AMD Chimes In On Intel’s $1.45B Fine

AMD has nothing on Intel at this point from a product standpoint.

Maybe if they spent less time WHINING and more time STUDYING they would...
 
MavericK96 said:
Except, when there are only two choices, how is it really different? Really? Manufacturer A needs to buy a certain amount of CPUs to meet demand. Because that is constant, buying from Intel because you get a discount is the same thing as not buying from AMD because then they get a discount.

The way it was made to sound is that if they bought a certain percentage of their CPUs from Intel, they got a certain percentage of a discount. No one ever said anything to the extent of "if you don't buy all your CPUs from Intel, we won't sell to you".
Click to expand...

Do you ever think beyond what was already said??? Don't you see that Intel's monopolistic practices also contributed to demise of other chip manufacturers so the result is that only the best of them (AMD) has any chance to survive in this market?
 
That's a serious amount of money. They're going to complain about it also in court, so no one is paying still in a couple of years..
I feel that EU is a bit over exaggerating here. They seem to like to get big companies fined. While there may have been rules broken by Intel, I don't think AMD would be in a much better position, or have better products without Intel's actions.
 
Saist said:
Whether or not AMD sees a market share increase may by and large be determined by how actual vendors handle the news and the results. If vendors continue to stock and promote high numbers of Intel equipment because they want to, AMD might not be able to make any significant market moves. If vendors actually start stocking, and promoting, AMD kit alongside Intel kit, and promote it accurately, AMD's marketshare will probably go up.

One of the points made in AMD's blog, and it's one I bang on everytime I get a chance, is much more expensive Intel kit is for the same performance. Now, right now, if I want the ultimate performance, period, in x86 hardware, I would be buying Intel.

However, if I'm on a budget... what exactly could I get? Right now, Intel and AMD are roughly about the same on Instructions per clock speed, so I'll go by clockspeed alone for a minute or two.

Another thing, I am in the US, so these price lookups may or may not be accurate.

Now, I'm going to want maximum graphics power. So I want a 3way PCI-express 2.0 system.

A 3 way PCI-Express 2.0 board for Socket AM2 with DDR2 memory with 8x for each slot... will set me back around $170 for a good Asus board with an Nvidia chipset.

A 3 way PCI-Express 2.0 board for Socket AM3 with DDR3 memory with 16x for 2 slots, 4x for the third slot, would also cost about $170 for a middle reviewed DFI board.

A 3 way PCI-Express 2.0 board for Intel Core I7 starts at around $190 for a junk board, and I'm looking closer to $250 for a board with 2 16x slots. Granted, I could spend that $250 on a MicroATX board which does the same thing but will fit in an Apevia X-Qpack.

Okay. So, realistically, to get the same options support on Motherboards, I'm looking at a pretty hefty price premium for Intel Kit.

That matters if I have a limited amount to spend.

So what about processors?

Well, for a Quad-Core 3.0ghz processor from AMD, I'm looking at $225 for the 945 Deneb core.

Newegg only lists one Intel I7 that's above 3ghz, and it's the 3.2ghz Nehalem which costs around $999.

Okay, yes. the 3.2ghz Nehalem will outrun the 3.0ghz Socket AM3, and the $245 3.2ghz Phenom as well..


But really, Core I7 starts at $280 with the 2.66 Quad Core 920 from Intel. Okay, it's a kick butt processor. I'm not going to say it's not one. Is it really worth over $40 more than a Socket AM3 from AMD? No. It isn't.


So, for the average person, a high performance AMD platform is going to cost a chunk less than an equivalent performance system from Intel.

If Vendors who sell computer parts continue to price Intel and AMD system in the same price bracket (and I'm looking at HP and Dell when I say that), then AMD market share won't go anywhere.

However, if vendors start selling AMD products and making a point of the price difference without a difference in performance... we'll see the scenario AMD wants. We'll see Intel cutting prices like a PETA cuts through former pets. (yeah, not afraid to go there too)
Click to expand...

Meh, i7 stands alone IMO. There's no competition for it yet. AMD's Phenom I/II lines should be compared to Intel's Core2Duo/Quad lines, not the i7.
 
Methadras said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone or any company to say to another individual or company that "I won't do business with you if you do business with my competition." How is that even remotely wrong?
Click to expand...

You just defined "anti-competitive". 'Tis illegal, and rightfully so. Remember that the agreements extended to entire systems. You only have to get a couple of big vendors (e.g. Dell) to bite and consumer choice drops through the floor.

I am certain that Intel's parts and infrastructure have been superior to AMD's but that's irrelevant here. These practices reduce choice and competition.

What makes me uncomfortable is that compliance with the agreement would require a vendor to report to Intel not only what Intel products they had sold, but all competitive activity. It's like a monthly audit... by a supplier.

