(25 votes, average: 4.08 out of 5)
Loading ...Craning my head to peer over the giant wave of debate and dialogue washing across the tech landscape with last week’s antitrust ruling against Intel in Europe, I thought it might be helpful to reiterate what AMD seeks in the wake of this third straight antitrust ruling against Intel. Simply stated:
We want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to prevail because the truth is on AMD’s side.
What if you were knee-capped?
As we said from the beginning, we do not seek special treatment from competition regulators in any way, shape or form. We crave a fair fight. If the other guy tries to injure you, preventing you from making it onto the field of play, that doesn’t strike me as fair (or legal).
I don’t recall anyone ever blaming Nancy Kerrigan for getting assaulted with a metal club by those who wanted to put an end to a level playing field in Olympic skating. Should Nancy have just accepted her clubbing as something that “goes with the territory” in an ultra-competitive endeavor, as some seem to indicate AMD should? Did Nancy demand special treatment when she went to the authorities? You know the answers already. As the victim, of course Nancy wasn’t seeking special treatment at all. She sought justice, pure and simple.
We may not have had our knees bashed in with a metal pipe, but AMD was no less injured in a business sense, and we are entitled to seek justice for that. Joe consumer was robbed of a full spectrum of marketplace choice by Intel. Sadly we cannot go back in time and undo the damage that was done to our business, and we will never know what the state of play may have been today if not for Intel’s monopoly abuses.
Was there a cover-up?
One thing that was found by European investigators that appears to have gone under-reported is that Intel apparently went to “great lengths to cover up its anti-competitive actions“. Let me ask you this: If Intel truly believes that it has done nothing wrong why would they go out of their way to deliberately hide evidence? What’s the truth?
Obama, the innovators and the entrepreneurs
I’ve also seen speculative pieces regarding the Obama administration’s apparent get-tough stance on antitrust, and what that may mean for Silicon Valley. I argue that any fear and loathing about what might come to pass is premature, and also misplaced. Am I an expert in this field? No. But as a technologist working for a company that innovates on the bleeding edge, do I have an informed opinion? Yes.
Only time will tell how much the Obama administration is able to help protect the economically suffering American consumer through encouraging vibrant competition. But I can say today with confidence that rather than fear or fight the change that is coming, I would encourage entrepreneurs to embrace it – because I am convinced that robust antitrust enforcement is the innovator’s best friend; perhaps the only friend they have in the dog-eat-dog world of the high tech industry.
Sane innovators and entrepreneurs will only expend the vast amounts of monetary and intellectual capital necessary to bring competitive products to the marketplace if they have a reasonable expectation of a fair return on their investment. In other words, a fair fight.
Look at it from the other side- who in their right mind would dedicate the time, money, and everything else that goes along with a bet-the-business proposition if they knew going into it that their business’ world-beating product was most likely to be taken, boxed-up, and relegated to the top shelf in vast warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant. The answer, of course, is no one.
My humble request
So if you really love technology and what it can do for people the way I do, I urge you to support any effort that gives innovators – both large and small – the confidence to create. Let these independent investigations into Intel’s business practices play out and let the truth speak for itself. Japanese, Korean and now European competition investigators don’t have any skin in the AMD versus Intel technology game. They don’t care about us. They don’t prefer gaming on either an AMD rig or an Intel rig. All they care about is how the facts line up with their rule of law, in an effort to protect consumers.
And by that measure, Intel is “0 for 3″. As one prominent legal reporter so succinctly put it, “Even before this palpable pendulum shift, Intel’s legal arguments looked dicey. Now they’re beginning to look far-fetched.”
So what do you think? Let me know and leave a comment and I will respond.
(4.43 out of 5)
#1 by Daniel - May 20th, 2009 at 11:37
It’s true that those authorities does not care about the technology itself. Their job is to see that the competiton laws works on each market. And so far I think they have done a great job with this. What Intel has done to AMD and the market can’t been described in words. At least not nice ones.
Never forget the AMD purpose:
Empowering
People Everywhere
to Lead More
Productive Lives
Never let Intel or anybody else prevent this purpose to become fulfilled.
#2 by Patrick Moorhead - May 20th, 2009 at 15:21
@Daniel, thanks for the comment. You are right, competition, not monopoly drives innovation and value for consumers. Always has always will.
#3 by Sean - May 20th, 2009 at 11:43
Here here Pat!!! I’m with ya a 100%!!!
Ironically, I was thinking about this, this morning as I was trying to find out when I can get my open platform phone.
The solution? MDF. Outlaw it. Sounds crazy, I know, but marketing dollars should be built into the ASP, not into a back room deal.
When you think about it, the huge MDF dollars are really just a method for a back alley deal, enforced by uncle Guido, aka Intel.
I’m still wondering why all those HUGE OEMs launched with Centrino when they could have had superior technology, 54G, at the same price.
lets do the math on that one. hypothetical, of course:
11Mbits/sec/$5 is greater than 54Mbits/sec/$5. ????? umm? old is better than new? the consumer got nailed on this one.
Moreover, it would really suck if the vendors took the info they gleaned from my lil widget and developed a new one, utlizing the market info they got as a result of the work i did. Take a look at the i7 launch slide deck. They talk about “platform” improvements coming in ‘09. Mind you, i sent them two GT3s that summer. And of course, they poo poo’d the thing to death yet NEVER provided any supporting data. and surprise after 20 yrs they decide to do some mystery platform? hmmm… but i digress…
Oh ma gosh, i could go on for days…
And we havent even broached the China topic!!!! 
Moreover, for corp civil crimes, the laws need to change to stop the abuse of appeals. NO APPEALS. Lifes tough, a business should understand that more than any other individual. Moreover, a business entity needs to have a different law set then the individual. Because after all, they are, intrinsically different.
I really hope people speak out on this, specially if they have been on the front lines. It is their civil duty.
Great article, Pat.
Sean
#4 by Patrick Moorhead - May 20th, 2009 at 15:21
@Sean, you bring up some great examples here that many people probably aren’t even aware of or have perspective on like you.
#5 by Methadras - May 20th, 2009 at 12:32
Pat,
Tell me again how the EU punishing Intel will make you a better company? Tell me how your product will create the need necessary to move superior inventory and displace Intel from it’s thrown to be replaced by AMD? At this point you might as well show all of your cards because screaming “We are victims” and using Harding/Kerrigan as an example of how you were unable to compete against your rival will not make you a better company with better product. You ask for fairness, well, newsflash, this is the real world, there is no such thing as fairness. But what I do see is you being the little fat kid with glasses on standing on the sideline pointing his finger and saying HAHA at a football game as you watch the referee kick the star quarterback in the nuts. But in the end you are still the sideline pointing fat kid with the glasses.
