(24 votes, average: 4.42 out of 5)
Loading ...The EU ruling against Intel was an exciting day for consumers and the entire technology ecosystem. For my part, I spent the day giving press interviews and interacting with the Community over Facebook, Twitter and various tech site boards. Based on all these conversations, there was one common thread I feel I must address and examine. Unfortunately but understandably, it’s based on an argument that serves Intel’s world view.
The Intel World View
“AMD needs to innovate, not litigate.” Also worded as, “When AMD has a product lead, it gains all the share it deserves.”
Here’s the way even my friend Kyle Bennett of HardOCP expressed it on Twitter:
Kyle’s primary audience who we love is the PC hardware enthusiast where small differences in performance may seem dramatic (as in, a car that goes zero to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds is 9 percent slower than one that does it in 5.0 seconds flat. Both are damn fast, but the discussion is focused on the 9 percent), it’s understandable that he would imply that all AMD is missing is “better processors”. But I can’t help but point out and appreciate that Kyle’s well-respected site Hard OCP has issued awards to AMD for both our AMD PhenomTM II processor and ATI RadeonTM HD 4000 Series graphics in the last 6 weeks alone – our hardware enthusiast products.
With others, the discussion goes like this: “Those who have the most competitive products gain share, those who don’t lose share.” All things equal this could be true, but when there is law-breaking, and as the European Commission put it: “exclusive payments” and “pay to delay” tactics, the equation gets thrown out the window.
The Reality
This ruling from the European Union makes it clear that it doesn’t matter how much innovation AMD pours into its products. The better positioned the product, the more Intel uses its overwhelming position to illegally block or wholly shutdown customer segments and sales channels to AMD. The rewards AMD reaps from having clearly superior or differentiated products is broken into fractions of what they should be through Intel’s behavior. A healthy competitive environment should allow AMD to hone its focus and R&D spend to design and develop future innovative products and platforms, rather than distracting dollar and human resources into fighting Intel’s monopolistic practices.
But now let’s even put that aside.
Others new to this debate may ask: Even with Intel illegal behavior, does AMD have great products and technologies?
Standout Product Innovations So Far in 2009
In 2009 alone, AMD has introduced the world’s first 40nm and the world’s first 1 GHz graphics processors, created the affordable ultrathin notebook category, delivered a world-record setting desktop PC platform, and introduced the most energy-efficient quad-core server processor in our history. We feel these innovations stand tall in the industry, and have real value for their intended customer segments.
Let me provide another recent example in the notebook space where I believe AMD has earned the right to claim “most competitive product”. Please, if you disagree, please let me know in the comments section and I will respond.
AMD creates the affordable ultrathin technology platform
If you recall, as the world fell in love with netbooks last year, we asked the question, “is this the best the industry can offer”? Would consumers want a full PC experience with HD video, Blu-ray, larger display, and ability to play games… by spending a few more bucks? Well, yes. AMD’s platform technology for ultrathin notebooks codename “Yukon” was born and materialized with the award winning and game-changing HP Pavilion dv2 ultrathin notebook. What did others say?
BusinessWeek: “The bottom line for mobility-minded buyers is that the need to choose between expensive executive ultralights and cheap but underpowered netbooks is nearly over.”
Tech Report: “Compared to the average Eee PC, the dv2 packs two thirds more
desktop area, double the hard drive capacity, four times the memory,
a faster CPU, and dramatically better graphics…and it allows the system to do things most netbooks can’t, such as play many recent games and high-definition video, including Blu-ray movies.”
If these appear cherry-picked then here are a full page of accolades on the HP dv2.
Hopefully this example in the notebook space shows that AMD has great products and others are saying it too. We’re creating product categories of unquestioned value to the consumer, Keep in mind, this is true even with Intel’s abusive monopolist practices determined by the EU. I ask you to reject the line of thinking and spin Intel would like you to believe. Do you agree/disagree? Let’s chat.
(4.18 out of 5)
#1 by John McElhenney - May 15th, 2009 at 09:47
Here’s the NUT of the story: “when there is law-breaking, and as the European Commission put it: ‘exclusive payments’ and ‘pay to delay’ tactics, the equation gets thrown out the window.”
So Intel is being caught with their hands in the till of the manufacturers too, that’s not news, what’s news is the EU actually took a stand and ruled AGAINST INTEL.
“The European Union levies its largest fine against Intel for anti-competitive practices that reportedly kept AMD from competing fairly in the open market. Those practices included illegal payments and rebates to OEMs to delay or cancel products powered by AMD chips.” — ChannelInsider
European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes told a news briefing, “The EU ruling states the Intel paid undisclosed computer manufacturers to delay or cancel the release of products that use processors and chips by Advanced Micro Devices, the No. 2 maker of microprocessors. The European governing body said Intel also paid illegal, secret rebates to stores and computer resellers for not stocking AMD-powered devices.
“Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise.”
1.45 BILLION is a lot of money even for Intel.
That’s the whole story. They lied, they cheated, the cut deals.
Keep Innovating AMD, Keep building rockin chips, and keep up the good fight. You’re still in the game because you STILL ROCK HARD!
The rest of the ‘innovation’ or ‘product lead’ angle is fairly transparent. And either way, the discussion bloodies the nose of the bully!
@jmacofearth
http://uber.la
#2 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:22
@John McElhenney, Thank for the inspiring comments. Power to the consumer!
#3 by Sascha - May 15th, 2009 at 10:53
I still remember my first K6 (i think it was running on a motherboard with VIA chipset, i guess the 133) and how glad i was as a consumer, to have options! Wether it was the Pentium 1 or a Cyrix back in these days.
That’s how a healthy market works out and i will always be grateful, that you guys pushed the competition like noone else.
So AMD, even though i’ve been calling you out for quite some time, that you don’t have any netbook solution, you guys deserve a lot of credit. Not only for making sure, that we are getting affordable platforms but also for protecting a free market.
But we should also thank “Nickel Neely” for being so passionate about her researches and the philosophy of having a fair competition.
Sorry, that it took so long though.
P.S. I am seriously not willing to comment on the innovation spin, this is just so unbelievable low and i haven’t ever expected any reaction like this. I think Neely should just add another billion bucks for this shameful try!
#4 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:26
@Sascha, Sascha, thanks for the comment. It is late Taipei, yes?
As far as the money goes, I think the GDP of the EU was around $15T USD ($1,500B), so the EU doesn’t need the money.
#5 by Sean - May 15th, 2009 at 11:35
Intel’s abuse is industry wide.
I wonder why centrino ended up in Dell laptops when Dell could of had 54g?
Hmmm…. peculiar, isnt-tit?
The justice dept needs to to a broad investigation into *all* Intel’s product lines.
#6 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:28
@Sean, Thanks, Sean. In the US, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General’s office are investigating Intel for abuse of its monopoly position. In 2005, AMD filed private litigation in the US District Court of Delaware, which is scheduled for trial in spring 2010.
#7 by Joe - May 15th, 2009 at 12:09
This is spin I have never fallen for and I have been an AMD user exclusivly for years. I have had experiance with intel systems and they were bad to say the least. Inferior products and keeping AMD down has kept me away and I have always built AMD based systems for family and friends and they are all satisfied.
#8 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:39
@Joe, Thank you very much for the support and the business. Sincere thanks.
#9 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 12:45
Apologies on the first comments. They were being routed by Askimet to the SPAM folder automatically. Getting fixed now. Thanks
#10 by Julian Apong - May 15th, 2009 at 13:17
@Patrick Moorhead,
Hello Patrick, I’ve been reviewing some of your newer desktop processors, and for the most part they are worthy competitors to Intel’s at the price points they’re manufactured at.
However when it comes to the hardware enthusiast, the need to push ahead to faster technology of a new generation seems to be more important than the actual benefits that technology gets you.
The Phenom II can’t keep up with Core i7 when it comes to multi-threaded processing. Your own pricing and press teams put it against Intel’s previous generation Yorkfield processors.
If you want to capture the enthusiast’s mindshare back from Intel (the way you did with the 3800+ X2 vs the Pentium 4), you have to do better than just price/performance ratios.
Meanwhile the graphics card division looks like it’s doing great. The Radeon 4000 series has been a great experience to review and work with. If you can get R7XX based silicon into your IGP boards, you could create an entirely new platform that neither NVIDIA or Intel could currently compete with. Getting some ATI chips back into consoles would be good to see as well.
As for the legal stuff – well, I’m not a lawyer, and really most of the enthusiasts won’t care too much about that stuff. Hopefully you can get a fair ruling and reparations in court.
Best of luck with the upcoming releases, looking forward to reviewing your new tech!
#11 by Itai - May 15th, 2009 at 13:05
I have been an AMD buyer for almost a decade.
My last three main platforms were AMD (Athlon XP, AMD64 and Phenom II), so I can clearly say I fully support your products, but…
It appears that at least in the CPU market, ever since AMD64, you have not been able to launch a faster processor then Intel. As a member of many Tech forums (including [H]), I have to say that it’s hard to swallow that fact alone, and most of the Enthusiast community feels the same.
I had my faith in your abilities restored when the HD4XXX series was launched and again with Phenom II.
But even today, Phenom II loses in many real life scenarios to Intel’s Core 2 Quad series and I find that hard to justify or accept (and I’m skipping the I7 comparison cause there’s nothing to talk about there).
