadly...
Lazarus Dark 14th May 2009, 03:05 Quote
How does this help anyone? They're saying competition got screwed because of Intel, but this decision is only going to screw over the consumers, as we will have to pay the fine through higher prices. Prices are at an all time low while performance is through the roof, no matter what the past, currently I see no problem and this fine will only punish the consumers.
LordPyrinc 14th May 2009, 05:00 Quote
It is a fine line to draw when it comes to a company that makes efforts to crush their competitors as opposed to beating them fairly in the marketplace. I'm not picking sides here, I am just opening the door for conversation. Is the EU overstepping its bounds by continually placing judgement against those companies like M$ and Intel that make larger profits than their competitors?
knutjb 14th May 2009, 07:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/05/13/eu-slaps-intel-with-record-948m-fine/1

As expected, the EU has slapped Intel with a record fine for abusing its dominant position in the market. It found Intel guilty of antitrust on two counts.

Given Intel's profits that is a remarkably cheap price to pay for taking out their primary competitor out at the knees. If AMD survives the recession, I hope for the sake of competition, the worst case for Intel is that they will hold the lions share of the market for at least 5-10 years and all the profits that come with it. I'm not knocking AMD's ability Intel has a tech lead for the time being. That fine is chump change.
knutjb 14th May 2009, 07:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark
How does this help anyone? They're saying competition got screwed because of Intel, but this decision is only going to screw over the consumers, as we will have to pay the fine through higher prices. Prices are at an all time low while performance is through the roof, no matter what the past, currently I see no problem and this fine will only punish the consumers.

If Intel were allowed to get away with this you would pay more. Look at the recent Intel price drops, from the goodness of Intel's heart, NO, it's AMD with a competitive product, yes I know it's not high end, putting the squeeze on Intel's cash crop the mid to low market. The high end is bragging rights, not for profit.
HourBeforeDawn 14th May 2009, 08:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by flibblesan
Quote:
AMD has consistently been a technology innovation leader

Yeah... right

actually hes right, look at the History of AMD, they have made more technological break throughs then Intel, Intel simply sits back sees what AMD is doing and then copies it for themselves however I will admit that sometimes they do improve upon what AMD came up with but ya for the most they have made far more break through then intel has and thats simply fact despite how much you argue it. Of course Im speaking of the CPU market, not joint projects, when it comes to joint project Intel tries to get a hand in just about everything so they can take a little bit of credit of it.
Star*Dagger 14th May 2009, 10:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPyrinc
It is a fine line to draw when it comes to a company that makes efforts to crush their competitors as opposed to beating them fairly in the marketplace. I'm not picking sides here, I am just opening the door for conversation. Is the EU overstepping its bounds by continually placing judgement against those companies like M$ and Intel that make larger profits than their competitors?

Wow. The EU regulators are doing their JOBS. You can see quite clearly what happens in banking when there is not enough oversight, you get a recession and almost a meltdown.
Regulation by the people's representatives (in this case antitrust commmissions) is not only a good thing, it is a required thing.
Capitalism works on the idea of competition (exclusion), whereas democracy works on the concept of inclusion and protecting the rights of all of its citizenry. Without government to step in and slap down the largest abuses, the corporate world would run amuck and take the rest of society with it. Frankly I hope the banking melt down will lead to a new round of measured regulation in the US as has already been the case in the EU countries.

On a related topic. It was almost 2000 years ago that Cicero stated "Salus Populi Suprema Lex Est" "The Welfare of the People is the Supreme Law". This quote should be used in ALL affairs regarding governance, if a law, regulation or idea can not pass this simple test then it should be dismissed. I daresay that 99% of the laws passed for the welfare of corporations would not have been passed.

Yours in the People Plasma,
Star¤Dagger
Adnoctum 14th May 2009, 10:32 Quote
I don't like bullies, whether in the playground, international diplomacy or corporate thuggery. So I hope this is just the beginning and the outcome actually hurts. Because it won't make a difference unless it hurts. Really HURTS. Otherwise corporate bullies never learn.

The reason that the OEMs weren't prosecuted as well is because they were surely victims of Intel pressure as well. Agree, or no product. No CPUs, no chipsets, no networking devices.