Here is a phrase that might be helpful to you and your company. Go do something useful instead of crying like little girls with got their pig-tails pulled. Go make a superior product that makes me want to buy from you again. Stop whining and act like the professional executive you are because from here you look like nothing more than a bitter man holding a hollow victory.
#6 by Cliff Forster - May 20th, 2009 at 13:57
@Methadras, I fear you are missing the point. Anytime in the history of this rivalry, when AMD started to gain favor with enthusiasts and the review community, Intel pressed the OEM’s and Retailers hard to repress the innovation they saw. So, if AMD does come out with the Nehalem killer in the next few months, and they are not positioned in a fair and just marketplace do you think it will win AMD a fair share of the business just because they produced a more compelling product?
Getting the Retailers and OEM’s to promote your brand is the other half of the battle. Intel was not playing fair in that regard, countless accusations and testimony have displayed this reality, bottom line is this, AMD could make the greatest chip the world has ever known, and as long as Intel has ten times the resources to bury that priority with the OEM’s and Retailers, it may never find its way into enough systems to be a real threat to big blue.
Like AMD calling Intel out or not, know one thing, the technology market is far better off for AMD sticking it out all these years. They have driven their competitor to innovate and to offer the best pricing we have ever enjoyed on high performing chips.
In the consumer market alone, the Slot A Athlon’s were far superior to the Pentium III – The Athlon 64 made the Pentium 4 look like a joke, The Athlon X2 was a far superior chip to the P4 HT, and Pentium D, and frankly, none of this is debatable, its just fact. Core 2 over the last few years has finally been Intels pull ahead point in terms of raw chip performance, and if you compare them dollar for dollar, AMD still wins in a hard value comparison.
So lets agree, you would have rather had an Athlon 64 to a Pentium 4 back then, right, lets be real, it was a far better platform, so if AMD had the lead on raw performance then, why didn’t they just magically gain a 50+% market share? You know why, the game is rigged. So you see, the point isn’t just about making an amazing chip, both AMD and Intel do this, and have switched performance leads a number of times. If you can’t get your product on the shelf because your competitor offers the retailer money to keep yours off the shelf, the greatest chip ever made will not matter, because its not in stock. And don’t give me a “that’s tough”, “its the way the world is” kind of reply, because I am not buying it.
If A-Rod did roids to hit extra long balls, does it mean that the whole league has to suck it up, and just get better, and if that means playing dirty too, so be it? I don’t think it should.
#7 by Methadras - May 20th, 2009 at 21:24
@Cliff Forster,
“Getting the Retailers and OEM’s to promote your brand is the other half of the battle. Intel was not playing fair in that regard, countless accusations and testimony have displayed this reality, bottom line is this, AMD could make the greatest chip the world has ever known, and as long as Intel has ten times the resources to bury that priority with the OEM’s and Retailers, it may never find its way into enough systems to be a real threat to big blue.”
Cliff, are you seriously going to make the argument that Intel shouldn’t use it’s resources to do business against a competitor? Fair or otherwise? You are going to blame Intel because of their largess and market share? Intel was on the scene long before AMD ever was and yet AMD chiseled itself out a good niche against a lumbering giant. How did that happen? Under your argument that should never have happened. Intel should have seen AMD coming and shut them right out of the market completely and yet here we are talking about market fairness.
I have no problem with any company using any of its resources to A) produce a superior product, B) based on that superiority (perceived or otherwise) to use those resources to promote it to people who want to buy it, be it OEM or 3rd party, C) use those resources to garner as much market share as possible, D) use those resources to crush your competition. That’s what being in business is. You are always looking over your shoulder. Would the argument have been made in reverse if AMD went to their vendors greased their palms, cut their pricing in order to shove out intel from being able to sell to them? Of course, and don’t assume they haven’t tried either.
I’ve owned both AMD and Intel. I find both products to be excellent for my uses. It’s not about fanboy this or fanboy that. It’s about getting people like you and patrick to start living in the real world where cutthroat business is done on a daily basis and not make crybaby statements to the public as a comparative for how you are David vs. a Goliath or how getting ahead means getting knee-capped. The only difference is is that Tonya Harding didn’t do the dirty deed and there were witnesses seeing Nancy Kerrigan getting assaulted. If AMD wants to be Nancy Kerrigan then they should take a page out of her playbook; suck it up and get back in the game. She did and won, made a bigger name for herself, earned more cash, stole another womans husband (her manager) and had 3 babies with him. Tonya Harding is living like a fatso in a trailer park. Yeah, she was definitely the winner, right?
Frankly, these analogies are BS and I wish you guys would stick with reality and stop using them.
#8 by Cliff Forster - May 21st, 2009 at 10:04
@Methadras,
Methadras,
We could go back and forth about this all day long, but the reality is this, there are rules, they are set to protect consumers like you and me, the EU and two other independent government organizations have ruled that Intel has been in violation of those rules, and Intel is paying the heaviest fine the EU has ever levied as a result.
I would say that this fact alone validates any complaint AMD has levied against Intel’s practices over the years.
You spend your cash where you want my friend, but I prefer to spend mine with companies that place value in ethics.
#9 by Don Davis - May 25th, 2009 at 21:47
@Cliff Forster,
Good explanation. I’m sad to say that as an avid AMD customer, I was unaware of this situation. I build my own rigs and use nothing but AMD chips. I’ll soon be building a Phenom II.
I’m happy to hear that Intel has been set back. I truly hope that AMD can gain a position of parity in the global CPU market. I’m sick of living in a world of sacred cows thinking they somehow have a right to rip off consumers or competitors.
I’m very pleased to see some good chips once again coming out of AMD. I personally threw in the towel. I knew you’d be back!
LONG LIVE AMD!!! LOL
Also, you are ABSOLUTELY right about AMD’s sticking it out being the reason we have the chips we do at current prices. Most people in our world today are too … obtuse to see the truth in your claim.
Planet X is coming. I must hurry and build my new rig!
Best wishes to you, AND AMD!
