AMD sues Intel

[[nitin design]]

I hope that AMD gets something out of it.

"AMD said its lawsuit alleges that Intel has coerced customers away from dealing with AMD, and was based on evidence obtained from 38 companies."

I wonder if Apple was one of these companies http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/twisted.gif

[Thalaxis]

The last time Intel got embroiled in this sort of a case, they ended up losing, but the winning party was
already done for by then (Intergraph).

I guess Intel's not too pleased about the AMD64 stuff now that the Xeon is getting squeezed out of the
market with Itanium giving it an artificial ceiling and AMD Opteron gaining ground on Xeon's home turf.

And I'm sure it doesn't help that Opterons are faster, even without the second core -- especially in
enterprise applications.

[TetraLynx]

I found more on the article here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050628043815368I love AMD but I have to admit that Intel has some good products. This isn't an issue over performance though it's an issue of companies having more choice as to who to partner with without fear of retaliation. The rise of the new 64 bit chips is the perfect time for this lawsuit to come up.

[Para]

Hmm, I wonder if EMT64 will be affected by this in terms of Intel being forced to make it working 1:1 as the x86-64 standard.

[richcz3]

This is interesting because AMD will subpoena some of its own supporters. Execs they may ultimately alienate by having them speak up against Intels practices. I wonder how this will effect current and future cross licensing between the two.

[Beamtracer]

This isn't an issue over performance though it's an issue of companies having more choice as to who to partner with without fear of retaliation.
I think it is an issue about performance. AMD's processors are out-performing ones from Intel in a similar class, yet some PC manufacturers won't stock them. Why?

Dell gives you no choice in processors. If you buy a Dell you have to get an Intel processor with it.

Unfortunately, Apple now seems to be in the same situation. Previously, Apple's chips came from both IBM and Motorola-Freescale. Next year it'll be just Intel.

I don't like these exclusive Intel-only deals. It has previously been speculated that Dell gets volume discounts as well as cross-promotional opportunities from Intel, as long as it doesn't sell AMD processors.

Now, AMD's lawsuit alleges that Intel gives cash payments to companies as an incentive not to sell AMD processors. That's pretty bad, don't you think?

So, next time you're going to buy a new computer, you may want to check out if that computer manufacturer has models with both AMD and Intel processors, or if they are one of these Intel-only companies described in the lawsuit.

[mummey]

There is alot of speculation and misinformation in this thread already. I'm not going to point fingers. (Beamtracer) ;)

I would suggest that each of you get some background info on the state of AMD and Intel. The critical point is: AMD is only alleging that Intel has commited these acts. That alone does not make them true.

[Beamtracer]

There is alot of speculation and misinformation in this thread already. I'm not going to point fingers. (Beamtracer) ;)
"mummey", rather than pointing your finger at me and accusing "misinformation", it would be better to just quote whatever I said that you feel was wrong and discuss that instead.



Here's a quote from The Register:
"To this day, AMD's Opteron processor outperforms Intel's Xeon chip on so many benchmarks that few question Opteron's superiority. Intel is a full process generation behind AMD, putting just one core in its Xeon while AMD has two engines in Opteron. AMD's method of handling memory with integrated memory controllers for each chip is said to be years ahead of similar technology being developed by Intel to avoid bottlenecks caused by its dependence on a FSB (front side bus). But despite all this, AMD has failed to win one of the world's major server vendors - Dell - as a customer or to meet market share goals - 10 per cent - with Opteron."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/amd_suit_intel/



Here's a quote from eWeek:
"AMD also charges that Intel established and enforced quotas that required retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City to stock mostly or only exclusively Intel computers. AMD claims Office Depot declined to stock AMD-processor notebooks, citing the risk of retaliation.

AMD also said Intel used its position to handicap AMD systems on a technical level. Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium and designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer with an AMD chip, the suit charges."
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1832191,00.asp

I have noticed some retailers only stocking Intel product, and not stocking any AMD product. It did make me wonder why.