And there was never a choice to go along. AMD could never have made enough CPUs to supply all of a large OEMs needs. Look what happened with the Dell deal from a while back. Retail K8 AMD CPUs started to dry up as Dell soaked up supply. No matter how superior an AMD chip is, Intel will always hold the majority of box sales. That is why there are so many craptacular P4 monstrosities out there.

People all talk about the K8/A64 generation of competitive AMD CPUs, but AMD has had competitive or superior CPUs since before the 486 days. Intel Overdrives topped out at 100MHz with AMD belting along at 120MHz and 133MHz with the 5x86

386/486/5x86 - K6 (thanks NexGen! <wink>) - K7 - K8 (the only hiccup was the K5 dog).
And these are the generations covered by the Intel "rebates" (or "coercive bribes" as they should be known) that stifled competition at a time when AMD should have been able to grow their market and manufacturing capacity.


Just to clarify a few questions and comments.

* This is an EU fine for illegal practices. None of the money goes to AMD. AMD is seeking monetary damages through a civil action.
* As I understand the process, Intel MUST pay the money within three months. If an appeal is successful, they get the money back from the EU. Although this is what is supposed to happen, how Microsoft got away with their stalls I can't explain.
Adnoctum 14th May 2009, 11:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger

Regulation by the people's representatives is not only a good thing, it is a required thing.
Frankly I hope the banking melt down will lead to a new round of measured regulation in the US as has already been the case in the EU countries.

Frankly, the EU could have done better. It is not EU regulators you have to worry about. Iceland and the UK are excellent examples of individual member banking regulators either being too cosy with the banks (Iceland) or too deregulated (UK).
impar 14th May 2009, 13:06 Quote
danwood76 14th May 2009, 17:41 Quote
@Adnocturn

You are very wrong about the 3 months, if they appeal then the fine will be suspended until the end of the trial.

Personally I believe that AMD should be fined for the fact that their original competitor to Intel was actually a reverse engineered clone of the pentium!

Recently AMD processors suck when compared to intel! So Intel should be infront, so in the end it has benifited the consumer!
(shut up fan boys)
b5k 14th May 2009, 22:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
You are very wrong about the 3 months, if they appeal then the fine will be suspended until the end of the trial.
Note that the fine is suspended in an high interest account, and guess where the interest goes? Straight to the EU coffers. :)
Quote:
Personally I believe that AMD should be fined for the fact that their original competitor to Intel was actually a reverse engineered clone of the pentium!
64bit. Better Memory controller. AMD was making use of tech that Intel has just caught up with in the i7. AMD's done some pretty big things and to be honest, they've put out a lot of good products and made less mistakes. Intel managed to cover its mistakes with corruption. Explain why the Pentium 4 sold so well when it was, quite frankly, pathetic. Athlon XP was like cha-ching, but didn't sell...Makes you wonder.
Quote:
Recently AMD processors suck when compared to intel! So Intel should be infront, so in the end it has benifited the consumer!
(shut up fan boys)
I actually run an Intel rig and over the majority of my time owning PC's I've had Intel. How ever, the longest lasting and best performing system I've ever had has been an AMD one. :p
sadlydefiant 15th May 2009, 08:27 Quote
And what does the European Union do with all of that money?
HourBeforeDawn 15th May 2009, 08:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadlydefiant
And what does the European Union do with all of that money?

what every union does, line their pockets and then dance around saying we are even richer now yay....
Adnoctum 15th May 2009, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagwood76

You are very wrong about the 3 months, if they appeal then the fine will be suspended until the end of the trial.

Normally I'd bow to greater knowledge since I have little expertise of this area, but your next two points show so little grasp of reality that it throws ALL your knowledge/opinions into doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagwood76

Personally I believe that AMD should be fined for the fact that their original competitor to Intel was actually a reverse engineered clone of the pentium!

I assume you are talking about the K5, the abortion that almost killed AMD until the NexGen crew saved their backside? Although socket compatible with the Pentium, they are significantly different internally. The K5 was a wholly AMD design, which is probably why it sucked so bad.

But you could be clueless enough to be talking about the 286/386/486 processors, although they aren't Pentiums, but AMD had a licence to produce and develop them, and they developed them better than Intel did.