/cheer
#10 by Patrick Moorhead - May 20th, 2009 at 13:58
@Methadras, Quite frankly I think you’ve missed the point here. The world of commerce is supposed to be fair. That is why every economic democracy has some sort of legal system in place to avoid anti-trust and monopolistic behavior. Why? So that everyone gets the opportunity to compete on an even playing field. And you – the consumer – are the ultimate winner, since a level playing field drives innovation and innovation typically leads to lower priced, better products. We don’t want to see anyone getting kicked by anyone. We just don’t want to be forced to play the game wearing concrete running shoes either. But thanks for your opinion. Open dialogue is what we’ve always wanted, even when we disagree.
#11 by Aaron - May 20th, 2009 at 14:09
@Patrick Moorhead,
“The world of commerce is supposed to be fair.”
But it isn’t. Make a compelling product, and the consumer will force the OEMs to switch. I was an AMD fanboi for years (486-50 anyone?) but Intel pulled ahead.
#12 by Rambaldi - May 21st, 2009 at 04:18
@Aaron, They do make a compelling product, it isn’t at the same performance level so they compete with price.
#13 by Stew - June 3rd, 2009 at 08:13
@Methadras, you don’t seem to be aware of how far Intel has (famously) gone to stifle competition.
You can under-price your product and take a loss. It’s questionable, but companies get away with it all the time.
You can work out quantity discounts, sure.
Offering a specific deal on pricing depending on whether or not someone sells a competitor’s product or tie it to the number of models available? That’s way over the line.
I understand the Kerrigan comparison is a bit heavy-handed, but that doesn’t dilute in any way Intel’s horrendously anti-competitive actions.
The fact that going to dell.com or ibm.com and can’t find directly comparable AMD/Intel systems is just wrong. While you may say “blame the OEM’s,” it’s been made clear that it’s Intel’s might rather than any individual company’s exercising their prerogative.
I’ll just keep building my own machines.
#14 by sourjerer - July 9th, 2009 at 18:55
@Methadras,
In game there must be rules, rules that should control or govern the game, and basing from that rules,officials declares the winner. What intel has done to the game is that intel disregarded the rules, which is mainly wrong and making their own rules which by simply is unacceptable! The only thing here is that AMD wants a fair and clean competition!…. Its competition that makes the prices decline and features go up on their respective products……. If you love intel that much go buy their i7’s for all I care!…….As for me I’m sticking with AMD based products because I know that they deliver the performance, reliability, and stability that I need or should I say WE ALL NEED!
God Bless To All Of US!
#15 by Patrick Moorhead - May 20th, 2009 at 12:41
I needed to share HardOCP’s pictorial interpretation of this blog. http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=Mzk2OTEsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=
#16 by Daniel - May 20th, 2009 at 12:46
@Patrick Moorhead,
Haha, nice one!!
#17 by Intel Pwns U - May 20th, 2009 at 13:08
Just stick to making video cards.
You have failed to produce a product that consumers want. They buy the better bang for the buck.
GO INTEL!
#18 by Daniel - May 20th, 2009 at 14:32
@Intel Pwns U,
Wake up from your little dream. Consumers wants Phenom II and buys Phenom II. What about the sales for Core i7?
#19 by KIRK - October 10th, 2009 at 04:00
@Daniel,
Deneb Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Processor
Bloomfield 3.33GHz LGA 1366
130W Quad-Core Processo Series: Core i7 QPI: 6.4GT/s L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB L3 Cache: 8MB Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm 64 bit Support: Yes Hyper-Threading Support: Yes $999.99
VS
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz Socket AM3 140W Quad-Core Series: Phenom II X4 Virtualization Technology Support: Yes L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB L3 Cache: 6MB Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm 64 bit Support: Yes Hyper Transports: 4000MHz $249.00
IS THE 2 MB L3 CACHE RILE WORTH $750.99 OR AM I MISSING SUM THING!!!!
AMD IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO
#20 by Sean - May 20th, 2009 at 18:53
@Intel Pwns U,
I don’t understand this arbitrary affinity for a specific brand.
Hmm… smell’s like an Intel employee or legal counsel.
#21 by sourjerer - July 9th, 2009 at 19:05
@Intel Pwns U,
Ohh…. really!!
Bang for buck you say!!!!!
Try buying the i7 965, with a price tag of over a 1000$ And ask yourself, is it really worth it?
Frankly speaking NO It is not worth it…. paying for a 1000$ dollar processor that only performs slightly better than the phenom II (which is about 250-300$) is not a very wise and logical decision. Humans are logical beings aren’t we……. so use that logic to use, think before you move.
GOD BLESS US ALL!
#22 by Cliff Forster - May 20th, 2009 at 13:14
Methadras,
I fear you are missing the point. Anytime in the history of this rivalry, when AMD started to gain favor with enthusiasts and the review community, Intel pressed the OEM’s and Retailers hard to repress the innovation they saw. So, if AMD does come out with the Nehalem killer in the next few months, and they are not positioned in a fair and just marketplace do you think it will win AMD a fair share of the business just because they produced a more compelling product?
Getting the Retailers and OEM’s to promote your brand is the other half of the battle. Intel was not playing fair in that regard, countless accusations and testimony have displayed this reality, bottom line is this, AMD could make the greatest chip the world has ever known, and as long as Intel has ten times the resources to bury that priority with the OEM’s and Retailers, it may never find its way into enough systems to be a real threat to big blue.
Like AMD calling Intel out or not, know one thing, the technology market is far better off for AMD sticking it out all these years. They have driven their competitor to innovate and to offer the best pricing we have ever enjoyed on high performing chips.
In the consumer market alone, the Slot A Athlon’s were far superior to the Pentium III – The Athlon 64 made the Pentium 4 look like a joke, The Athlon X2 was a far superior chip to the P4 HT, and Pentium D, and frankly, none of this is debatable, its just fact. Core 2 over the last few years has finally been Intels pull ahead point in terms of raw chip performance, and if you compare them dollar for dollar, AMD still wins in a hard value comparison.
So lets agree, you would have rather had an Athlon 64 to a Pentium 4 back then, right, lets be real, it was a far better platform, so if AMD had the lead on raw performance then, why didn’t they just magically gain a 50+% market share? You know why, the game is rigged. So you see, the point isn’t just about making an amazing chip, both AMD and Intel do this, and have switched performance leads a number of times. If you can’t get your product on the shelf because your competitor offers the retailer money to keep yours off the shelf, the greatest chip ever made will not matter, because its not in stock. And don’t give me a “that’s tough”, “its the way the world is” kind of reply, because I am not buying it.