[novadude]

I would suggest that each of you get some background info on the state of AMD and Intel. The critical point is: AMD is only alleging that Intel has commited these acts. That alone does not make them true.


Ever wonder how Dell can sell the public a complete system for $100 over the cost of the CPU (as published by Intel, usually as $XXXXX/1000 CPU's)?

[parallax]

There is alot of speculation and misinformation in this thread already. I'm not going to point fingers. (Beamtracer) ;)

I would suggest that each of you get some background info on the state of AMD and Intel. The critical point is: AMD is only alleging that Intel has commited these acts. That alone does not make them true.


How about making that personal experience with representatives of said company. When i worked in a computer shop i had the misfortune of witnessing the business ethics that apparently dominate the no.1 CPU supplier. This was a rather small shop with its own brand of computers (back then build by that British system integrator that almost went bust; lost the name).
The all BUT said: "i want you to stop selling AMD systems"

[Thalaxis]

"mummey", rather than pointing your finger at me and accusing "misinformation", it would be better to just quote whatever I said that you feel was wrong and discuss that instead.


Given your track record and the fact that you actually believe that the Register is a good source of
information, you don't have much of a leg to stand on when you deny posting misinformation.

In any case, in addition to the fact that AMD's case is still largely unproven, there are some issues in
it that don't make any sense. For example, they criticize Intel's compilers as being Intel-specific when
they do not have dominant market share in that market (that would be MS), and the majority of AMD's
best benchmark numbers use Intel compilers.

We're not going to have an outcome on this for a long time, but it's going to be interesting to see what
that outcome is. I suspect that Intel is guilty of some of the charges, but the question is whether AMD can
prove that to the courts' satisfaction.

[AKDesigns]

hehehehe.... oooooo ttssssssss .... fight fight fight!! :buttrock:

[Beamtracer]

There is alot of speculation and misinformation in this thread already. I'm not going to point fingers. (Beamtracer)Given your track record and the fact that you actually believe that the Register is a good source of
information, you don't have much of a leg to stand on when you deny posting misinformation.hehehehe.... oooooo ttssssssss .... fight fight fight!! :buttrock:
It's really unfortunate that discussion on technology degrades into personal mud fights. If you don't like what I say about technology, why not just post your own different thoughts about that technology, rather than posting personal stuff in the hope of starting a flame?





For those genuinely interested in the AMD-Intel lawsuit, here's some more links:

From Forbes magazine:
Intel CEO Otellini Slams AMD 'Excuses And Speculation'
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/2005/06/28/0628autofacescan11.html?partner=rss



From IDG / MacWorld:
"It is no great secret that Intel provides the so-called market development funds — really just cash payments — to PC vendors to support marketing activities around new chips or new technologies"
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/29/intelamd/index.php



From InfoWorld:
"Intel and AMD: a long history in court"
http://news.com.com/Intel+and+AMD+A+long+history+in+court/2100-7341_3-5767146.html?part=rss&tag=5767146&subj=news



From InfoWorld:
Advanced Micro Devices will place a full-page advertisement in seven U.S. newspapers on Wednesday, explaining why it filed suit and encouraging newspaper readers to delve into the full text of its 48-page complaint
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/29/HNamdurges_1.html

[mummey]

Beam: If calling you out causes you to use real sources in your statements, rather than the "PR boy" for the Register or some Mac-Rumour site, then I only wish I had done it sooner. :D

Now let's get back on topic. :twisted:

[Thalaxis]

It's really unfortunate that discussion on technology degrades into personal mud fights. If you don't like what I say about technology, why not just post your own different thoughts about that technology, rather than posting personal stuff in the hope of starting a flame?l (http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/29/HNamdurges_1.html)

You are in no position to be taking the high ground.

[leuey]

To be somewhat OnT - I think that this was inevitable. Intel is pretty ruthless and I don't think AMD would level the charge unless they had all their ducks in a row. This kind of litigation is *very* expensive. Perhaps AMD feels like they only have a year or two of a lead on Intel and they need to move forward with this now (it will take at least a year to run it's course, probably a lot longer).