The K6 was a design AMD got when they bought NexGen, and again although socket compatible with the Pentium MMX, it was again totally different internally.

If you had it, logic should tell you something.
If AMD processors were clones they should perform the same as Intel processors at a given clock speed and benchmark, just like they did in the 286/386/486 era.

By your reasoning, Intel should also be fined for cloning the Phenom to produce the i7!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagwood76

Recently AMD processors suck when compared to intel! So Intel should be infront, so in the end it has benifited the consumer!
(shut up fan boys)

I have a headache just reading that.

So...
  • Intel bribes OEMs not to use/develop AMD products.
  • AMD sells significantly LESS products limiting their profits and ability to invest in R&D and manufacturing facilities.
  • Intel maintains their dominant market share unethically, boosting profits on comparable or inferior products.
  • Consumers continue to pay high prices for Intel products because consumers and OEMs are not given the choice to buy cheaper AMD based products and there-by developing real competition.
  • Intel uses their ill-gotten gains to pump huge amounts of money into R&D and manufacturing (many times more than AMD can).
  • Intel R&D money fails by producing the P4.
  • Despite having a fraction of the money Intel does, AMD pushes innovation and leads Intel in performance and design.
  • AMDs superior chip architecture is stifled by a lack of investment in manufacturing facilities (fabs cost big bucks) in the crucial previous years, exactly when Intel was cutting AMD out of important OEM deals and potential profit.
  • AMD can't get their superior chip architecture into OEM boxes for the public to buy.
  • Intel R&D money succeeds by producing the Core and Core2.
  • Intel superior manufacturing capacity floods market with competitive or superior products that are manufactured cheaper than AMD can, driving prices down (great for consumers, not great for AMD).
  • Consumers benefit from cheap and powerful processors regardless of how a company behaves!

I can see how it has all worked out for the best then!
Never mind the fact that a stronger, healthier AMD might have made processors even cheaper or more powerful or use less energy at less cost both now and in the future.
Did you even think that a reason why AMD processors may "suck" at the moment might be because of Intel's illegal practices?
danwood76 17th May 2009, 21:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
Normally I'd bow to greater knowledge since I have little expertise of this area, but your next two points show so little grasp of reality that it throws ALL your knowledge/opinions into doubt.



I assume you are talking about the K5, the abortion that almost killed AMD until the NexGen crew saved their backside? Although socket compatible with the Pentium, they are significantly different internally. The K5 was a wholly AMD design, which is probably why it sucked so bad.

But you could be clueless enough to be talking about the 286/386/486 processors, although they aren't Pentiums, but AMD had a licence to produce and develop them, and they developed them better than Intel did.

The K6 was a design AMD got when they bought NexGen, and again although socket compatible with the Pentium MMX, it was again totally different internally.

If you had it, logic should tell you something.
If AMD processors were clones they should perform the same as Intel processors at a given clock speed and benchmark, just like they did in the 286/386/486 era.

By your reasoning, Intel should also be fined for cloning the Phenom to produce the i7!



I have a headache just reading that.

So...
  • Intel bribes OEMs not to use/develop AMD products.
  • AMD sells significantly LESS products limiting their profits and ability to invest in R&D and manufacturing facilities.
  • Intel maintains their dominant market share unethically, boosting profits on comparable or inferior products.
  • Consumers continue to pay high prices for Intel products because consumers and OEMs are not given the choice to buy cheaper AMD based products and there-by developing real competition.
  • Intel uses their ill-gotten gains to pump huge amounts of money into R&D and manufacturing (many times more than AMD can).
  • Intel R&D money fails by producing the P4.
  • Despite having a fraction of the money Intel does, AMD pushes innovation and leads Intel in performance and design.
  • AMDs superior chip architecture is stifled by a lack of investment in manufacturing facilities (fabs cost big bucks) in the crucial previous years, exactly when Intel was cutting AMD out of important OEM deals and potential profit.
  • AMD can't get their superior chip architecture into OEM boxes for the public to buy.
  • Intel R&D money succeeds by producing the Core and Core2.
  • Intel superior manufacturing capacity floods market with competitive or superior products that are manufactured cheaper than AMD can, driving prices down (great for consumers, not great for AMD).
  • Consumers benefit from cheap and powerful processors regardless of how a company behaves!