If A-Rod did roids to hit extra long balls, does it mean that the whole league has to suck it up, and just get better, and if that means playing dirty too, so be it? I don’t think it should.
#23 by Eric Rivera - May 20th, 2009 at 14:14
I for one can’t wait till AMD can make a intel crushing chip. I do think Patrick makes an interesting point. AMD has traded performance punches with Intel for awhile now, yet somehow does not gain nearly as much market share as Intel does when they are on top. Many could just argue that it is due to how each company is run, but is it really?
I stuck with AMD throughout socket A and felt great for it, let’s give me a reason to not upgrade to I7:)
#24 by Sorry I’m a Intel Fan - May 20th, 2009 at 14:27
Sorry, but AMD has failed to make a CPU that will out perform Intel’s, period. In almost every mag article I read about overclocking or PC performance when they benchmark AMD vs. Intel CPU’s Intel almost ALWAYS comes out a few hundred (or ten’s depending on the scale) points ahead. I really can’t figure out why either, AMD looks better on paper technologically but Intel out performs it. I think if you guys actually started producing CPU’s that are actually contenders to Intel’s maybe you wouldn’t have to sue them so many times to get your product sold. I mean yeah there might be some legitimate reasons to sue Intel on anti-trust reasons, but to the lay man it looks like another Apple type attempt to level the playing field. I mean you compare Nancy at the Skater Rink, from my perspective you guys are clubbing Intel’s knees because they skate better.
#25 by Sorry I’m a Intel Fan - May 20th, 2009 at 14:43
@Sorry I’m a Intel Fan,
and by apple type attempt I mean when Apple convinced the EU that Internet Explorer was a Monopoly on Safari being installed, blah, blah. Yet the EU didn’t force Apple to ship OSX with Safari NOT installed. hmmmmm……
#26 by Rambaldi - May 21st, 2009 at 04:22
@Sorry I’m a Intel Fan, I don’t own or use a mac so I would like to know to anyone that is out there. Is Safari as inbuilt as IE? can you un-install it fully and other programs will still work?
Usually these kind of things do go against the major market share holder though as they have the greatest influence on the market. Going against Apple for Safari would be like going against Cananonical for packaging Firefox with Ubuntu (although I am pretty sure you can completely get rid of it haven’t tried though) It wouldn’t affect the majority of consumers.
#27 by Sorry I’m a Intel Fan - May 20th, 2009 at 14:53
The world of commerce isn’t fair. Anyone who believes it is, your naive. If the world of commerce was fair, Ford, Chrysler and a few of the other tanking companies wouldn’t be tanking at all. If the world of Commerce was fair I would get paid a lot more money than I currently make, and could buy both companies products. If the world of commerce was fair, I wouldn’t be writing on this blog, period. The World of commerce is not a fair one at all. To put it into context, it’s like a “phony baloney circus run by blood-sucking clowns.”
#28 by Patrick Moorhead - May 20th, 2009 at 15:26
@Sorry I’m a Intel Fan, with all due respect, you have outlined exactly why competition authorities exist. Three separate competition authorities representing more than half a billion of the world’s consumers have told Intel that its efforts to unfairly control the IT marketplace harms consumers, is definetly illegal, and must stop now. What is there left to say?
#29 by Methadras - May 20th, 2009 at 22:56
@Patrick Moorhead,
Patrick,
These are bureaucratic entities, they are not courts of law. Please understand the distinction. They have their own agendas and have refused to see refuting documentation otherwise. They haven’t even accused them of anti-trust have they?
#30 by Cliff Forster - May 20th, 2009 at 15:14
@Sorry I’m a Intel Fan,
Intel Fan – Just ask yourself this. If all it took was making a superior chip, why wasn’t AMD beating up on Intel during the Pentium III and 4 era? The Athlon and Athlon 64 was a far superior product, and every hardware reviewer knew it. So what happened, if its as simple as that? You have to wonder, don’t you?
This legal battle, its not just about Core 2 vs. Phenom. It has been many years in the making.
#31 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 06:32
@Sorry I’m a Intel Fan,
Just because you didn’t read hard enough , every mag. doing intel ads. … But do you compare the price ?
skip the 65nm phenom performance . When came to new phenom II the performance are so fair compare to same price/same grade intel system….. don’t believe me ? check it out!
http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=5410&pageid=3674
You want overclocking , AMD have it …
You want low price ,AMD have it …
You want new technology , AMD have it …
And do you know Intel i7 series are using AMD K8 (EV6 BUS) technology ? Do you know Intel 64 bit chips is the same technology that AMD 64 are using ? Do you know intel core 2 quad are not a real quad core ? please do more research before posting any comment…!
#32 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 06:41
@pete,
“x86-64 is a superset of the x86 instruction set architecture. Therefore, x86-64 processors can run existing 32-bit or 16-bit x86 programs without sacrificing speed or compatibility, and in addition, they support new programs written in an extended instruction set, which features a 64-bit address space and other capabilities.
The x86-64 specification was designed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who have since renamed it AMD64. The first family of processors to support the architecture was the AMD K8 family of processors. This was the first time any company other than Intel made significant additions to the x86 architecture. Intel was forced to follow suit, introducing modified NetBurst family processors, initially referred to as “IA-32e” or “EM64T” and now called Intel 64 and almost identical to AMD64. x86-64 is backwards compatible with 32-bit code without any performance loss. For example, The Developers Manuals available from Intel on the IA-32 architecture refer to IA-32 and IA-32e in tandem.[1] AMD licensed its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64 (formerly EM64T). AMD’s design replaced earlier attempts by Intel to design its own x86-64 extensions which had been referred to as IA-32e. As Intel licenses AMD the right to use the original x86 architecture (upon which AMD’s x86-64 is based), these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license.[2] Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture. The last processors Intel manufactured which did not use AMD’s x86-64 design were early versions of the desktop Pentium 4 “Prescott”, introduced in February 2004, and mobile Intel Core introduced in January 2006.
VIA Technologies, another producer of x86 processors, have also included x86-64 instructions in their VIA Isaiah architecture used in VIA Nano. The terms x86-64 and x64 are often used as vendor-neutral terms to collectively refer to x86-64 processors from any company.
The x86-64 specification is distinct from the Intel Itanium (formerly IA-64) architecture, which is not compatible on the native instruction set level with either the x86 or x86-64 architectures.”
The AMD64 instruction set is implemented in AMD’s Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 X2, Phenom, Phenom II, Athlon X2, Turion 64, Turion 64 X2, Opteron and later Sempron processors.