I will always be a fan of price/performance, and if you land on that side – you have my money, But reading all the financial reports – will you be around to earn it if the competition stays like it is today?
#12 by Patrick Moon - May 15th, 2009 at 13:09
First I love AMD. Out of 12 computers in my house I have 1 Intel (atom) cpu and the rest are all AMD Athlons or better.
I buy chips in the midrange which AMD currently excels in. But there is very little doubt that Intel rules the top. And has since the core2duo. Yes you will continue to sell to me but I’ve been a big fan since the k6-3. My tech friends don’t share my love. They were finally being swayed to the AMD camp and then core2duo hit.
And on the low end, even I was swayed by the atom. If Intel followes it’s stated policy of only shrinking the atom (without enhancing the performance) then you basically dodged a bullet.
Basically you are getting hammered in the high end (i7) and the low end (atom) by serious innovation and this hurts your chances in the mid range by shutting you out of mind share.
Oh and certainly AMD should litigate when their competition breaks the rules!
#13 by Ben Bulthuis - May 15th, 2009 at 13:16
Having built both a complete X58/Core i7 920 system for myself, and a Phenom II X3 720 system for my brother in the past 6 months, as well as both HD4000-series and GT200-series video cards, I feel that AMD does offer competitive and compelling solutions depending on your budget and the intended use of your computer.
The issue that I think many people have right now is that AMD does not offer anything that is truly competitive with the i7. Yes, the Phenom II is a great processor for the money and my brother’s X3 720 setup was a mere 400 bucks for the motherboard, CPU and 8GB of DDR. It will run any game he throws at it, and run it well. But this is not so much the design of your CPU rather than the design of most PC games, which rely far more heavily on the GPU than the CPU. You can get by with a weaker processor as long as you have one or two powerful video cards.
However, when you move out of the gaming segment and into the multithreaded app world, with programs like Photoshop and other CPU intensive applications, the Core i7 takes a commanding lead at this time in most of them. Whether or not this is a big deal depends on if you do this type of work.
And as it stands, there does not appear to be anything in the pipelines from AMD for quite some time that will challenge the i7 on these fronts. Yes, if budget is more important to you than %-based frame rate advantages, Phenom IIs are a good buy. But if you really want to build the fastest computer possible, or you want to run heavily multithreaded multimedia applications, it’s an Intel only show right now and it appears it will remain that way for some time. When can we expect something from AMD that will challenge Intel on this front?
Now that DDR3 is falling in price and more affordable X58 boards are hitting the market, the “platform cost” gap is shrinking, so the people who go with AMD right now just because the 920 is too expensive may not feel that way when the difference is only 150 bucks.
My 2 cents, anyways.
#14 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:46
@Ben Bulthuis, Ben, thanks for taking the time to comment. I have a few questions. First, according to Fudo at Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11948&Itemid=35) Ci7 is 1% of sales. So how important is it to be faster than what is selling in that range? Isnt it more important to have the best $100 and $200 CPU? What I do see are accolades on our latest X3 and X4 CPUs, though. On netbooks, is this statement reportedly from Intel a real show of support of this market? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10239390-64.html) What I see here is a flight to value ultrathins, a category we created technologically with Yukon, followed by Congo.
#15 by Ben Bulthuis - May 15th, 2009 at 20:18
@Patrick Moorhead,
I won’t comment on netbooks because honestly I have not done my research in that market. I have been interested in purchasing one recently now that prices are getting pretty low and I’d like to have something a little smaller than my work laptop to bring around with me for general use.
Regarding the high-end market, I haven’t looked at sales numbers, I’m just commenting from my perspective and I generally tend to buy high-end for PCs every 2 years or so. I agree that your CPUs at the $100-200 dollar price range are competitive, which is why I used one in my brother’s gaming rig. A cheaper CPU that performs very well allows you to spend money else where, and that’s great. And I know that price point, along with OEM sales, is where the bulk of the money is, not with the high-end market. So to answer your question, of how important it is to be faster than what is selling in that range- from an overall company sales perspective, probably ‘not very’.
But I think that being able to push on the high-end front more would help drive more innovation in those markets, which would be good for everyone, particularly the enthusiast/gamer community. I bought my i7 in January of this year. I don’t see anything on Intel’s roadmap that will really outperform it any time in 2009 (being that my 920 is running at 3.8GHz). I guess I’ll get my money’s worth out of this CPU, but that’s kind of disappointing to see. I would really like to see AMD be able to challenge Intel more there, so that the competition forces prices down and products out.
Also, on a sidenote, the Phenom 2 X4’s really aren’t that much cheaper than the i7 920, which was being sold at Microcenter for $230. You can look at the stock clock speeds and say the Phenom will out perform it stock to stock, but no one runs those CPUs at stock anyways.