I can see how it has all worked out for the best then!
Never mind the fact that a stronger, healthier AMD might have made processors even cheaper or more powerful or use less energy at less cost both now and in the future.
Did you even think that a reason why AMD processors may "suck" at the moment might be because of Intel's illegal practices?
Blah blah.

No I dont agree, Intel are ace and my core 2 rocks.
As did my P4 when I bought it, which by the way was created before the Athlon XP range which didn't IMO beat the P4 but I don't game which I believe is where they perform better.
In the end the P4 beat the Athlon XP although the next generation of AMD chips were slightly better but cost more than the P4.
Then came of course the Core2 which completely raped AMD who managed to produce a load of faulty chips to compete that cost more and performed worse.

Every manufacturer offers discounts to customers who buy a bulk load of that product. This is what commercialism is all about, making a cheaper product and selling a whole bulk load of it.
I believe in a legal system where a company is innocent till proven guilty, so I will await the verdict of the appeal before I pass judgement.
b5k 17th May 2009, 23:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
In the end the P4 beat the Athlon XP
The Pentium 4 was based upon a 20 pipeline structure. This would be ****ing awesome except for two common problem that are just inherently involved in computing:
Misprediction: When the wrong instruction is called. When you've got a 20 stage pipeline and it mispredicts in one stage, it takes abso-****ing-lutely ages to restart that line.
Stalling: When the information is not in the cache for what ever reason and has to be drawn from RAM. This is MUCH slower when the pipeline is longer.

The reason Intel went with such a large pipeline was because it gave them the ability to crank up da gigahurtz lol!

The AMD XP on the other hand was running an 11 stage pipeline, which means any problems in the line and it recovers much quicker. Combine with that the more refined architecture of the AMD XP processor and bam...THE P4 WAS A MASSIVE FAILURE, GET OVER IT.
HourBeforeDawn 17th May 2009, 23:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5k
The Pentium 4 was based upon a 20 pipeline structure. This would be ****ing awesome except for two common problem that are just inherently involved in computing:
Misprediction: When the wrong instruction is called. When you've got a 20 stage pipeline and it mispredicts in one stage, it takes abso-****ing-lutely ages to restart that line.
Stalling: When the information is not in the cache for what ever reason and has to be drawn from RAM. This is MUCH slower when the pipeline is longer.

The reason Intel went with such a large pipeline was because it gave them the ability to crank up da gigahurtz lol!

The AMD XP on the other hand was running an 11 stage pipeline, which means any problems in the line and it recovers much quicker. Combine with that the more refined architecture of the AMD XP processor and bam...THE P4 WAS A MASSIVE FAILURE, GET OVER IT.

No one wants to have to reiterate this point again. So shut the **** up...christ.

ya it wasnt until the release of Core 2 Duo series that Intel FINALLY had something that could properly beat what AMD had to offer but now that AMD has the Phenom II/AM3 line out they are regaing ground fast with a price to performance ratio that reasonably cant be beat.
b5k 17th May 2009, 23:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
ya it wasnt until the release of Core 2 Duo series that Intel FINALLY had something that could properly beat what AMD had to offer but now that AMD has the Phenom II/AM3 line out they are regaing ground fast with a price to performance ratio that reasonably cant be beat.
I didn't really want to ignite that part of the argument again, but there is no way at all you can claim the P4 was a good processor. An AMD XP +2000 (1.6ghz) could pretty much compete with a 2.4ghz P4. :p
perplekks45 18th May 2009, 01:16 Quote
P4 sucked. Period. End of story.

I quite like how it is now with AMD being pretty much on the same level as Intel and both have to compete over the price.

The only that might hurt AMD badly is if Intel's i5 is an awesome performer AND overclocker for an amazingly low price. And we all know Intel will fail on one of those 3 points.

Then again, I wouldn't mind another mind blower from the blue ones that puts AMD under pressure as they seem to respond well whereas they failed last time they had the lead.
danwood76 18th May 2009, 07:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
P4 sucked. Period. End of story.

I quite like how it is now with AMD being pretty much on the same level as Intel and both have to compete over the price.