History of AMD64
AMD64 was created as an alternative to Intel and Hewlett Packard’s radically different IA-64 architecture. Originally announced as “x86-64″ in August 2000,[3] the architecture was positioned by AMD from the beginning as an evolutionary way to add 64-bit computing capabilities to the existing x86 architecture, as opposed to Intel’s approach of creating an entirely new 64-bit architecture with IA-64.
The first AMD64-based processor, the Opteron, was released in April 2003.”
History of Intel 64
Historically, AMD has developed and produced processors patterned after Intel’s original designs, but with x86-64, roles were reversed: Intel found itself in the position of adopting the architecture which AMD had created as an extension to Intel’s own x86 processor line.
Intel’s project was originally codenamed Yamhill (after the Yamhill River in Oregon’s Willamette Valley). After several years of denying its existence, Intel announced at the February 2004 IDF that the project was indeed underway. Intel’s chairman at the time, Craig Barrett, admitted that this was one of their worst kept secrets.[6][7]
Intel’s name for this technology has changed several times. The name used at the IDF was CT (presumably for Clackamas Technology, another codename from an Oregon river); within weeks they began referring to it as IA-32e (for IA-32 extensions) and in March 2004 unveiled the “official” name EM64T (Extended Memory 64 Technology). In late 2006 Intel began instead using the name Intel 64 for its implementation, paralleling AMD’s use of the name AMD64.[8]
#33 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 07:00
@pete,
“In conclusion, compare with retail price of Core i7 920 and Phenom II X4 940 about $54 gap between both, however, after calculation,$54 isnt the only gap. selecting Core i7 920 system will cost more than Phenom II X4 940 system about $367.”
Wait a minute !!? both performance are the same ? no kidding ? Yes it’s truth !!
#34 by Left-O-Matic - July 21st, 2009 at 22:08
@pete,
Wurd.
I just finished up building an ATI/AMD platform around the same by co-worker did with Nvidia/Intel
he paid $850 more than me (we both ordered from the same site) and my HD4890 Xfire rig rounds out about 5000 more marks in 3DMark06
than his tripple SLI
*note* I did warn him in advance
#35 by KIRK - October 10th, 2009 at 04:07
@pete, Deneb Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Processor
Bloomfield 3.33GHz LGA 1366
130W Quad-Core Processo Series: Core i7 QPI: 6.4GT/s L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB L3 Cache: 8MB Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm 64 bit Support: Yes Hyper-Threading Support: Yes $999.99
VS
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz Socket AM3 140W Quad-Core Series: Phenom II X4 Virtualization Technology Support: Yes L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB L3 Cache: 6MB Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm 64 bit Support: Yes Hyper Transports: 4000MHz $249.00
IS THE 2 MB L3 CACHE RILE WORTH $750.99 OR AM I MISSING SUM THING!!!!
#36 by sourjerer - September 4th, 2009 at 18:58
@Sorry I’m a Intel Fan,
Oh really…….Intel is better than AMD? are you sure about that? Based from my experience as a computer user for 15 years intel has not produced a suitable and robust product for the consumers… Take for example Intel’s low end CELERON processors, if you compare with AMD’s SEMPRON, you could clearly see that the SEMPRON out performs the CELERON in every bench marks, and the CELERON runs very hot compared to the SEMPRON!……..
Same is true with the current models……
conclusions:
AMD just makes a more robust products, and INTEL you just wait because AMD will unleash a bombshell on you,, just wait!
#37 by David Ouillette - May 20th, 2009 at 14:45
“In the consumer market alone, the Slot A Athlon’s were far superior to the Pentium III – The Athlon 64 made the Pentium 4 look like a joke, The Athlon X2 was a far superior chip to the P4 HT, and Pentium D, and frankly, none of this is debatable, its just fact. Core 2 over the last few years has finally been Intels pull ahead point in terms of raw chip performance, and if you compare them dollar for dollar, AMD still wins in a hard value comparison.”
This is where I am going to have to disagree with you. In each of those platforms the Intel chips far outperformed the AMD in multitasking. Up to the X2 multitasking was only for the suicidal on the AMd’s. While during the time frame you mention the AMD caught up and even surpassed the Intel on single app performance, I could not abide by it’s horrible performance when you tried to do more. I know this was the reason I always paid the little extra and went with Intel on all of my network build outs during those days. It had nothing to do with OEM deals, or back door refunds. I wasn’t large enough to get those anyway.
Speaking of which, why it is that we hear these tales from the OEMs that they were offered such great deals and pricing, but no one seems to mention that these OEMs did not turn down the deals. They happily signed on the dotted line with any contract that would let them milk the bottom line for another dollar.
#38 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 06:09
@David Ouillette,
Actually due to K8 outperform P4 , only when AMD make use of “DEC EV6″ memory controlling technology (correct if i wrong) As I remember I love the thunder bird (but it is too hot) then i upgrade to XP1800+ ,then the raw chip performance of this evolution really show on AMD desktop multi-tasking! (as like always the K6-2 desktop multi-tasking outperform celeron /due to 100Mhz Bus and larger L2 cache)
#39 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 06:13
@pete,
opss ,sorry,,,, it is K7 Slot A (EV6 type) an then K8 Socket platform…..
#40 by DaveD - May 20th, 2009 at 16:22
I tried to make this point on the earlier blog on this topic, but it appears that many didn’t understand it then, so I’ll make it again.
Unfair business practices (Like the ones Intel used) don’t just hurt thier direct competition, they hurt all of us.
Intel and AMD are tech company’s. A significant portion of thier profits are invested into research and development for the “next big thing” they intend to sell. When AMD didn’t gain the market share or level of profit they should have in the past due to illegal business practices by Intel, AMD’s R&D suffer’s. What this means to you and I, is that thier “next big thing” will either show up much later, or won’t have the performance level it could have had.
If you can’t see how having a competitors product show up either “late” or “weak” is something that will be reflected in what you can charge for your own product lineup, I don’t know what argument I can make that will convince you.
Intel would continue to build better CPU’s even if it had no competition at all. The innovation would be slower, and the prices would be much higher, but still they would keep getting better. For myself I’d prefer AMD to be a strong competitor since that will cause both company’s to produce new products that are better and cheaper but this will only happen if all company’s can compete “fairly”.
Dave
#41 by Aaron - May 20th, 2009 at 16:42
@DaveD,
So, you’re saying that we should purchase a slightly inferior product with the hope that the money spent will make a better product in the next generation cycle?