#16 by ku - May 15th, 2009 at 13:21
I have to agree that I feel like people have false notions about AMD. AMD’s technologies are great. All of my personal desktops were built using AMD processors, with my current desktop still running the Athlon XP 2600m (<3 mobile processors for desktops!).
Personally, I think that Intel’s success can be credited to some fallacious associations of names: just like how, back in the day (I think, I was only 5-10 years old at the time) IBM was synonymous with PC’s, used to distinguish with Macs. A more current example of this would be the Mac vs. PC war with PC being synonymous with Microsoft. And sometime in between these eras, the word Pentium became synonymous with “fast processors.”
This name association was probably what gives Intel such a huge marketshare, as Pentium is almost common knowledge. This probably hasn’t been the only thing, but if I had to put money on why Intel is seemingly more successful, I’d say this is it. I do also vaguely recall Intel really screwing AMD over by buying several manufacturing plants, but I could be wrong.
Just to be clear, I can’t be considered a fanboy of either companies… I just pick up whatever gives me the best value.
#17 by Adlai Holler - May 15th, 2009 at 13:24
I am a hardware enthusiast who attends no conferences, heeds no advertising, and is completely brand blind wrt to Intel/AMD/nVidia. When I build a desktop, the combination of components which provides the best balance performance and price, regardless of brand, is my choice without exception.
Intel has completely decimated in this category since Core 2. So yes, maybe they play dirty on a corporate level, but they have incredible products that they sell at low prices.
Specifically from a desktop, enthusiast perspective, AMD has ruined ATi. They have not dominated the top performance end of graphics for any significant period since they were bought out. They floundered pathetically after G80 and eventually released a card that STILL couldn’t compete in performance or in price. Since then, it’s been kind of a stalemate with nVidia’s cards still holding a performance lead but AMD’s being cheaper.
So no, I’m not being duped by Intel’s Innovation Spin. Their products have performed best for the price in the desktop market recently. Good news for AMD is that nobody cares about desktops anymore.
#18 by Ben Bulthuis - May 15th, 2009 at 16:35
@Adlai Holler, Personally I think the 4890 is a more compelling video card than the GTX285 because you can grab one for nearly $100 less than the 285, and with some light overclocking match it in real world gaming performance. And the 4870X2 was faster than anything NVIDIA offered at the time of it’s release. Especially when you bear in mind NVIDIA launched the GTX280 at 600 dollars.
I don’t think you are being fair on the video card front. ATI has done a good job of keeping the market honest.
#19 by grKevin - May 16th, 2009 at 09:07
ahhhh, delusional fanboys never cease to amaze and infuriate me.
#20 by grKevin - May 16th, 2009 at 09:08
that, by the way, was directed at the original poster. i agree with ben 100%.
#21 by batch - May 15th, 2009 at 13:47
I agree, Intel is in the wrong. I remember how they move processor design and innovation along at a snails pace, holding back improvements because they felt they didn’t need to bring them to market, especially how they charged an arm and a leg before the K7 came along.
I love how everyone conveniently forgets how Intel ended up having to license the x86 64bit tech from AMD, and how Intel is just now finally making a processor with an integrated memory controller. Intel doesn’t innovations aren’t very important, AMD more often comes out with the big improvements.
#22 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 18:07
@batch, Don’t forget about HyperTransport, “introduced in 2001″
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport
#23 by Surya Adi Nugraha S - May 15th, 2009 at 14:26
Hello, Pat AMD is always my choices to powered my daily computing activities. But in regard HP DV2, so far I have seen that you always promoted this product rather than another Yukon platform product from another company that offering like this. Sorry,I have see the bias in this blog that the bloggers prefer HP rather than another brand that also offer AMD platform too.
#24 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:37
@Surya Adi Nugraha S, Surya, nice to see you again. HP was first out with Yukon with their dv2 and I usually review the ones out first because they are timely. On Puma I have discussed Toshiba, Acer, FSC, Compaq, and Asus. Is there a certain notebook brand you would like to see covered?
#25 by Muhammad Kalifardi - May 15th, 2009 at 14:30
Hello, Pat AMD is always my choices to powered my daily computing activities. But in regard HP DV2, so far I have seen that you always promoted this product rather than another Yukon platform product from another company that offering like this. Sorry,I have see the bias in this blog that the bloggers prefer HP rather than another brand that also offer AMD platform too.
I think AMD must be fair relating promoting sample products that meets the your company platform qualification.
#26 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 17:49
@Muhammad Kalifardi, Thanks for the comment. Is there another brand platform you would like to see me review? I did a lot with the dv2 because it was the first Yukon platform out.
#27 by DaveD - May 15th, 2009 at 14:42
I have followed some of the claims and litigation over the years between AMD and Intel.