The only that might hurt AMD badly is if Intel's i5 is an awesome performer AND overclocker for an amazingly low price. And we all know Intel will fail on one of those 3 points.

Then again, I wouldn't mind another mind blower from the blue ones that puts AMD under pressure as they seem to respond well whereas they failed last time they had the lead.
The Phenom is nothing when compared with the core2, and the I7 just kicks it out of the park.
At the end of the day you are a bunch of fanboys who cant stand to see someone bash your beloved AMD even though they suck.

I did use an Athlon XP and found my P4 prescott a hell of a lot faster, it also overclocked a lot better too. This seems to contradict all of your points. I do use an Athlon XP on my machine at work but it has no hope of multitasking, it just about runs my embeded development tools.
This is from personal experience not reading Wikipedia and 'AMD monthly' like you guys seem to read.

I bet you all love Microsoft too, bollox to that FOSS for the win!
Intel support the open source world in so many ways but AMD lack behind in all aspects of that place.
HourBeforeDawn 18th May 2009, 07:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
The Phenom is nothing when compared with the core2, and the I7 just kicks it out of the park.
At the end of the day you are a bunch of fanboys who cant stand to see someone bash your beloved AMD even though they suck.

I did use an Athlon XP and found my P4 prescott a hell of a lot faster, it also overclocked a lot better too. This seems to contradict all of your points. I do use an Athlon XP on my machine at work but it has no hope of multitasking, it just about runs my embeded development tools.
This is from personal experience not reading Wikipedia and 'AMD monthly' like you guys seem to read.

I bet you all love Microsoft too, bollox to that FOSS for the win!
Intel support the open source world in so many ways but AMD lack behind in all aspects of that place.

oh look a fanboi trying to justify the money hes wasted over the years, ehh each to their own. I have owned both AMD and Intel, but I must say bottomline they each have their ups and down but in the end it is AMD who pushes the forefront of CPU development, lets see the only thing I have seen Intel beat AMD to the punch on was DDR3 with Triple Channel, other then that they tend to lag behind but that makes since too, let a different company put their neck out there so if it fails you dont lose anything but if it succeeds quickly copy it and then release it as some wonder of a product... Im sorry but its clear to see that Intel business practice has always been dirty, I dont deny the quality of their product but my main argument is how manipulating they are to the public and how easy it is to convince the general public as this person has demonstrated. Pretty much how Mac fanbois are soo brain washed and have to fight to convince themselves that the money they wasted was actually for something lol.
danwood76 18th May 2009, 08:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
oh look a fanboi trying to justify the money hes wasted over the years, ehh each to their own. I have owned both AMD and Intel, but I must say bottomline they each have their ups and down but in the end it is AMD who pushes the forefront of CPU development, lets see the only thing I have seen Intel beat AMD to the punch on was DDR3 with Triple Channel, other then that they tend to lag behind but that makes since too, let a different company put their neck out there so if it fails you dont lose anything but if it succeeds quickly copy it and then release it as some wonder of a product... Im sorry but its clear to see that Intel business practice has always been dirty, I dont deny the quality of their product but my main argument is how manipulating they are to the public and how easy it is to convince the general public as this person has demonstrated. Pretty much how Mac fanbois are soo brain washed and have to fight to convince themselves that the money they wasted was actually for something lol.
I haven't really wasted much money, I'm on my 2nd Intel processor in 7 years, and both processors cost less than my daily wage. Oh no I have wasted so much money. (not)

Mac invented the graphical personal computer so you shouldn't really slate them. Their systems are better than windows systems although you cant run your precious computer games on them so you are upset :'(.
The IBM power PC processors the older macs used to use (604e era) were a lot better than both the PC processors of the time and are the basis for the cell processor being used in the PS3 now.
Oh and no I don't run a Mac any-more, I had a mac before I ran windows so around 1994.