Those rose colored glasses look good on you.
#42 by DaveD - May 20th, 2009 at 20:22
@Aaron, Umm… I’m not really sure that your replying to the correct message Aaron.
I never stated in any form or even gave the slightest suggestion that you should ever purchase any product that isn’t the one with the lowest cost that suit’s your specific needs (this is the “rule” I apply to my purchases).
What I did state is that illegal practices to inhibit sales of a product, lower the revenue the product should have generated. This lowers the amount that can be invested in research and development for future products. With less to invest in R&D, the future products will be either late or inferior to what they should have been.
I don’t really see how this is arguable. I’ll give you an example to attempt to make my point clearer.
If I have a budget of $10,000 and am trying to hire a design firm to build a prototype player that I want to compete with an IPod touch, I doubt I would find one. If that budget was $10,000,000 I’d be willing to bet I’d have little trouble getting my prototype built and I’ll also bet it would be competitive.
Going back to my Ipod example, (assuming my design was as good if not superior to Apples product) if I could get that prototype into mass production and onto store shelves, Apple would be forced to either produce a new “better” model or price close to the level that my design was selling for. This is simply how business works. BUT if I was somehow prevented from gaining shelf space by legal or illegal means and because of this had no chance to compete… Apple would have no reason to increase investing in R&D or to lower price.
This hypothetical example demonstrates how “we” were affected by what happened, and I for one don’t take real kindly to a company reaching into my wallet by what I and several countries have decided were illegal business practices.
Dave
#43 by mojosico - May 20th, 2009 at 16:59
i really think intel in its bizzare wisdom think their not doing anything wrong . i would compare intel to madoff he did not think he was doing anything wrong either.personally technology has suffered because of intels pratices’s . amd lost money because of intel and i think the tech world has slowed down because of this . the funny thing is that amd’s numbers are already going up im not sure if this is because of the anti-trust case against intel but i say amd makes the best products with real concern for the consumer .
so thank you amd the truth is out there.
#44 by Sean - May 20th, 2009 at 18:56
Some people in this thread are in denial. As if the elephant in the middle of the room, is in fact, not there.
For those ppl, I would suggest talking to some ppl on the front lines, who saw and experienced what went on, then re-evaluate their blind allegiance.
#45 by lchan - May 20th, 2009 at 20:32
I agree. When i was looking for a laptop in Malaysia with an AMD cpu in it, i was rather frustrated with the time wasted searching high and low for other available brands beside HP. It not that i do not like HP, but i would like to have the ability to compare and have options. It not that i dislike intel (All three of my laptops are intel now), but i would also like to see what AMD had to offer and how other OEMs are packaging it.
When i knew only HP carried a couple of AMD laptops here, I knew Intel has been playing dirty again.
Sure, competition and open market is never fair. When is it ever fair to the loosing party. But what the law does is it ensure the weighing scale does not tip too much to one side.
#46 by Methadras - May 20th, 2009 at 22:58
@lchan,
You need to understand it from the OEM side of things. It is better for an OEM to carry one type of cpu type. That way they don’t have to produce or farm out making separate boards to house the chipset and CPU in. It reduces their SKU’s and further reduces their overall burden. This is the age of the internet, surely you could have looked outside of Malaysia to get an AMD laptop, no?
#47 by Rambaldi - May 21st, 2009 at 04:14
@Methadras, A valid point but is it really worth the hassle of buying outside the country you are in for something that can and probably will have problems? (for my lap top I have had to replace the power brick after a power surge and then the motherboard after the fan burnt out and the company that did it put in a motherboard that was even more broken so i had to send it back again) but that is getting off topic isn’t it?
with lap tops I have found that AMD have very competitive platforms price wise in the lower price range (above the netbook though) I was happy to see my sister get an HP for her birthday even though I wasn’t able to influence the decision.
#48 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 05:00
I like to said something thats is non bias , I start build a PC with P233MMX and went on to upgrade to K6-2 266(100mhz x3) on socket 7 mainboard couple with voodoo 2 . it really serve me well and run quake2 ,final fantasy 7 etc without any major problem .
until now(turion x2 TL-58) i never change back to intel cpu product ! let me tells you why ! AMD is more fun when you upgrade yours system . more customization for gamers and value for money .
Like the k8 and old phenom , many user complaint about the temperature and non able to overclock etc.
Give some time to the developer and they give you K10 phenom II (all at the affordable price) and more fun building a PC or upgrade yours old AM2+ motherboard ….
You see , for all you “celeron” head or Intel user can’t do this to yours intel system , right ? to upgrade i5 i7 cpu you needs DDR3 and to run tripper band memory you need new motherboard and more ram and that add up the pricing to yours budget . (don’t mind if you are rich) But what if only have little money to upgrade yours system ? what if the market only selling intel computing system and IA64 bit for high end system ? do you have any others choice ? Time to wake up my friends!
#49 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 05:12
Add on : Without AMD , You all will be force to use 233mmx for another 10 year !!! And i not kidding! dude!!! (Just an example)
#50 by Rambaldi - May 21st, 2009 at 08:05
@pete, I believe we would have breached 1 GHz by now, if not now then within the next year at least.
#51 by Daryl - May 21st, 2009 at 07:01
What is being missed in this conversation is that Intel is running afoul of the anti-competition laws that exist in most countries. It is everyone’s best interest to try to level the playing field so that competition can determine the winner. While these laws are not perfect, they attempt to make sure that companies do not maintain a monopoly by the mere fact that they are a monopoly.
AMD has legitimate claims agains Intel’s business practices and, so far, three separate courts agree. This has nothing to do with technology, chip performance, or innovation. It only has to do with Intel’s business practices, and Intel has clearly attempted to limit competition by forcing suppliers and resellers to NOT offer competing technologies.
It is as simple as this: 1) You use my product to get your business off the ground. 2) Once your business is running good, you attempt to offer a competing product to widen your appeal. 3) I get wind of it, and show up at your door and say “If you offer that product, I am pulling all my incentives and you are no longer a prefered client.” This, of course, will damage your business and cost you millions.
How, exactly, does that benefit consumers? It doesn’t, and that is why Intel is 0 for 3 in the courts.
#52 by Patrick Moorhead - May 22nd, 2009 at 18:29
@Daryl, thank you for the comment.