It has been stated in this thread that AMD couldn't source their demand. If that was the case, why did Intel resort to loyalty discounts at all?
 
R0N1 said:
That's a serious amount of money. They're going to complain about it also in court, so no one is paying still in a couple of years..
I feel that EU is a bit over exaggerating here. They seem to like to get big companies fined. While there may have been rules broken by Intel, I don't think AMD would be in a much better position, or have better products without Intel's actions.
Click to expand...

EU law states that even with appeal the amount is due in full paid cash in 3 months, no exceptions. They have huge penalties for not paying in 3 months. Oh yeah, it's also got to be paid in euros.

srangara said:
You just defined "anti-competitive". 'Tis illegal, and rightfully so. Remember that the agreements extended to entire systems. You only have to get a couple of big vendors (e.g. Dell) to bite and consumer choice drops through the floor.

I am certain that Intel's parts and infrastructure have been superior to AMD's but that's irrelevant here. These practices reduce choice and competition.

What makes me uncomfortable is that compliance with the agreement would require a vendor to report to Intel not only what Intel products they had sold, but all competitive activity. It's like a monthly audit... by a supplier.

It has been stated in this thread that AMD couldn't source their demand. If that was the case, why did Intel resort to loyalty discounts at all?
Click to expand...

Most companies does this, heck, it's been done to mine before. It's just a matter of when the company has an image, then the stakes are much higher.
 
And the fine goes to the EU, as they can't seem to run without US dollars.
 
I am certain that Intel's parts and infrastructure have been superior to AMD's but that's irrelevant here
Click to expand...

I don't think so, why would a large supplier sell an inferior problematic system that will cost them in warranty repairs and customer complaints. These large companies sell a known product, they are very reluctant to sell products with an unknown reliability history as far as they are concerned. If Dell sold AMD systems and they turned out very problematic, the customer would not see AMD as the problem but would see it as a Dell issue. I don't think these large companies need any incentives from Intel at all. They are on a one way manufacturing track and that's just the way they like it.
 
All these USA flag pin lapel wearing douche bags and AMD/European haters are laughable to watch wallow about, stroking them selves off in a frenzy in these threads, please continue.
 
KayossZero said:
All these USA flag pin lapel wearing douche bags and AMD/European haters are laughable to watch wallow about, stroking them selves off in a frenzy in these threads, please continue.
Click to expand...

As I told someone else in another thread, it has nothing to do with being American. Most of us disagree with our own government too. As Eeyjmr loves to point out in every EU thread, the US government goes after Intel and Microsoft too (and somehow keeps saying that we agree with it as a result :confused:).

I'm definitely not hating on AMD. I use their processors exclusively since the 486 dx4 120MHz days. I just don't want to see AMD dig themselves into a deeper hole from being comfortable hiding behind government wings instead of actually innovating and producing good processors.
 
KayossZero said:
All these USA flag pin lapel wearing douche bags and AMD/European haters are laughable to watch wallow about, stroking them selves off in a frenzy in these threads, please continue.
Click to expand...

Obvious troll is obvious.


No go fetch *throws troll a cookie*
 
Just thought I'd chime in and lend my support to this decision. These laws are in place for a reason.

Threatening you with higher prices than your competition unless you conform and calling it 'rebates' is a bit like calling racketeering 'protection'. With their lawyers, business advisors and economists, Intel knew what they were getting themselves into as these kinds of practices are textbook examples of unethical business behavior taught at any business school. They knew they were treading thin ice, took their chance, and lost. Simple as. The size of the fine is then based on an amount to be higher than what they gained from it.

That's my take on it anyway.
 
roccovw said:
I don't think so, why would a large supplier sell an inferior problematic system that will cost them in warranty repairs and customer complaints. These large companies sell a known product, they are very reluctant to sell products with an unknown reliability history as far as they are concerned.
Click to expand...

There is always a balance that they have. Have you looked at a Dell system. Cheap motherboard, cheap PSU, cheap video card. They are not high end quality systems unless you order them as such. Plus with tech products manufacturers are always selling products with an unknown reliability history. That's why they are new products.
 
People talk about Intel as though they just sprang into existence overnight as a giant all powerful entity.They started from the ground up,like any other business,and worked to get where they are.If AMD were in their position,they'd do the same things to stay on top.They had to know they were in for a fight when they decided to compete directly with Intel.They managed to pass them briefly,but made bad decisions and got overconfident.In business,it's put up or shut up.
 
i am saying what intel did was wrong and im glad that the trial in the us is comming next year

to all of thoes that think amd has not innovated since the core2 came out ummm core 2 quad is just a pos mcm with 2 core 2 duos. the pehnom 1 even though it was basically a disaster was the 1st true quadcore design on the market. further more on the mobile side of thing what is stil ltoday the best igp chipset in the mobile space the 780g as well with the completely reworked k8. a company does not sit on its ass for 2 years a company is always moving foward
 
The Core 2 Quads performed very well and still do. Does it really matter how Intel got there? Calling it a POS is beyond ridiculous. Furthermore, Intel's first "true" quad is sure better than AMD's by a country mile.
 
