Intel is not getting my business.

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jdraughn

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
324
I don't know why i'm posting this, I guess I am just kind of wondering what everyone else's thoughts are on the subject. With the recent legal stuff going down between Intel and AMD, and Intel and everyone else, it kind of got me thinking.

Back in the day I used to be an AMD fanboy. Mainly because I didn't have much money and they were really the best way to go for the money, plus for a time they WERE the best out there. Fast forward 10 or 15 years and now that I am self sustaining I found myself spending more money to get the best, so for the last few years I have mainly bought Intel processors.

The sad thing is, right now Intel has the best there is, and people will always buy the fastest processor. I have decided to hold off on buying any Intel platforms for the forseeable future. Knowing what I know about how Intel deals with it's competition, which is not just unfair, but morally wrong, I cannot buy another Intel CPU without feeling like I am an accomplice.
 
It would help if you provided said evidence or reason why Intel's dealings with competition is morally wrong or unfair.
 
I think he is referring to the billion+ that Intel is paying AMD to settle their dispute, and also the FTC suit just filed against Intel alleging said allegations (unfair, illegal, etc..)
 
Intel created the industry. Without Intel.. you wouldn't even have a PC. As far as AMD goes... it was a flash in the pan. Nobody (IBM maybe) can compete with Intel for consumer PCs. Nobody has the capital.. the lifelong engineers.. the laboratories... the patents.. AMD is going to go away eventually.
 
The FTC suit:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm

And the disgusting allegations:

"The FTC’s administrative complaint charges that Intel carried out its anticompetitive campaign using threats and rewards aimed at the world’s largest computer manufacturers, including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM, to coerce them not to buy rival computer CPU chips. Intel also used this practice, known as exclusive or restrictive dealing, to prevent computer makers from marketing any machines with non-Intel computer chips.

In addition, allegedly, Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as a compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors’ CPU chips. Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors’ CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were due largely or entirely to Intel’s compiler design."
 
Well Is That a fact!!!!

You know it's Ironic that Intel HAD THE HUSH HUSH on Larribee.... When

Nvidia is struggling as it is now!
Ati/Amd has there own graphics

If They do have something that could totally wipe ass... Then you know that releasing it now would really make them a monopoly.

That wouldn't be to good much better to pay off and settle the lawsuit so they can mop there floor with everyones ass later.
 
osalcido said:
Intel created the industry. Without Intel.. you wouldn't even have a PC. As far as AMD goes... it was a flash in the pan. Nobody (IBM maybe) can compete with Intel for consumer PCs. Nobody has the capital.. the lifelong engineers.. the laboratories... the patents.. AMD is going to go away eventually.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I disagree to an extent.

Yeah Intel did create affordable pc's at first and hogged all the profits. But In the beginning they only bought the X86 License because it was looking good for it already to an extent.

Now if via Would get there act togather.... hopefully via can step in and open up there x86 market.

The reason Intel right as of now has the highend seperated from the lowend... I7/I5 is becasue amd is bleeding. Competition is good AMD wanted to have affordable computing

HENCE SOCKET A

Hopefully they can patch that up and maybe the lawsuit will allow via to come in .
Now without amd we would be haveing single core Proccesors because Intel didn't want that. They wanted speed and cache size per dollar.


you would be running a 10ghz single cored pentium 1 if it wasn't for AMD.

compettion is good for everybody as it creates more jobs and also doesn't allow one company to become a monopoly

What would you say if in 10 years

2 companys were only allowed to make electric cars... and one of them was killing off the other one.... and everything else was held unaffordable at 10 dollars a gallon of gas.... would you think they were bad then


Amd knows becasue theyve been stuck on the lowend for so long. that everyone can't afford to replace an 800 dollar computer every 2 years and afford to buy there highend proccesors. So they try to make a single socket stick so that you can spend 250-300 dollars every year and buy a better proccesor becasue you would spend more money on there chips becasue that helped sell more chips for more profit and overall better gains for the consumer

now intel wants to sell chipsets and proccesors. even though buying a proccsor 1 year later would be more benefical for the consumer with the old chipset better performance...

If AMD Dies were screwed.

AMD invented 64bit
Multiple core proccesors for the consumer
Integrated Memory Controller.
Trys to keep to a standard socket. So its cheaper to upgrade and they sell more chips.

Intel trys to
Keep multiple cores out of the question
seperate the market with multiple chipsets and pinned proccesors (lowend segment and Highend segment)
Tried to keep as much stuff in 2 seperate chips... aka memory controller for so long.... so that the chipset wouldn't get integrated into the cpu eventually.

Intel doesn't want AMD Dead so saying that Amd is toast is not true..... Who owns amd's stock!