I for one am rooting for AMD - can you imagine what it would be like without AMD? What incentive would Intel have had to push for 64 bit on their x86 line? They would have pushed forward over-priced/underperforming Itanics or left us to move on to Apple, Sun, or even back to SGI (not that's it a bad thing, but right now the price/performance of AMD is fantastic).

I've invested in AMD myself and will continue to do so - I think they're on the right track and I wish them luck in this suit.

-Greg

[novadude]

To be somewhat OnT - I think that this was inevitable.

Intel's recent problem in Japan warned you that the shit was about to hit the fan, did it? :)

[Thalaxis]

To be somewhat OnT - I think that this was inevitable. Intel is pretty ruthless and I don't think AMD would level the charge unless they had all their ducks in a row. This kind of litigation is *very* expensive. Perhaps AMD feels like they only have a year or two of a lead on Intel and they need to move forward with this now (it will take at least a year to run it's course, probably a lot longer).


Or (and out of optimism I'm hoping this is the case), AMD wants to make sure that there
are no artificial "obstacles" in front of them when they bring their new fab online and
start producing volume enough to have a shot at real market share.

In the end, whether the allegations end up being true or not, this will generate a LOT of
publicity for AMD.


I for one am rooting for AMD - can you imagine what it would be like without AMD? What incentive would Intel have had to push for 64 bit on their x86 line?


More significant IMO is the fact that AMD has their own platform and higher performance.
Let's be serious, 64-bit memory capacity is more than 99% of the current PC user base
has any need for right now, and it's going to be even longer in the laptop market than in
the mainstream PC market before the transition becomes significant.

AMD64 was a political victory, but not what allowed AMD to get into the driver's seat.

Having said that, I do agree with you.


They would have pushed forward over-priced/underperforming Itanics or left us to move on to Apple, Sun, or even back to SGI (not that's it a bad thing, but right now the price/performance of AMD is fantastic).


You're in for a bit of a surprise.


I've invested in AMD myself and will continue to do so - I think they're on the right track and I wish them luck in this suit.


I intend to get myself a nice new AMD box for Christmas or something as well. I was
originally thinking about getting it this summer, but ended up choosing a vacation instead
:)

[leuey]

? - I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about a new product or something?

-Greg

.

You're in for a bit of a surprise.

:)

[Thalaxis]

? - I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about a new product or something?

-Greg

Yes -- Montecito. Due this summer.

[Terrell]

I've invested in AMD myself and will continue to do so - I think they're on the right track and I wish them luck in this suit.

The blind brand loyalty from people never ceases to amazes me. It's reminds me of this DTS versus DD mess. To hell with AMD winning. How about let's hope truth wins out. If Intel is not guilty of the accusations, I hope they win. If AMD is right, I hope they win.

[leuey]

What the hell are you talking about blind loyalty? I've been a professional in computer graphics for over a decade and have run my own company w/ success for nearly 4 years now. I've invested 10's of thousands in a renderfarm and software after doing enormous amounts of research and a ton of experience. I've had both Intel AND AMD as clients (and Sun, HP, Nvidia, and IBM btw) and have first hand experience with just about every piece of hardware and software used to create 3D that's been available since the Amiga 1000.

Where the hell do you get 'blind loyalty' from "I've invested in AMD and wish them luck?" Anybody with an iota of knowledge about the industry can make the assesment that AMD is on the right track in terms of their technology.

use your brain you noob.

-Greg



The blind brand loyalty from people never ceases to amazes me. It's reminds me of this DTS versus DD mess. To hell with AMD winning. How about let's hope truth wins out. If Intel is not guilty of the accusations, I hope they win. If AMD is right, I hope they win.