Who cares which is 'better'... fanboy wars (or 'user preferences') have no bearing on this. The fact remains that Intel broke a law that exists for a very good reason and deserved exactly what they had coming.

Watching the other thread devolve into political retardation about the 'godless socialist EU' was bad enough, and there's no reason for this one to do the same. So why not just agree that both architectures are pretty good and stick to the subject? If AMD had done the same they would have deserved the same, period.

I'd be far more concerned with people condoning illegal behaviors that violate their own self-interest because they're worried that someone might label them 'socialist'. Now, that is retarded.
 
thejulex said:
Do you ever think beyond what was already said??? Don't you see that Intel's monopolistic practices also contributed to demise of other chip manufacturers so the result is that only the best of them (AMD) has any chance to survive in this market?
Click to expand...

What does any of that even have to do with what I posted? :rolleyes:

Like I said, unless the situation was, in fact, that Intel was not selling to OEMs unless they solely bought Intel products (which I'm fairly certain is not the case, and that would be downright idiotic business sense anyway), I don't see how saying "If you buy more of our products than AMD, we'll give you a bigger discount" is "monopolistic". You know that AMD would/should/has done the same thing in the past. It's called competition in a free market. Nothing was stopping them from buying AMD other than getting a better deal from Intel. It's not like Intel was going to "break their legs" if they bought AMD. They make it out to sound like this big intimidation thing, but how the fuck does that even make sense? Obviously they wanted Intel chips enough to agree to such an agreement, otherwise they just as easily could have gone AMD, and I'm sure AMD would have been happy to have it, considering the state they're in now.
 
And because there's a lot of talk about "fanboy" bullshit, I'd like to mention that the Core i7 is the first Intel chip I've used/purchased since the 100 MHz Pentium. Everything in between has been AMD.
 
It won't make much of a difference either way. Even without the practices, vendors will still avoid AMD for the most part. The only thing going for AMD at this point is the price of there CPU's & that is it. Remember when HP had a fleet of AMD laptops & Desktops? There market share fell down incredibly fast. It didn't even take them a year to go back to mostly Intel. Apple will always be strictly Intel. Dell has always favored Intel. Even when the AMD 64 was the far superior CPU.

To sum it all up, the fine will not really change anything. If anything, this will just motivate Intel even more that they'll engineer a new fleet of CPU's that will finally put the nail in AMD's coffin. I've used AMD products for years. Had an Athlon Thunderbird 1ghz, AMD XP 2500+ barton & a AMD 64 3700+ San Diego. After the AMD 64, AMD has been nothing more than a joke than competition, They are nothing more than a thorn in Intel's ass now. Under cutting them by releasing CPU's that are marked down a great deal. I can only imagine how bad Intel wants to kill them off & this situation should finally convince them to attempt to do so.
 
hordaktheman said:
Just thought I'd chime in and lend my support to this decision. These laws are in place for a reason.

Threatening you with higher prices than your competition unless you conform and calling it 'rebates' is a bit like calling racketeering 'protection'. With their lawyers, business advisors and economists, Intel knew what they were getting themselves into as these kinds of practices are textbook examples of unethical business behavior taught at any business school. They knew they were treading thin ice, took their chance, and lost. Simple as. The size of the fine is then based on an amount to be higher than what they gained from it.

That's my take on it anyway.
Click to expand...

Stay in school children, so as not to sound uneducated. Quoted for accuracy and truth. :p
 
Xerran said:
It's amazing that many here do not know that if one corporation dominates the market CPU prices will go through the roof. Another thing to note is the most disturbing fact that the intel corporation has been supporting an apartheid regime since 1974. They will never see a penny of my money.
Click to expand...

One of the things that just tickles me inside is when people throws words such as "apartheid" without any knowledge of really what it means or where it originated from... take you and that media article for example.

So I'll say it in three letters, LOL
 
Xerran said:
It's amazing that many here do not know that if one corporation dominates the market CPU prices will go through the roof. Another thing to note is the most disturbing fact that the intel corporation has been supporting an apartheid regime since 1974. They will never see a penny of my money.
Click to expand...