I notice that you didn't contradict my argument of the I7 kicking the crap out of the Phenom but still believe the AMD processor is better. Is that how a structured argument works? I think not.
Go back to school funboy!
HourBeforeDawn 18th May 2009, 09:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
I haven't really wasted much money, I'm on my 2nd Intel processor in 7 years, and both processors cost less than my daily wage. Oh no I have wasted so much money. (not)

Mac invented the graphical personal computer so you shouldn't really slate them. Their systems are better than windows systems although you cant run your precious computer games on them so you are upset :'(.
The IBM power PC processors the older macs used to use (604e era) were a lot better than both the PC processors of the time and are the basis for the cell processor being used in the PS3 now.
Oh and no I don't run a Mac any-more, I had a mac before I ran windows so around 1994.

I notice that you didn't contradict my argument of the I7 kicking the crap out of the Phenom but still believe the AMD processor is better. Is that how a structured argument works? I think not.
Go back to school funboy!

lol ur argument was originally P4 but when you started loosing that argument you switched to the i7 which yes I still believe at this time is a waste of money and FYI if you want to do the whole wage thing which by the way you remarked about it ties in with your ego/self worth, my daily wage well actually less then 4hrs of my daily wage could purchase such processors easy as well but again I dont believe in wasting money on items that have next to no upgrade path.

As for Mac oh I dont have a problem with their OS or their designs, its really the opposite, I dont care for the companies business practices, charging nearly on average 600+ for the same hardware thats found in a windows based system. Besides whats special about the OS, it can be effected in the same ways a windows based OS can be, I mean if you think I am only using windows for gaming your wrong, I have yet to come across anything that a mac could do that I couldnt do on a PC, in fact I find what you can do on a MAC to be pretty limiting so thats a mute point.

So again as for arguing your point in i7 against phenom sure but i7 did come after Phenom so thats not much of an argument either, again its just Intel finally catching up to what AMD has already done for many years, like integrated memory controller and a native multi-core die.

So please before opening your virtual mouth come up with something a bit more intelligent to go in your pointless arguments.
Xtrafresh 18th May 2009, 09:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
I haven't really wasted much money, I'm on my 2nd Intel processor in 7 years, and both processors cost less than my daily wage. Oh no I have wasted so much money. (not)

Mac invented the graphical personal computer so you shouldn't really slate them. Their systems are better than windows systems although you cant run your precious computer games on them so you are upset :'(.
The IBM power PC processors the older macs used to use (604e era) were a lot better than both the PC processors of the time and are the basis for the cell processor being used in the PS3 now.
Oh and no I don't run a Mac any-more, I had a mac before I ran windows so around 1994.

I notice that you didn't contradict my argument of the I7 kicking the crap out of the Phenom but still believe the AMD processor is better. Is that how a structured argument works? I think not.
Go back to school funboy!
Welcome to the forum

But seriously, you registered to tell us THIS? Where does all the anger come from?

To delve into your arguments, first of all... how can this be a PC vs MAC thing all of a sudden? "we" like AMD, so we must like Microsoft too? And yes, i use windows because games run on it. They dont run on a mac, so i dont use macs. I'm not saying windows is better, it just works for me, so i use it. I'm deeply sorry if that offends you.

About the I7... great piece of horsepower on that platform, i'm just not going to buy into it, because the roadmap is very unclear at the moment. I've upgraded on 775 (yes i run Intel) about as far as it can go, and i wont need an upgrade for a while. When and if i need an upgrade, i'll seriously concider AM3 too.

Having said that, this thread is not about the better processor or the better fanboy. It's about Intel getting caught with their hand in the cookiejar. They have been very naughty, and for that alone i'm inclined to concider not buying any more silicon from them for a while. I'm just really glad there's an alternative now :)
HourBeforeDawn 18th May 2009, 09:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh

Having said that, this thread is not about the better processor or the better fanboy. It's about Intel getting caught with their hand in the cookiejar. They have been very naughty, and for that alone i'm inclined to concider not buying any more silicon from them for a while. I'm just really glad there's an alternative now :)

True that. ;)
b5k 18th May 2009, 11:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
I did use an Athlon XP and found my P4 prescott a hell of a lot faster, it also overclocked a lot better too. This seems to contradict all of your points. I do use an Athlon XP on my machine at work but it has no hope of multitasking, it just about runs my embeded development tools.
This is from personal experience not reading Wikipedia and 'AMD monthly' like you guys seem to read.
Your personal beliefs on a matter doesn't make it true. Just because you BELIEVE the P4 is faster doesn't mean it is. Industry experts countless times have stated how the Pentium 4 was a failure. I've talked to programmers who work in the games industry that just lol at the idea of a Pentium 4 being considered "good".