So now with that in mind. AMD is there corenerstone on not being a monopoly.... They just have to yinyang the situation in order to keep profits up and appearance of innovation up.
They are paying off amd in order to settel the dispute so that they can release larrabee later. Trust me
 
Last edited:
Ive been building AMD rigs since the K5 days. I refuse to build anything else. I have never nor will I ever build an Intel system. AMD still remains the best bang for the buck. If you think Intel cpus are expensive now..just think how it would be if there were no AMD. There would be no enthusiast market. I'm not debating who makes the better CPU. I just choose to support the little guy because Intel needs the competition.
 
the claim that we'd have "10GHZ Pentium 1's" without AMD is crap, and that isn't heresay on my part, there is a very real physical wall (and I can't say a lot more than that)

and as far as "oh Intel is the big bad guy we can't buy them ever", this crap has been going on for the last 20 years with Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, Sun, Oracle, you name 'em and they've done it to keep a monopoly on their products: ideas

the fact that Intel is getting its wrist slapped this year isn't anything surprising, and the fact that AMD continues to sue them isn't surprising either (they've only been doing it for about as long as there has been an Intel)

as far as "AMD keeps Intel in line and provides them competition", they hardly approach doing that, they represent such a small portion of the market, and the majority of their sales are to end-users/retail or boutiques (which are a very small piece of the full market pie), the reality is, Intel's customers keep them in line, even if they had a complete monopoly on microprocessors (they basically do as it is), they can't charge whatever they like because it will cut into their sales heavily (because if you run the price up, people stop buying)

also, the list of things attributed to AMD is laughable (next you're gonna tell me they died on the cross for our sins and helped your 97 year old grandmother mow her lawn last weekend)
 
osalcido said:
Intel created the industry. Without Intel.. you wouldn't even have a PC. As far as AMD goes... it was a flash in the pan. Nobody (IBM maybe) can compete with Intel for consumer PCs. Nobody has the capital.. the lifelong engineers.. the laboratories... the patents.. AMD is going to go away eventually.
Click to expand...

Wrong, IBM created the market. I thought this was a very well known fact. Well, now the forum knows. IBM, believe it or not, is still the 'big dog' and Intel is just one of its many suppliers. IBM sells not only Intel and AMD-based systems, but also IBM POWER-based systems. Intel makes PC parts, but it did not create any part of the PC that other companies did not also research/engineer (SRAM/DRAM included).

To say that IBM can *maybe* compete is... sorta laughable. IBM has more capital, more resources, more engineers (who dabble in much more far-reaching areas than Intel's engineers do), more laboratories, more patents (and more patents per year)... If I could get a copy of Nifty Doorways 7 to run on a POWER7 system, I'd grab one immediately.
 
osalcido said:
Intel created the industry. Without Intel.. you wouldn't even have a PC. As far as AMD goes... it was a flash in the pan. Nobody (IBM maybe) can compete with Intel for consumer PCs. Nobody has the capital.. the lifelong engineers.. the laboratories... the patents.. AMD is going to go away eventually.
Click to expand...

That's patent bullshit (the bold). Intel started in memory. They were not revolutionary. It was when they secured IBM that they really struck big. Without that bit of luck, we'd be rocking Motorolas right now. Non-bolded is reasonable.
 
having 2 competitive companies only makes the products better and the prices lower...
we win with both we lose with only 1
 
Using legal issues to justify going with a particular brand is not a good idea. We don't even know the outcome of that lawsuit, and there's virtually no chance that Intel or AMD will cease to exist by the time the verdict is given out.

I can understand going with AMD if you thought it would provide a better bang per buck than the "equivalent" Intel-based system. I could even understand if you had a bad experience with previous Intel-based systems. But a lawsuit? In which Intel would more than likely give up even more money to AMD? C'mon....
 
Sathsayin said:
competition is good for everybody as it creates more jobs and also doesn't allow one company to become a monopoly

What would you say if in 10 years

2 companys were only allowed to make electric cars... and one of them was killing off the other one.... and everything else was held unaffordable at 10 dollars a gallon of gas.... would you think they were bad then
Click to expand...

See the awesome thing is, if there were two electric car companies, I'd give both of them the finger. If we're talking useful objects, like gasoline powered cars, I keep the company in line and so do you. Imagine the only cars being sold are Lambos, so they jack their already ridiculous prices into the stratosphere. They have 100% market share, but how many cars do you think they'll sell? Not too damn many. Also, if they don't offer any performance or styling changes through the years how often will owners buy new ones? Pretty damn infrequently.

The goal of a business is to make money, I have a hard time feeling any moral outrage that Intel tried to kill competition. I used AMD when they were the best, now that Intel is king I'll use them. Fanboys are stupid, and so is getting your panties in a twist over a company trying to kill the underdog.
 
Don't let the simpletons get you down OP. I see where you're coming from. If you have a problem with the ethics of a company then that's plenty valid reason not to buy from them. I don't think General Hardware is the place for this discussion though. (Or this forum for that matter. Too many people with diarrhea of the keyboard who don't think before they hit Submit Reply.)
 
FoxhoundOp said:
Don't let the simpletons get you down OP. I see where you're coming from. If you have a problem with the ethics of a company then that's plenty valid reason not to buy from them. I don't think General Hardware is the place for this discussion though. (Or this forum for that matter. Too many people with diarrhea of the keyboard who don't think before they hit Submit Reply.)
Click to expand...

But is the OP in a position to judge the ethics of that company? And is he objectively informed with all of the accurate/true facts and information to make that judgment?
 