[mummey]

What the hell are you talking about blind loyalty? I've been a professional in computer graphics for over a decade and have run my own company w/ success for nearly 4 years now. I've invested 10's of thousands in a renderfarm and software after doing enormous amounts of research and a ton of experience. I've had both Intel AND AMD as clients (and Sun, HP, Nvidia, and IBM btw) and have first hand experience with just about every piece of hardware and software used to create 3D that's been available since the Amiga 1000.

Where the hell do you get 'blind loyalty' from "I've invested in AMD and wish them luck?" Anybody with an iota of knowledge about the industry can make the assesment that AMD is on the right track in terms of their technology.

use your brain you noob.

-Greg

Wow! Someone needs to get OFF the caffiene! :eek:

[leuey]

Actually I just woke up from a micro nap to my daughter screaming and am now going to work until 3:00 a.m. for the 4th consecutive night. Try running your own company w/ 2 kids. I'm in a BAAAAAAAAAAD moood! :twisted:

-Greg

Wow! Someone needs to get OFF the caffiene! :eek:

[js33]

Well let's not forget history here. AMD basically stole (reverse engineered) the x86 design from Intel years ago and were allowed to continue after a court battle so Intel wouldn't have a monopoly. Intel's Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby (RIP) of Texas Instruments (just down the street from me) are credited with inventing the integrated circuit. Well Jack Kilby was actually first and Robert Noyce came up with his own version about a month later but they agreed to share the credit.

But as time went on Intel did act alot like Microsoft with predatory terms with PC makers and basically ignored that AMD even existed or mattered until the last few years when AMD started to actually innovate and extend the x86 achitecture to 64 bits and the integrated memory controller. Now Intel is playing catchup and AMD knows they have an edge technically and major PC makers (Dell) still won't/can't use their chips because of the contracts they have with Intel.

I do believe the playing field should be leveled and PC makers should be allowed to choose or make products with both chips if they want to. But there are many companies that do use both, HP/Compaq, Acer, Boxx, IBM etc... so it almost makes you wonder if it just comes down to Dell?

Cheers,
JS

[Thalaxis]

Well let's not forget history here. AMD basically stole (reverse engineered) the x86 design from Intel years ago and were allowed to continue after a court battle so Intel wouldn't have a monopoly.


Before that, AMD had a license to x86 and access to Intel's microcode. They started reverse
engineering the x86 cores after Intel ended their license agreement.

There was a time when IBM also had an x86 license, and designed their own version of several x86
processors, and fabricated them in-house.


Now Intel is playing catchup and AMD knows they have an edge technically and major PC makers (Dell) still won't/can't use their chips because of the contracts they have with Intel.


As far as I know, AMD is still capacity-constrained. I don't think AMD could meet Dell's demand if
AMD's life depended on it.

It makes sense for them to try to pre-empt any such tactics, because though AMD isn't a real
threat to Intel right now, I think it should be obvious to anyone not living under an extremely large rock
that the only reason for that is that AMD has only one operational fab at present. The volumes the new
fab will allow give AMD headroom enough to more than double their market share. THAT would
constitute a genuine threat to Intel, and the fact that AMD is successfully selling processors at their
current staggerinly high prices is proof that people want them.

Unless AMD is unable to compete on their own merits, they're almost certain to gain a lot of market
share next year, so it's pretty obvious as to why AMD is willing to dedicate a lot of effort to trying
to keep the playing field as level as they can.


I do believe the playing field should be leveled and PC makers should be allowed to choose or make products with both chips if they want to. But there are many companies that do use both, HP/Compaq, Acer, Boxx, IBM etc... so it almost makes you wonder if it just comes down to Dell?


Even Dell only accounts for 20% of the x86 market. That's not going to be enough to make or break
AMD, but getting Dell on board would a moral victory with great PR consequences for AMD.