You're nothing more than a blithering troll trying to amuse your self.
Bindibadgi 18th May 2009, 11:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwood76
The IBM power PC processors the older macs used to use (604e era) were a lot better than both the PC processors of the time and are the basis for the cell processor being used in the PS3 now.

Actually you really should get your facts a little more precise first.

For starters - the i7 is not a direct competitor to the Phenom II, the Core 2 quads are. AMD has priced them accordingly and they are competitive.

With regards to the PS3. It contains a single Power PC core CPU that was developed independently to the SPE processors co-designed by IBM, but mostly by Toshiba and Sony. They are fast, efficient but linear in-order cores, however these are not expressly "Power PC" by definition.

You do get rather riled up against others, which is really quite funny, so I left your posts alone.
Adnoctum 18th May 2009, 14:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagwood76

Ramble, ramble >shakes fist and slurs menacingly< ramble, ramble, >pointless tangent< "Hrmf, stop stomping over my bridge, Urgh", mumble, grrrr, ramble >uninformed opinion< "Blarf, I remember it this way, Snarf, therefore I am right and you're deluded fanboys, Cheeseblurg", ramble.....fade into incoherence.

I had to snip your quote, but thanks for your insightful comments and opinion, Dags. I'll be sure to find you when I need an education on semi-conductor history and design processes.
However, given the current economic climate, for now I'm going to try and not continue feeding free-loaders who sulk under bridges.

I'd love to debate your points, but there are no sensible arguments to be found in your posts. There were glimmers, but then you pasted on all that nonsensical rambling, bouncing from one processor to another, from one point to another, that in the end it all came spewing up like a morning after.

Anyway, welcome to Bit-Tech, trolls enter from the side door, and remember to clean up after yourself.
Slaymate 18th May 2009, 14:12 Quote
EU = Organized Crime
Attila 18th May 2009, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaymate
EU = Organized Crime

It just depends on how big a fish you are. Intel, the big fish slapped around AMD, the minnow.
Then along comes an even bigger fish and slaps around Intel. Unfortunatly for Intel there
have been, and are, lots of really big fish just waiting to slap Intel around some more. :) It's not just the EU. Japan and South Korea have also had a shot and the US courts will soon be bending Intel over as well. :o

I wouldn't feel too sorry for em. They will still make good CPU's and they will still make lot's
and lot's of money. :D
Bindibadgi 18th May 2009, 15:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaymate
EU = Organized Crime

Is that simply because "American Money" is flowing into EU pockets?

They broke local laws, they pay the penalty. At least the EU has balls big enough to call them out on it, and cant be bought by lobbists. The EU is a politically middle system, compared to America's "everyone can do what the **** they like". ;)

Do you actually understand what Intel did?

It's not "unfortunate". I've seen first hand Intel's some of tactics for years, but couldn't say anything because a) it wouldn't change anything and b) it was all completely off the record and those people that did show it to me would have lost their jobs and their businesses suffered.
Xtrafresh 18th May 2009, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Is that simply because "American Money" is flowing into EU pockets?

They broke local laws, they pay the penalty. At least the EU has balls big enough to call them out on it, and cant be bought by lobbists. The EU is a politically middle system, compared to America's "everyone can do what the **** they like". ;)

Do you actually understand what Intel did?

It's not "unfortunate". I've seen first hand Intel's some of tactics for years, but couldn't say anything because a) it wouldn't change anything and b) it was all completely off the record and those people that did show it to me would have lost their jobs and their businesses suffered.
Exactly how many people in the industry were aware of this? Or is it easier to count those that were NOT aware?

Anyway, completely agreed with the "cant be bought by lobbyists" comment.
perplekks45 18th May 2009, 16:14 Quote
It was pretty much known to everybody capable of reading between the lines of statements made by either Intel/AMD or the PC retailers like Dell/HP/...

Oh, and dag...

Thank you for attacking me when all I said was, that AMD is quite a good position and on par with Intel yet I still hope for more innovations.