After reading all this thought of "If AMD wasn't here, <insert something we wouldn't have here>", it got me thinking. What dont we have now because of people who weren't around but could have been, that were around but were bought out, had their innovations and projects scrapped. While this is no way to know the answer to this question since if we were supposed to have time machines by now, well, someone killed that idea, It's interesting at least for me to think about.
 
I don't think getting upset at company because they are competitive is fair. That would be every company.

I think everyone overlooks the fact that, AMD would have more than likely done the same thing. If they were in Intel's position.
 
King Icewind said:
I don't think getting upset at company because they are competitive is fair. That would be every company.

I think everyone overlooks the fact that, AMD would have more than likely done the same thing. If they were in Intel's position.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Microsoft has constantly been sued here and in Europe for monopolistic practices. Are we going to stop using Windows now?
 
PC_User said:
Exactly. Microsoft has constantly been sued here and in Europe for monopolistic practices. Are we going to stop using Windows now?
Click to expand...

You're reinforcing the OPs point with that example because there are many people who don't use Windows or any other Microsoft products because of their business practices.
 
FoxhoundOp said:
You're reinforcing the OPs point with that example because there are many people who don't use Windows or any other Microsoft products because of their business practices.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "many" when 94% of computer users use Windows. That's hardly "many" by any standards. People always have their own strange reasons for doing something; these actions are often unsubstantiated and they attempt to justify them with their own beliefs while failing to see the actual facts/truth.
 
King Icewind said:
I don't think getting upset at company because they are competitive is fair. That would be every company.

I think everyone overlooks the fact that, AMD would have more than likely done the same thing. If they were in Intel's position.
Click to expand...
This

I was about to say the same thing too. AMD, nVidia, and just about any other companies out there would have done the same thing too.

Personally I don't think its right to support the "little guy" just because we want competition. Imagine a hypothetical situation where everyone supports AMD just because they are the "little guy" Do you think this is going to push them to be competitive again? They can get all the cash by being the "little guy", why do they need to change anything then?

Of course we can do whatever we want with our money, but that's just my opinion. We as consumer should do whats best for ourself. Spend the money where you can get the most return NOW. Corporates don't need our sympathy
 
PC_User said:
I wouldn't say "many" when 94% of computer users use Windows. That's hardly "many" by any standards. People always have their own strange reasons for doing something; these actions are often unsubstantiated and they attempt to justify them with their own beliefs while failing to see the actual facts/truth.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your definition of "many" it doesn't really change the fact that using MS is a bad example because there are quite a few people who don't use MS products for the very reasons you're trying to downplay.

This

I was about to say the same thing too. AMD, nVidia, and just about any other companies out there would have done the same thing too.

Personally I don't think its right to support the "little guy" just because we want competition. Imagine a hypothetical situation where everyone supports AMD just because they are the "little guy" Do you think this is going to push them to be competitive again? They can get all the cash by being the "little guy", why do they need to change anything then?

Of course we can do whatever we want with our money, but that's just my opinion. We as consumer should do whats best for ourself. Spend the money where you can get the most return NOW. Corporates don't need our sympathy
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Get the most for your dollar but on the same token, if you don't like something a company is doing it doesn't make you "retarded" or a fanboy to go buy from someone else. It's as simple as that.
 
FoxhoundOp said:
Regardless of your definition of "many" it doesn't really change the fact that using MS is a bad example because there are quite a few people who don't use MS products for the very reasons you're trying to downplay.
Click to expand...

There are always people who don't use a particular product for one stupid reason or another. I knew someone who wouldn't use a George Foreman grill because he was a fan of Muhammad Ali.

Also seems a bit hypocritical because those same people who won't use certain products for 'ethical' reasons also shop at Wal-Mart. Nothing wrong with buying from another company, except when there are no good alternatives or substitutes (i.e. Windows, Intel)
 
PC_User said:
There are always people who don't use a particular product for one stupid reason or another. I knew someone who wouldn't use a George Foreman grill because he was a fan of Muhammad Ali.
Click to expand...

Whether you think it's stupid or not is irrelevant; it's still a valid reason not to buy from them. I think that your ideas on ethics and corporations are stupid but that's not going to stop you from supporting them is it?
 
FoxhoundOp said:
Whether you think it's stupid or not is irrelevant; it's still a valid reason not to buy from them. I think that your ideas on ethics and corporations are stupid but that's not going to stop you from supporting them is it?
Click to expand...

How is it a valid reason if its unsubstantiated and not true? I can create all sorts of fabrications and lies about not buying from AMD to justify buying from Intel. Your logic is flawed, sir. Nor does it appear that you know the definition of ethics.
 
PC_User said:
How is it a valid reason if its unsubstantiated and not true? I can create all sorts of fabrications and lies about not buying from AMD to justify buying from Intel. Your logic is flawed, sir. Nor does it appear that you know the definition of ethics.
Click to expand...

-Company A does something
-Consumer thinks that Company A has done or does something morally or ethically reprehensible
-Consumer chooses to buy from Company B

^ I support this

Where is the flaw in my logic?
 
This has ventured enough...I am sure there will be some front page news stories where you comment on this...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top