There is no question in my mind that when you had the Athlon64 versus the Pentium 4 that only anti competive practices from Intel stopped AMD from gaining the market share AMD should have had. Simply put the P4 was a poor design that couldn’t beat it’s predacessor the P3 at the same clock speeds.
But that is the past. Currently the Intel Core 2’s are at parity or better than the Phenom II’s. The Core I7 has no direct competition speed wise from AMD. While that is not an enviable position to be in, it is VERY important that AMD has the chance to compete on an even playing field for sales on it’s price to performance and price to killowatt used with the consumer. AMD’s position is far better on the low end versus the Intel Atom, but is makeing little headway there.
Competion for sales is what drives innovation. If you can’t gain market share when your in a superior position there is a problem that needs to be addressed. This has happened in the past to AMD, and should not be allowed to happen again.
I have no idea when the next time AMD will be in a position of faster performance at a lower price than Intel across the entire performance spectrum, but if it does happen the “market” must determine the sales (and profits) of the two company’s if I as a consumer hope to gain the proper benefits from this. It’s important for everyone to realize not only do illegal impediments to the free market system hurt company’s (AMD in this case), they hurt all of us consumers in the wallet.
#28 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 18:04
@DaveD, Dave, thanks for the comment. With victories in Japan, Korea, and now the EU, the consumer will be the winner here.
#29 by balanced thinking - May 15th, 2009 at 14:45
Sorry Adlai but you are just wrong. AMD has the best price/performance ratio at every price point they compete for, otherwise they would not sell anything taking into account the strong market position and huge ad budget of Intel and Nvidia.
People tend to read the reviews of 999$ procs and believe their low cost Intel proc performs accordingly, which it simply does not.
One example at the plattform level: Phenom II 940 vs. Q8400
Both systems have the same price point while the Phenom II system is considerably faster, has a free multiplier for easy overclocking and HV to enable die windows xp mode in upcoming windows 7.
X3 720 vs. E8400 is an even more clean cut win for AMD and I just can not believe how many people are still buying those overpriced E8X00.
PS: ATI is totally owning Nvidia at the moment when it comes to performance/price sending Nvidia to a 200 million quarterly loss, trying to desperately maintain marketshare at any cost, while themselves at least earning a million. Where have you been?
#30 by Ben Bulthuis - May 15th, 2009 at 16:38
@balanced thinking,
This is only an argument if you do not overclock any of your components. The 920 ships at 2.66GHz but I have not heard of anyone who cannot run it at 3.6GHz at least. And before anyone starts complaining that’s not a fair comparison, AMD sells CPUs with overclocking specifically in mind.
#31 by Gimpy04 - May 15th, 2009 at 16:43
@balanced thinking,
It’s a shame you’re comparing a quad core and a tri-core to a dual core. In every regard, Intel’s quad-cores are out performing AMD’s chips. This goes for the C2Q and the i7. The i7920 (same price bracket as the PhenomII 955) performs better at a clock-for-clock comparison than the 955. Regardless if the 955 has an unlocked multiplier, the i7920 will still overclock further.
It’s really a shame AMD sat on their bums with the K8 chip. They could have innovated and pushed technology further. Sure the Intel thing was cheap, and it hurt, but AMD could still have pushed their tech instead of sitting idle.
#32 by grKevin - May 16th, 2009 at 08:56
Guys, most consumers don’t overclock their processors. Why? Because instead of spending $50+ for a good air cooler or $200+ for a good water cooling setup, they could just spend that money and get a better stock processor (or better yet, save their money). On top of that, the hassle of tweaking the OC and the risk of damaging components isn’t worth it for most.
Besides that, do you get off on the fact that your start menu appears 0.001 seconds after the overclock? Obsessed with maxing out your folding PPD? Seriously?
My PhII720 and 4870 1gb get a 6.7 and 6.8 respectively on the Windows experience index in Windows 7 (link: 3533608026_bd3357826e_o.jpg), and you know what, that’s more than processing and graphics power than the average consumer needs for the next 3 years. As much as we’d all like to see faster, more advanced technology, there is no need for it today for the overwhelming majority of consumers. AMD’s current line destroys the competition in price/performance, so deal with it.
Instead of trolling around with your incessant woulda/coulda/shoulda nonsense, why don’t you just ______ <– insert expletive here.
#33 by grKevin - May 16th, 2009 at 09:20
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3533608026_bd3357826e_o.jpg
#34 by John McElhenney - May 15th, 2009 at 15:30
Yeah, a little story I am more interested in, not because it’s directly related to this story, but more to my heart, is how did Intel get the Apple CPU deal? I sure would like to see OS X on AMD in a Mac. I think it can be done on some of the Laptops, but not sure. I hear the Dell mini-9 running OS X is something sweet. I might have to look into that if I get an extra stimulus check.
Happy weekend all.