You drive a Ford or Volkswagen? They were Nazi supporters during WW2. What about Remington, and Smith and Wesson? They sold guns to the Confederates during the American Civil War.
 
rflcptr said:
I'm not taking sides, but it's funny hearing this from a company that sat on their asses up to and ~2 years after Intel brought Core 2 to the table.
Click to expand...

I would say his credibility for making these statements is pretty shaky, nevertheless a different perspective on the situation whether we agree or not.
 
Xerran said:
It's amazing that many here do not know that if one corporation dominates the market CPU prices will go through the roof. Another thing to note is the most disturbing fact that the intel corporation has been supporting an apartheid regime since 1974. They will never see a penny of my money.
Click to expand...

haha.gif


HAW HAW!!!
 
Azhar said:
You drive a Ford or Volkswagen? They were Nazi supporters during WW2. What about Remington, and Smith and Wesson? They sold guns to the Confederates during the American Civil War.
Click to expand...

I'm not not talking about WW2. I'm talking about the present.
 
Xerran said:
I'm not not talking about WW2. I'm talking about the present.
Click to expand...

You're aware the South Africa became independent of British rule in 1994 when they held a national election under Nelson Mandela of course? That's like 15 years ago. Hardly the present.
 
Azhar said:
You're aware the South Africa became independent of British rule in 1994 when they held a national election under Nelson Mandela of course? That's like 15 years ago. Hardly the present.
Click to expand...

Umm SA became independent from Britain in 1931

You are talking about Apartheid being broken and free elections being help


 
Joe Average said:
Honestly I could care care even less (and yes I know people read that wrong and think I should be saying "couldn't care less" but I'm not, it's accurate) about AMD anymore.
Click to expand...
I'll go ahead and PM Dan and tell him to swing by and give you a quick lesson :)

MavericK96 said:
Yeah, honestly I don't see how those are any different from giving discounts for bulk purchases. The more the company buys from Intel, the better deal they got. How is that in any way unfair?
Click to expand...
It's a little bit different. Usually there are no contractual obligations to not purchase the majority of products from one vendor exclusively to receive bulk discounts. If you buy a certain quantity, you get the discount, and bada-bing-bada-boom.

Still, I think what Intel did is totally fair. We have to realize that these are business-to-business agreements and have literally nothing to do with consumers (who need no protection from these practices). In reality, the consumers stand to benefit with lower prices and greater competition. The major vendors are going to sell Intel regardless, since Intel has the greatest brand penetration in the CPU market by far.

AMD isn't failing because Intel is successful. AMD is failing for other reasons entirely.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Umm SA became independent from Britain in 1931

You are talking about Apartheid being broken and free elections being help
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. But my point stands. Apartheid is hardly "the present". Holding on to hate and anger makes you no better than them.
 
xdivenx said:
* 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.

Lol, these sound like TERRIBLE and UNFAIR business practices. Good thing they don't have bullshit legislation like this in the US yet.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between giving a discount for X amount of hardware purchased, then a Percentage, percentage excludes or diminishes other Brands which is a violation of trade rules - even American ones. I hope they have their ass handed to them - in the US too.
All the people who don't realize that due to less sales there's less R&D money usually resulting in an inferior product need to remove their heads from their asses - right now.
AMD are magicians in my book for being able to pull off HD4XXX and Phenom II in this state of financial losses.
For those of you with a short memory - the years in question include AMD's AMD64 years where in part of them they had a SUPERIOR product to Intel's NetBurst crapitechture.
I value price performance - and I bet Intel's and AMD's would be better today if Intel ahdn't pulled this crap.
Bottom line - Intel's bullying costs consumers money and diminishes innovation of competitors - anyone who thinks that's a good thing must have Intel stock or work there.
 
Ockie said:
One of the things that just tickles me inside is when people throws words such as "apartheid" without any knowledge of really what it means or where it originated from... take you and that media article for example.

So I'll say it in three letters, LOL
Click to expand...

Your obviously not well educated in such matters because if you were you would realize that the apartheid shoe fits the fascist Israeli government oh so well. Forget corporate media and their special interests and look at what world renown reputable organizations and people like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Neturei Karta International, ifamericansknew.org, Professor Norman Finkelstein, Professor Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and George Galloway have to say.

The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu wrote an article titled "Apartheid in the Holy Land". Jimmy Carter the the 39th President of the United States and the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize wrote a book titled none other than "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it (preferably whilst listening to some Cat Stevens, Peace Train is highly recommended).
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Since the Intel corporation invests in apartheid and builds on "ethnically cleansed" land they will never see a penny of my money
 
rflcptr said:
Since it seems you like to be an asshat, reported.
Click to expand...

I posted my opinion and some posted theirs with the inclusion of references to fecal matter and proctology but I'm the one you want to report?

As Admiral Ackbar said "It's a trap".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top