#53 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 07:06
The is the “fair” gaming benchmark review of ” I7 vs phenom II ” that i like every user to read !
http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=5410&pageid=3674
always read carefully before you post any comment…
AMD official , please read it too…
#54 by babai - May 21st, 2009 at 08:28
I’m from a typically middle class indian family and own a amd x2, i have seen many cases where some financially backward people who just need simple desktops to do office work are forced to buy high priced core 2 duos as they dont even know the existance of another brand(amd) coz the guy at the computer shop wont even tell them about AMD being available at cheap rates.
Is that fair to guys here who do have money problems?
#55 by pete - May 21st, 2009 at 14:48
Sorry everybody , i like to highlight something agian !
“In conclusion, compare with retail price of Core i7 920 and Phenom II X4 940 about $54 gap between both, however, after calculation,$54 isnt the only gap. selecting Core i7 920 system will cost more than Phenom II X4 940 system about $367.”
Wait a minute !!? both performance are the same ? no kidding ? Yes it’s truth !! http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=5410&pageid=3674
#56 by Daniel R. - May 21st, 2009 at 17:42
Some of the posters are clearly very immature in their reasoning and/or are being purposely obtuse in their use of logic.
Succinctly*, the entire reasoning for the existence of modern formal democratic systems of governance is to remove the randomness of the strong shall do as they please and the meek shall do as they are told. If we are going to think that simply taking what you can is going to be the rule by which we all live then some of you are going to be on the losing side of life. That is the same kind of thinking that street criminals use to justify their own actions. In other words, if you have something they desire and they have the power to take it from you then they will. However, most of the pro-Intel posters, along with the rest of us, here would be the first ones to call for stronger law enforcement against street crime when they are the aggrieved party. By the way, I don’t recommend it, but, just try out taking what does not belong to you the next time you are strolling through a shop. I think you will find that police officers will have a very different opinion of taking what you can without regards to the legal rights of others.
Some of the attitudes expressed on this blog by some pro-Intel posters appear to derive from the misguided indoctrination that can occur in many American grade schools where we allow a “Lord of the Flies”[1] mentality to fester among some of the student body. I don’t know, but, is this the same in other countries as well? Or is this something that is uniquely American? In any event, it can result in some students believing, apparently far in to their later life, that power and stature justify any actions of the dominate class of peers.
The attempt to regulate political, social, and economic interactions through the application of formalized rules, laws, and regulations is our collective attempt to restrain or reduce the animalistic[2] tendencies and actions of some members of the human family. Such formalized boundaries help to provide for the development of higher forms of human civilization and culture. We all in our daily lives rely on other member of society for the most part to abide by our common rules of acceptable behavior. Take the traffic light in America as an example, when the light turns red we expect that most drivers will stop. As the light changes to green we may check for the errant driver, but, we will then proceed believing that most opposing drivers will wait for the light to change in their favor. How many posters here run red lights on a regular basis simply because you can get away with doing so on some occasions?.. I doubt that many of you do so as there are prescribed punishments for such violations; in addition to the social inertia to comply with excepted practice.
How then does anyone justify not applying the rule of law to Intel or any other corporate entity? Under the law in the United States of America corporations are fictitious legal persons afforded most of the rights of natural persons with a few critical exceptions. In return, they are required to comply with both civil and criminal laws just as a natural person is required to do so, with a few differences due to their differing nature. One exception allowed corporations is that under certain circumstances liability will not attach personally to the owners or employees of the corporation for violations of some laws. However, the corporate legal entity would still be liable for the actions of its officers, executives, and general employees.
Perhaps, some posters believe law breaking is business as usual, but, it is most definitively not acceptable practice. Ask the executives from some Korean and Japanese memory suppliers that are now facing jail time in the U.S. for colluding to fix memory prices. This despite being foreign nationals that do not work or live in the U.S.
The laws apply to all of us. Though it may take an extended period of time for the consequences of our behavior to catch up with us, that delay does not reduce the harm resulting from past wrong doing.
Intel will exercise the rights granted to appeal as it should. In the end, if the EC’s findings stand then Intel will have been determined to have broken the law at which point the full weight of its actions should be accounted for and punished. Just as would be the case if any of us violated the law.
Best regards,
Daniel R.
PS. I do not want to single out an individual poster by name, but, I will reply here to the contents of one post in particular. It is false that Intel was in operation long before Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). According to Intel’s own website[3], Intel was founded in 1968 by Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce, et al. AMD was founded approximately a year or so later in 1969 by Jerry Sanders, et al. It may come as a surprise to some, but, a number of Intel and AMD founders came directly from an earlier technology innovator called Fairchild[4] just before founding their respective companies. It may also surprise some to learn that some of AMD’s early investors were among the founders of Intel. Additionally, Intel’s present day investment arm Intel Capital maintained a position in AMD through atleast the 1990’s if my recollection is correct.
—————————————-
Selected References
—————————————-
* (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Succinctly)
[1] (Lord of the Flies is a book by British novelist, poet and Nobel Prize for Literature laureate Sir William Gerald Golding, reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies)
[2] (an’i·mal·is’tic (-lĭs’tĭk) adj. 2. Indifference to all but the physical appetites. reference: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animalistic] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
[3] (http://www.intel.com/community/california/santaclara/index.htm)
[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Semiconductor)
#57 by Rambaldi - May 21st, 2009 at 22:06
@Daniel R., I just want to commend you for an excellent post, nicely referenced and everything.
#58 by Cliff Forster - May 22nd, 2009 at 09:07
@Rambaldi,
Daniel R.
If anything more intelligently written hits the inter-webs all day I will be surprised. Well thought out.
Oddly enough, the William Golding reference makes allot of sense. Some giant international companies look at it as if they are stranded on their own island, with massive influence and power, and they eventually loose their way.
#59 by Patrick Moorhead - May 22nd, 2009 at 18:28
@Daniel R., wow.. all I can say that this is the most researched post I have ever seen. Take care and thanks for the post.
#60 by Cam - May 21st, 2009 at 19:20
Intel has a tendency to cut out their virtualization technology on cheaper CPU’s, which before windows 7 wasnt a big deal, but now its pretty handy if you want XP compatibility mode.
#61 by Patrick Moorhead - May 22nd, 2009 at 08:55
@Cam, so true. And note the features that get dumped if you want the lowest power solutions on Nehalem server!
#62 by Will - May 22nd, 2009 at 01:55
Patrick, honestly it is good to see deceptive business practices brought into light. Thumbs up to the recent EU decision!