#35 by Greg - May 15th, 2009 at 15:52
I’m an Intel users through and through (6 out of 7 machines in my home are Intel based) as I prefer their products on a price for performance level for my level of use (high end gaming and heavy multi-tasking). That said if their business practices were unlawful they deserve to be taken through litigation for their wrongs and made to pay reperations. However, the charges levied by the EU are not one sided and should include those system companies that took the payments. The alleged market manipulation was a two party deal and could have been stopped if the system builders just said “No, thanks”. To me both sides are liable and those system builders that helped skew the market should be fined and publicly denounced as well as Intel. Providing documentation of such abuses under court order should not protect them from the full weight of their deeds and actions. no ne held a gun to the system builders head and made them take the payments (cha-ching for them) and even if you claim being de-favored by intel a gun to your head they still had a choice, the capability and the moral obligation to make the right choice. If you blame intel then you need to blame the system builders too, something I have yet to see happen. All of this is irregardless of how “just” the EU really is with these suits.
#36 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 18:02
@Greg, Greg, nice to meet you and thanks for the post. Here is the EC ruling. It reads like a crime novel. Can you imagine the impact this has on AMD and consumers? http://budurl.com/EURel
#37 by Gimpy04 - May 15th, 2009 at 16:37
“I think AMD is trying to dupe people with the Victim Spin. The EU ruling against Intel involved the Netburst era, when AMD arguably did have a performance advantage. AMD sat on K8 during that time milking consumers without actually developing something new. This continued until Core 2, when AMD still had nothing new but price cuts on K8 parts. Could they have “innovated”? Absolutely, but Ruiz thought it would be a fantastic idea to xxxx his company over by purchasing ATI. Fast forward 2 years (even after Penryn) and Phenom II is something that finally competes decently with Core 2 parts. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel did not sit around waiting (following the tick-tock) and introduced Nehalem which keeps them dominating the high end market. Its tech is above and beyond anything AMD has right now, so Intel can rightfully say they’ve brought innovative products to the table.”
#38 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 18:01
@Gimpy04, Thanks for the post. I think it’s important to keep in mind that I am not saying Intel never did anything innovative. But do you REALLY, really think that there was no ill effect to AMD’s ability to compete with (I will use the EC’s words): “conditional rebates and payments”, “”payments to prevent sales of specific rival products”, “conceal the conditions associated with its payments.”? Full ruling here: http://budurl.com/EURel
#39 by Doug Stewart - May 15th, 2009 at 18:32
@Gimpy04, Nahelem looks very K10ish to me. I think the word “innovation” is not applicable.
#40 by Eduardo - May 15th, 2009 at 18:15
I like your posting, but I feel the focus everyone has right now is a little off.
I was an avid AMD user for many years and only in my very last computer did I put an Intel chip inside (i7). Not for any other reason other than I felt it performed the best for what I wanted.
That being said, my concern is not whether or not Intels best chip is better than AMDs best chip or however you see that. The EU ruling has me concerned because I know as a computer builder and enthusiast that I am a minority of the computer market. Compared to the general consumer market we builders are but a TINY fraction.
I assume this works the same way as lets say the car industry….Ford says they have the fastest production car in the world and brag about it everywhere and even though 98% of the market won’t buy that car they assume their lesser models must be better because of that hi-end stuff.
So in terms of the computer CPU market, most consumer model computers aren’t going to be using these top of the line CPUs like the i7 for example. They will be using mid-range chips because your average consumer doesn’t want to spend $2500 on their computer.
So my concern is that AMD isn’t getting its fair share of this much more lucrative space where your new college students or mid-40s parents or just average users who need a new computer are. Because AMDs mid-range chips are great and they are just getting muscled out at this point with what seems to be unfair practices. I doubt most of this “average user” market even realize this is going on.
Cheers (long post, haha)
#41 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 21:03
@Eduardo, I appreciate the well-articulated post. I am loving this entire thread because these are well-though out comments. As to your question on the % market i7 occupies, here is a link according to Fudo at Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11948&Itemid=35) Ci7 is 1% of sales.
#42 by Doug Stewart - May 15th, 2009 at 18:29
I think that it is important to note that R&D is where innovation comes from and R&D costs money. Somewhat generally, the more money AMD makes, the more they are afforded for research and development. If their profits are curtailed by illegal activities, that funding shrinks and so goes innovation.
The ATI purchase did not have to hurt so badly if Intel had played fair and not blocked AMD’s ability to gain market share. From what I’ve seen, relative to size and position, AMD is still kicking Intel tail, despite the current i7 advantages, made possible largely from AMD innovations like on-die memory controllers. It’s important to me that companies play fair and so I stay away from all Intel and Microsoft products, whenever possible.
