Our proof we come up in Delaware next year.

I am not related to AMD in anyway. I have not used their products directly or indirectly. But I have heard from many people that AMD products are far superior compared to intel one’s. Only thing missing is agressive marketing. Me being in technical field for so many years came across AMD products only recently. When common people like us can think about this why cannot you guys, leaders in chip making think about it. Hope AMD recognises what needs to be done to enhance awareness of people about its existance and products and comes out as a winner after such a long struggle. I wish you all the best.

Not to mention the damages caused to consumers and other custormers, science and innovation.

I hope we will never see this kind of stuff again in the x86 market.

Best wishes for the future AMD.

Before you pat yourselves too much on the back though, do realize AMD has a lot to do in order to catch-up. Yes, the K7 and K8 did much to innovate on the processor front. But there’s much more to computers than simply winning benchmarks. In my honest opinion, AMD’s lack of a solid chipset for it’s processors and other supporting technologies made the processor a sometimes risky proposition, even if it was indeed the fastest. That’s an area that I think many don’t give Intel credit for; the huge supporting base of boards, chipsets, networking technologies, compilers, and software that boost the level of support and reliability of it’s processors. AMD’s reliance on third-party tech of somewhat questionable quality made an AMD platform questionable. Yes, it was fast, but not always stable. As I told both our Intel and AMD reps while employed at an OEM, if I could have had an AMD chip on an Intel chipset I would have been a happy camper.

Intel may not have done the integrated memory controller first (though they attempted and failed years earlier) and ia64 certainly was much more convoluted than AMD’s elegant extention of x86. But I can’t blame them for trying. Even in the “uncompetitive” market that AMD claims exists, the PC community is still in awe over the fact that Intel has not only bested AMD’s product line with the Core 2, but then beat their own product with the i7. It’s good when Intel competes with AMD, but I find it admirable that they’d then push to compete with themselves.

I do hope AMD can get back into the game and start pushing some new ideas to the x86 processor market. But I think it would be counterproductive to assume that Intel was the cause for all of AMD’s woes. They need much more than a processor; they need an eco-system. The same innovation AMD showed with it’s processor it now needs to show with it’s supporting technologies.

Till then I’ll stick to my new i7.

The whole world is talking about anti-monopoly, I am sure Intel is also an “Advocate” to that motto.

I firmly believe that this action initiated by EU is a positive signal to the world that fair competiton shall be in place. No matter what the result will turn out to be, it works to the advantages of AMD and will enable AMD to win back the good position in the market, as AMD definitely has the competence and deserves a fair treatment.

Hoorah, AMD!

I wonder what kind of prices we would be seeing and CPU advancements you guys could have made with all the extra cash that could go in R&D.

Back when the K7 was first released, and making major waves, I enquired of our production director why our company wasn’t selling computers with AMD processors any more.

I was given some sophistry about how AMD’s supply chain was broken, and chip shortages limited their value as a supplier, and whatnot. This was during a time when AMD was re-soldering and remarking faster Athlon processors to entry-level speed grades. I owned more than one 600MHz Athlon that was “downgraded” from 750MHz or more. The irony of the situation was that, at the time, Intel had SEVERE production shortages of the 600MHz Katmai chips, and couldn’t fab the faster Coppermine chips reliably enough to meet the OEM demand for rivals to the Athlon.

It was only later that I learned from our marketing director that the real reason for the companies Intel-only stance was that Intel offered substantial financial support to OEM marketing efforts, if the OEM exclusively sold Intel products. It wasn’t a forced decision, per se, but for a major OEM with a large marketing expenditure, it did indeed represent “an offer you can’t refuse”.

Entirely legal, of course, but it’s fightin’ dirty when your competitors cannot afford the same sort of financial incentive, so the move itself merely served to reinforce the incredible monopoly Intel had back then.

I’ve been flowing this closely for years now (even wrote bunch of articles in my previous (journalist) life, so media reaction on this decision was something that got my interest in past couple of days…

So, the strongest impression on me is left by Jim Goldmans lamenting on his blog as well as in his reporting on MSNBC…

That guy is amazing!! I’ll say outright – if someone can jiggle my nerves it is him!

Let me give you couple of his ramblings:

“Now we know the lengths to which a foreign entity will step in to curtail or even block American ingenuity under the guise of “protecting” consumers. More like “protectionism” if you ask me.”

or:

“AMD doesn’t get a penny of the EU fines. It all goes to the commission. What AMD does get is to crow about Intel’s punishment, the way a little brother might say “Ha, ha, ha” when an older sibling gets busted for doing something wrong.”

“AMD has always suffered from an economic and financial inferiority complex, bumbling its way through the industry; trying to do in the courts what it couldn’t accomplish on store shelves.”

“I can’t see a single specific law that Intel violated. When you speed, you know it. If you roll a stop sign, you know it. Kidnapping. Murder. There are laws, and when you break ‘em, you know it. Black and white. In the case of the EU and Intel, it’s been a massive spectrum of gray, and you can’t fault a company for competing hard instead of hardly competing. Like AMD.”

“AMD will blow smoke that this is a huge win for consumers, and an even bigger win for overall competition. I don’t think the EU ruling has anything to do with either. This is a shot across the bow of American ingenuity, and a stark example of what happens when politics runs amok in the market place”

“Attacking Intel, making up laws as you go along, changing the rules of the game while the game is still being played and slapping Intel for breaking them is a Quixotic exercise that will not save AMD from itself.”

“I’m not sure what’s more embarrassing: The EU’s ruling today, or AMD’s claims of victory. Intel hasn’t stifled anything. Quite the contrary, it is driving innovation.”

“The industry continues to make a big deal out of the rivalry between AMD and Intel, even though AMD’s business has fallen off a cliff, its market share is in meltdown — along with its management team — and it needs a snorkel to breathe underneath that flood of red ink it keeps reporting. But AMD’s size doesn’t matter as much as its ability to continue to call the attention of anti-trust regulators both domestically and abroad.”

And it goes on and on!!!

Ignorance of this smugged persona is beyond believe!!

Protectionism?! For crying out loud AMD isn’t European company!! Markeshare in meltdown!! Did he read new IDC report?!

Nad he dares to spit on AMD management team! From my POV that’s in realm of personal!!

I hear that AMD will lock out with their server chipset for their upcoming microprocessor with new socket infrastructure. I think it is better for consumer enterprise to have more choices with multivendor chipsets. It is better for AMD that AMD could win server microprocessor marketshare from competitor with this open socket infrastructure for microprocessor only. Although, AMD will compete with other chipset maker, consumer will see the more valuable solution that fits with their needs. AMD could strict and rule that their server chipset provider for their future microprocessor like the chipset maker must a member of hypertransport consortium, must agree that they will not develop chipset for competitors especially that infringe the patents of hypertransport consortium (like your competitor), and they must support that not only the chipsets but also the communications chip (networking), SCSI and others.

In a memorable line from Star Trek, “Fire Everything!”

Well done AMD!

@jmacofearth