I like you. You're cute. Can I keep him, Bindi?
He's like an overprotective brother or dog. :D
HourBeforeDawn 18th May 2009, 17:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldnewby
It just depends on how big a fish you are. Intel, the big fish slapped around AMD, the minnow.
Then along comes an even bigger fish and slaps around Intel. Unfortunatly for Intel there
have been, and are, lots of really big fish just waiting to slap Intel around some more. :) It's not just the EU. Japan and South Korea have also had a shot and the US courts will soon be bending Intel over as well. :o

I wouldn't feel too sorry for em. They will still make good CPU's and they will still make lot's
and lot's of money. :D

hmm okay I like that description :)
naokaji 19th May 2009, 00:06 Quote
nvm
SirFur 22nd May 2009, 23:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JyX
!
BTW, use a spellchecker... as simple as it might be, it helps!

I do not understand why we still have these silly quibbles on forums these days...? SO what? He made a few spelling mistakes - he may have been rushed to type and short of time or he may have other (better) things to do then just sit on a forum all day (not saying this is a bad thing necessarily :p ) and make sure every word he types is spelled right.

Oh...one more thing....can someone actually point out the spelling mistake that FatMikel made? I read his posts and didn't see a single one, except a few missing words in his typing which obviously shows he was in a rush.....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crompers
seems to me amd will always struggle to put out as many chips, they dont have as many fabs anyways.

That sadly may be true for some time to come unfortunately.....lets hope their new fab divison is able to rack up some profits that'll help them build a few extra fabs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crompers
as far as antitrust goes and holding the market to ransom i disagree. people buy intel procs because they are cheap and powerful, not because they dont know amd exist

This as you may have read further on is obviously not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
I think it's amazing they got fined, and that much as well.

Same here. Didn't expect this to happen at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45


BUT it won't stop any company [not even Intel] to just go and do the same thing over and over again. This is part of the free market we love so much!

Perhaps - but the free market also has the other side of the coin. Your free to do whatever you can to thrive, but push too much and you have to pay the price for the consequences......all the mentioned above have done so, and more are likely being investigated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatMikel
That's AMDs problem then, and it makes perfect business sense for Intel to capitalise on AMDs lack of supply.

That's perfect business sense - shame they couldn't go about it in a legal manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatMikel
Hence why I didn't say a single OEM was at fault, rather that all of them were for allowing this to happen in the first place.

Good point. I wonder how many OEMs were involved in all this.....the question would also need to be asked - did they even know that the other companies were being offered these things? If so, then why didn't they have the balls to stand up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizan
sarcasm
Was i not being transparent enough?

I don't think these jokes are at all appropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulk_Wulf
You can rant and rave about Intel, and what they did was unquestionably wrong, but do we want them to actually go UNDER?

No we don't (or at least I don't anyway). BUT, the fine they were charged is no where near enough to barely even dent them. They will appeal - why not = no company wishes to lose £1bill without at least a fight. This will hopefully get them to pull their dirty socks off and try and keep the new ones clean. It probably won't stop them completely and others from doing the same - but they need to know that they are being watched and that they need to play fair - playing fair is the only thing that will benefit us, as consumers. AMD will hopefully get a chance to develop and push forward future developments and put the petition back into competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
actually hes right, look at the History of AMD, they have made more technological break throughs then Intel, Intel simply sits back sees what AMD is doing and then copies it for themselves however I will admit that sometimes they do improve upon what AMD came up with but ya for the most they have made far more break through then intel has and thats simply fact despite how much you argue it. Of course Im speaking of the CPU market, not joint projects, when it comes to joint project Intel tries to get a hand in just about everything so they can take a little bit of credit of it.

That is a fact that I've observed over the last decade or so. I've always been frustrated as to why the Athlons didn't do much much better than they did - Athlon 64 was one of the best platforms of the time. Despite it doing well, it didn't do well enough imo.

And Danwood76 unless you try and put up an un-biased balanced and a logical well-thought out argument that actually supports what you're saying and refutes the evidences against it, you will lose your arguments exactly as you have so far in this thread.

Anyway - nice to be back in the UK! :)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
Asus Z97i-Plus Review

Asus Z97i-Plus Review

20th October 2014

Asus ROG Gladius Review

Asus ROG Gladius Review

15th October 2014