I am curious though, how much innovation has Intel really made? I mean, they are huge and loaded, so one would expect them to present innovative products on a regular basis. However, the only true innovation that I ever read about comes from AMD. Intel may get there first, but they don’t generally come up with it first. Of course, I could just need additional information.
#43 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 21:04
@Doug Stewart, Thanks for the comment. Some would certainly expect with a 10x resource advantage, for Intel to provide 10x the innovations.
#44 by Jessie - May 15th, 2009 at 19:35
I have built exclusivly AMD rigs since I began building computers in 1994, however, when the original Phenom came out I was faced with a horrible realization. There were no price competitive parts avalible at the time. I know you could argue otherwise, but I typically build my systems just shy of the bleeding edge of performance.
For the majority of the market their may have been perfectly competitive products at the time, but I could not find one at any price that would suit my useage patterns.
Now that we have very price competitive Phenom 2 solutions on the market this is not an issue, but at that breif moment in time when I needed a new product there was just simply nothing there.
I have been a subcontractor to intel in the past and my experinces in dealing with their personnel and management makes me avoid purchasing their products at almost any cost, but you (AMD) need to have a product for me at any time so I can say…. “ahhh yes here is what I need.” or “This is close I bet if I overclock it will do the job.”
Do I think intel deserves this fine? You bet I do. There is no reason why the K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64 shouldn’t have out sold intel products every day of the week. I remember looking in various catologues of system builders at the time and wondering why there were no AMD products in these prebuilt machines. The answer was simple intel was “strong-arming” them.
Keep on truckin’ we need your processors and GPUs in the market to keep prices in check. The AMD graphics line-up is killer right now and I will tip back a whiskey and coke for you all and hope that the next will give the same reality check to your competitors that the last did.
#45 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 21:08
@Jessie, Thanks for the loyalty and thanks for the inspiring words. I really appreciate it.
#46 by Eddie - May 15th, 2009 at 20:56
think that it is important to note that R&D is where innovation comes from and R&D costs money. Somewhat generally, the more money AMD makes, the more they are afforded for research and development. If their profits are curtailed by illegal activities, that funding shrinks and so goes innovation.
The ATI purchase did not have to hurt so badly if Intel had played fair and not blocked AMD’s ability to gain market share. From what I’ve seen, relative to size and position, AMD is still kicking Intel tail, despite the current i7 advantages, made possible largely from AMD innovations like on-die memory controllers. It’s important to me that companies play fair and so I stay away from all Intel and Microsoft products, whenever possible.
I am curious though, how much innovation has Intel really made? I mean, they are huge and loaded, so one would expect them to present innovative products on a regular basis. However, the only true innovation that I ever read about comes from AMD. Intel may get there first, but they don’t generally come up with it first. Of course, I could just need additional information
#47 by Patrick Moorhead - May 15th, 2009 at 21:13
@Eddie, You got it Eddie. Appreciate that you and Jessie both get that sales are required to reinvest in R&D. A monopolist tampers with sales, well you know what happens. I don’t know why that is such a hard concept for people to grasp.
#48 by pieter@3dnow.net - May 16th, 2009 at 10:34
People in principle are free to choose. Whichever cpu you want. I think that is why “they” yell innovate not littigate.
These yelling people have little merrit, they view only one side and say well if you want your AMD machine there are plenty to choose from.
And yes you can still manage to buy a AMD laptop or desktop, not that hard.
Where it differs is that the loud people with the one sided view tend to goto is that all is fine has been fine and will be fine.
What AMD been missing is a big chunk over all these years even if they couldn’t compete with Intel their share would be bigger these days.
The problem lies in that certain big corporations can get away with anything (dont ask me there are plenty of bad examples over the last 10 years).
A level playing field will simply not exist not just due to financial backing but also through companies who thrive on being exclusive like Dell used to be (yep Dell).
The least of Intel’s problem is the money. They have plenty Intel is not a one trick pony it does many things besides making microprocessors.
The focus should not be why Intel is punished by the EU but why wasnt Intel punished a long long long time ago for the same thing ?
Lets just hope that in a way AMD can get some benefits from this issue not just in the EU but worldwide and maybe they have a better change of supplying consumers worldwide.
Goodluck
#49 by anant mishra - May 16th, 2009 at 15:57
@Patrick…
Just want to know 1 thing… Why is AMD not gng for any virtual cores like intel??
nd why no multi chip module chips??
by the way… I just got an AMD Kuma Core 7750BE few days back…and I am verrrry pleased!!! (3350Mhz on stock heatsink… Insane!!)
#50 by Zmidponk - May 18th, 2009 at 06:29
I have always regarded AMD and ATI as being the people who maybe got their products to market after the competition – but then showed the competition how they should have done it, and it always puzzled me as to why it was far easier to get an Intel chip than an AMD chip.
Now I know why.