[t-man152]

in this thread anyone who says anything good or encouraging about AMD is pounced on by intel fan boys. a couple years ago there were more AMD fan biys. people their just processors. use the best one available to you and shut up. who cares what company makes it. intel is good and so is AMD just happens that right now AMD is better in the X86-64 market due to better architecture which they have relied on in the past while intel relies on raw power (Ghz) two differnt strategies, both work, for a while AMD was ahead, then intel now AMD again. it will change again without a doubt

and intel is getting an extra 5 or so percent of the computer industry (The apple folks)

well see how they do in court. from what I have seen I think AMD is right. Intel has a history of using "techniques" to get more clients such as making 3dmark optimized for the P4 a couple years back

[Neil]

AMD makes a good chip.
Too bad they never seem to advertise! Their name only seems to come out when it comes to court cases or comparitive reports from Intel. They need to step up and say "our current gen chips are better than Intel AND cheaper! buy one and find out!"

[Beamtracer]

A columnist in the latest MacWorld magazine blasts Dell for not giving customers any choice in processor brands (Dell only sells Intel and won't sell AMD processors), and chastises Apple for joining them.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/05/dudemac/index.php

Are these exclusive Intel deals good? Customers seem to like it. They flock to buy Dell machines more than any other.

What about high-end users? Judging by sales figures, they also seem very happy to buy a Dell.

[Thalaxis]

AMD makes a good chip.
Too bad they never seem to advertise! Their name only seems to come out when it comes to court cases or comparitive reports from Intel. They need to step up and say "our current gen chips are better than Intel AND cheaper! buy one and find out!"

Doing that effectively isn't cheap, and AMD's barely had enough money to get their
processors out the door lately. Don't forget how close they were to bankruptcy after
more than two years of 50-60 million dollar quarterly losses.

They're doing a lot better now, but as far as I can tell, most of their extra revenue is going
into buying more fabs and designing more processors. Give them some time. :)

[Herehear]

Noone should post in this thread before reading this!
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf

[Terrell]

I've been a professional in computer graphics for over a decade and have run my own company w/ success for nearly 4 years now. I've invested 10's of thousands in a renderfarm and software after doing enormous amounts of research and a ton of experience. I've had both Intel AND AMD as clients (and Sun, HP, Nvidia, and IBM btw) and have first hand experience with just about every piece of hardware and software used to create 3D that's been available since the Amiga 1000.

Who cares! Good for you! That doesn't mean you know anything about this case. You know nothing about any evidence. Neither do I. We won't know what the evidence is until we see it, and I don't care what we do for a living.

Where the hell do you get 'blind loyalty' from

I think you know where I got that from, you own post where you wish them well in their suit. If you can't handle that, tough!

Anybody with an iota of knowledge about the industry can make the assesment that AMD is on the right track in terms of their technology.

What the hell does that have anything to do with suit in question. They do make great processors. Where did I or anyone question that? Nowhere as I recall. My comments were strictly in regards to you wishing them well in the suit. I said to hell with wishing AMD well. I prefer to wish whoever has the facts on their side, well?

use your brain you noob.

Please! Such a tired, cliched insult. I've been here for over a year. That hardly classifies me as a noob. I just choose not to spend inordinate amounts of time posting on this message board

[shuggie]

So which one of you two has the biggest e-penis then?

[Beamtracer]

Breaking News:

Police Raid Intel Offices Across Europe

Officials from the European Commission, the executive arm and antitrust watchdog of the European Union, raided the European offices of Intel Corp. and a number of PC manufacturers on Tuesday.

A representative of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Inc. welcomed the news of the Commission’s raid. “It’s a sign the investigation into Intel’s continuing infringements of E.U. competition rules is being stepped up,” said Jens Drews, AMD’s director of government relations. He added that AMD had provided the European Commission with “strong evidence of illegal activities” by Intel which, he said, had “clearly been sufficient for the E.U. to respond with its strongest weapon — the dawn raid.”

Drews continued: “Intel is preventing customers from buying AMD products with threats and payments”

Links:
MacCentral
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/13/intelraid/index.php
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4675849.stm

[Spater]

wow, this is heavy:eek:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.