About 10 years ago me and a friend were discussing a book that was written by a former Intel CEO or quoted by a former Intel CEO.
I was wondering if I you know of this book/reference. For the longest time I have wanted to read it.
The title or subtitle in this section of your blog is, well very relevant.
“A guide to playing under the Radar” or “Playing under the Radar”
Anyhow if you know this reference I would appreciate a reply.
Thank you!
#63 by Patrick Moorhead - May 22nd, 2009 at 09:04
@Will, are you thinking of “Inside Intel: Andy Grove and the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Chip Company” http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Intel-Worlds-Powerful-Company/dp/0452276438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243000881&sr=1-1 or “Only the Paranoid Survive.”
#64 by Matt Chrispen - May 22nd, 2009 at 14:20
Hi Pat,
A well thought out argument, and I agree with all of your points… but an observation.
In a world where every other computing solution looks like another in the mainstream, this forces AMD to be several things:
1. Truly innovative… AMD LIVE! is an example. Fusion is an example. Leading Intel by introducing solutions that solve consumer problems by taking a platform approach to performance and changing the game is the way AMD continue to wiggle away at Intel’s marketshare.
2. Agility… You and I both know that AMD can be incredibly capable at adapting to new market challenges if it can avoid pitfalls and snares. Intel’s unfair practices have been one of those snares that created a daunting challenge, but the fact that AMD is still here, still creating amazing products negates all of the manufacturing arguments. Investors are still here with a long term belief that AMD can prevail.
3. Will and Passion… In my mind, this is AMD’s core strength, an unswerving faith that AMD is relevant, capable and the best CPU solution on the planet. AMD’s ability to bring key partnerships along side its planning and marketing activities will continue to be a thorn in Intel’s side, as well as AMD’s dogged will to survive against overwhelming competition.
My congratulations to AMD for this win, and I look forward to many more!
#65 by Patrick Moorhead - May 22nd, 2009 at 18:23
@Matt Chrispen, thanks and great to hear from you. I like the 3 points.
I tried to make a few of them here: http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/04/29/amd-40-years-of-just-doing-it/
and here: http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/tag/innovation/
#66 by balancedthinking - May 28th, 2009 at 07:17
It is so sad, instead of taking on Intel for what they have done, the American press actually defends Intel and defames the EU for beeing “greedy” and “protective”.
They also desperately try to “prove” AMD is not any better than Intel:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/5/27/amd-and-anti-competitive-practices.aspx
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu,7837.html
#67 by Frantz - May 31st, 2009 at 20:50
@balancedthinking
Thanks for the mention. The diverging views in the exchanges on that web site between the author of the article and myself are indicative of a very troubling trend. I made several attempts to separate the real issues at hand versus the made up, imaginary ones. I wonder whether this is part of a well choreographed attempt at blame shifting. My gut feeling is that most AMD bashers don’t know any better for having drunk the blue kool-aid at an early age.
#68 by anne - June 3rd, 2009 at 14:40
Just because AMD has a better product than Intel doesn’t automatically translate to better sales in a free market. It’s much more complicated than that, and we shouldn’t jump to accusing the other side of anticompetitive actions just because AMD is not getting the sales it deserves. I don’t doubt that Intel has done some illegal dealings in the past and probably should be punished, but there are ways for AMD to still thrive and prosper in such a cutthroat environment.
There is something that I have never understood in this Intel v AMD fued. Since AMD has a better product than Intel, why doesn’t AMD advertise to the mainstream public? If it did, then consumers would demand that their computers have AMD products, and retailers would not be as enticed by Intel to agree to illegal conditional agreements. In a free market, retailers will sell what their consumers want. Am I missing something?
#69 by Jake - June 18th, 2009 at 18:46
Hey Patrick, take a read of this Ars article, specifically note their comment about “If I were AMD, I’d be really happy to see Intel moving to this star-based scheme, because AMD’s marketing team can adopt this and just start all of their own processors at the three-star level.”
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/06/intel-rebrands-again-meet-core-i3-and-core-i7.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging
Interesting…….
#70 by A-doc - June 25th, 2009 at 00:36
All I’m gonna say is. When was the last time anyone here saw and AMD add or even better yet an honest to god T.V promotion? Because I see very few. Intel panders to the consumer that doesn’t have the know how to build a system of there own. This is obvious by all of those “Intel inside” adds that we have all seen. The average U.S.A consumer doesn’t even know of the battle going on between AMD and Intel. All they see are the television adds and the big old Intel inside stickers on there favorite Mac and that’s enough for them. Heck Intel even has that catchy little tune or whatever. Now I’m not defending Intel at all. I’ve owned a couple of Intel processors and the AMD’s that I’ve owned have been better on every level. AMD simply makes a better product. Heck the old as heck computer that I’m using to post this has an Athlon x64 in it and even after having to replace the heat sink is still going strong. Meanwhile the Intel core 2 duo I had worked for about a month before simply dieing on me. Now all of you who think that AMD is trying to play the victim. Sorry but the fact still remains that Intel lost the case and got slapped with a loss of 1.4 billion dollars. I keep hearing people say that this is the real world and bla bla bla. Well your right this is the real world and as they say you reap what you sew. There is a reason why Intel lost against the EU. Also, just the fact that AMD has been able to be so successful against the giant of Intel proves that they have an excellent product. Problem is that Intel still has a “bigger face” in the media. I don’t know it just seems to me that AMD should use this current turn of events to there advantage. Especially with Intel planning to introduce the whole star rating thing. Dumb marketing move on Intel’s part in my opinion. If what I have said offends anyone I’m sorry. I’m not trying to anger anyone I’m just voicing my opinion based on my personal experience. Thank you.
#71 by sourjerer - July 14th, 2009 at 04:00
AMD! for the win… AMD is way better compared to INTEL….
Take Care and God Bless!
#72 by Hal 955BE - November 14th, 2009 at 12:44
All I want to say is I am glad this soap opera is reaching the end, (at least for now)…lol.
But AMD needs to move on and continue to be competitive. Begin to do what Intel does, advertise and become a home fixture. Having your CPU’s and GPU’s available and on the market would be a good start. (The GPU division has a great product but is no where to be had right now).
So if you feel you have been vindicated via this suit, well we consumers feel just as violated as you but without any recourse. Providing them with product and at a good price especially now since this suit has been settled. You ask who is the winner, both AMD and Intel are, we consumers always end up paying for it. So you do something now….AMD we are waiting?