However, in recent years, that has changed, as Intel have used their ill-gotten gains to actually come up with a very good high-end chip in the i7. Now, the i7 may only be 1% of the market, but most consumers see the company with the best chip overall (discounting price/performance ratio) as being the best company, full stop. This means that, when debating with themselves whether to go with Intel or AMD, they are swung towards Intel by the i7, even if they don’t have the cash to buy it, and instead settle for a lower performance chip. That being the case, it seems to me that, despite this legal case being a good step forward for AMD, you shouldn’t rest on your laurels – you need to come up with a chip that competes very favourably with the i7, or, preferably, soundly beats it, even if your predicted sales for such a chip are a negligible fraction of the total chip market.
#51 by Daniel - May 18th, 2009 at 10:59
“Now all AMD needs is a better processor and it will be set!”.
I am SO tired to here this again, and again, and again from different people.
Phenom II IS a good processor. Phenom II IS a powerful processor. Phenom II BEATS Core i7 in many different reviews, for example: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=293&Itemid=63 or http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=5410
Of course Orochi will be a much more powerful processor than Phenom II, but Phenom II will do the job just fine until the release of Orochi.
#52 by Arlington - May 18th, 2009 at 18:08
“I am SO tired to here this again, and again, and again from different people.
Phenom II IS a good processor.”
It’s good, but not good enough.
AMD needs a better performing chip to price it above to what the competition offers currently. I root for a high-profitable AMD, not a barely-alive chip company.
And I guess everyone have heard about this common saying: Second place is the first looser.
#53 by zomerta - May 19th, 2009 at 02:35
I think AMD should accept the fact that the current AMD processors are atleast one generation in term of technology behind Intel’s. That’s why your business doesn’t go well in the last couple of years. Intel wrong actions did affect AMD in some ways, but not the main reason for the failure of AMD in the market. Anyways,
I’m used to be an AMD user tho.
#54 by Daniel - May 19th, 2009 at 17:46
Sorry if I sounded a little bit irritated in my earlier post. It’s just that I think it’s an unfair description of Phenom II when people say it’s not a good processor and that Core i7 is so good and Phenom II (when compared) is so bad. It’s not the truth as I see it.
We have to give AMD credit for what they have done, and they have done an excellent job with Phenom II.
Core i7 is not even that success that Intel hoped for, but Phenom II is that success that AMD hoped for.
Peace!
#55 by LS - May 19th, 2009 at 19:33
AMD’s weakness is in mobile platform. Complete and competent solutions for notebooks/mobile gadgets are highly expected from AMD.
#56 by Dan Hanrahan - May 20th, 2009 at 09:17
Patrick: Thank you for the work you do at AMD. I enjoy reading your blog.
#57 by Arlington - May 30th, 2009 at 09:57
Anandtech posted a preview of Lynfield. In conclusion, AMD will be marginalized even further to the lower-end segment.
Sinceely speaking, this is NOT good and I hate to see AMD in the current condition they are facing right now.
Good to see that AMD is winning the antitrust battle against nasty intel, but no one (but AMD) can fix their current micro-architectural flaws.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=1
#58 by sourjerer - July 9th, 2009 at 11:17
No matter what the circumstance is AMD will still keep its commitment to the people…. To provide high quality products in reasonable prices…. Frankly speaking AMD is much better than intel in countless ways! (well you all know that
) ……
GO AMD!! BEAT THEM ALL!!!!
and thanks Pat, for posting
Take Care and God Bless us all!
#59 by saif07 - September 4th, 2009 at 05:35
hey patrick..
I’m one of the biggest fan of the AMD cpus
I currently own the 7750 Kuma..enjoy using it
I just want a satisfacting reason; why apple didn’t go for AMD,,and until now,,although there was a big improvement,,??
thanks a lot
hope AMD will get ahead in the CPU market soon!
#60 by TheTwistedTeam - October 27th, 2009 at 18:59
I’d agree that price/performance is important, really important on the desktop market, but on the notebook battlefield AMD still looses as prices dropped too low for the difference to make it worth it.
Isn’t a bit odd that most AMD fan boys and employees deny the facts – AMD doesn’t have good enough processor to compete at that market, neither in terms of power savings (go beat P7450 if you can, and any 1.15V Penryn too), nor performance wise.
We are still wondering how did AMD managed to release the 45 nm Caspian with 35W TDP?
We do not think that the “battery life”war is good for business. People don’t care so much about it, and that comes from a reseller’s view, which you never bothered to ask for.
AMD should concentrate on videocards, so many good ones an all they suffer from bad driver support and even BIOS bugs (HD4570 DDR3).
And why is that battle anyway? The trend shows people are buying more and more systems with discrete graphics, and Intel is still lagging and doesn’t have even decent integrated solution. But the flame war goers on and on…