wtf? man fuck amd ! the cant have it that intel is way more faster with processors!

um....y?

so, they are investigating them because they wern't sure if they broke the law or not trying to beat out AMD? :confused::confused::confused:

Will it be also true that we will see no more COKE fridge freezers given away to local shops to "lock them into the brand" and "lock them out of others".

I like how everyone forgets how long this has been in the making. It's nothing new, but every few years the opinion changes dependent on who has the top dogg processors. Intel now might not be the same as the Intel then, but it doesn't make em clean of wrongdoing. Cases like this take years, now we have something coming to the foreground (and likely another 9-12 months before a resolution), yet strangely people act like Intel did nothing wrong! 2 years ago this sentiment was different. As it is, if Intel did anything wrong, they'll be held accountable for it.

Love em for their processors, but don't try to justify whether or not they did wrong. Even if they get charged the 60 billion that was alleged, they're not going to go under because of it.

Morgothwtf? man fuck amd ! the cant have it that intel is way more faster with processors!

i dont think amd really cares they didnt file it.

Funny how complaints and such arise when Intel takes the market from AMD even more. Its obviously due to the fact that Intel has no taken the Desktop market by storm due to its Core 2 Duos. Now AMD in the hole after buying ATI and unsuccessfully keeping up with the high end market, as well as losing in the high end desktop market is making complaints of a monopoly. This NY is investigating it.

I pray to god its not true because I don't want AMD to become the leader considering they arn't the leader in performance. Not a Bash on AMD, its just the way I see it and its the way it seems to be.

This has nothing to do with how popular Intel CPU's are right now... they are trying to find out if Intel "FORCED" companies like Dell to only sell PCs with an Intel CPU. If you all remember, Dell did not sell an AMD based PC for a long, long time... even though there was strong demand for them a few years back.

No matter what the outcome is, I doubt it will affect Intel or AMD very much. These lawsuits are going on all the time. :wtf:

I could restate things that I've said already, or kindly ask you to read up on the subject.

The claims were made a couple years ago. They date from '96-06. This really has nothing to do with the current market. Little to do with the high-end desktop market, or any high-end market. Intel (allegedly) pressured OEM system builders (HP, Dell, Packard-Bell, etc..) into refusing AMD processors. They backed up this pressure with threats of pulling discounts, and then added pressure by increasing discounts for companies that didn't carry AMD. What sounds like good marketing and holding back the competition, actually breaks quite a few long-standing laws based on the principles of fair competition.

AMD, in the time presented, had very competitive processors and we very competitively priced. OEM system builders did not include them as even an OPTION for many years, even though they were cheaper and equivalent (some daresay better) in performance than Intel. AMD even went so far as to give FREE processors, only to get turned down by the OEMs.

Don't assume that this case has anything to do with them falling behind, and being in debt. There's a lot more to it than trying to get a free ride from Intel.

Morgothwtf? man fuck amd ! the cant have it that intel is way more faster with processors!

You couldn't be farther from understanding what all this is about. I could give you charts, and graphs, and news stories dating back years to help you understand, but I have the nagging suspicion that it would be a waste of my time.

i did read it all or i'm mis understanding it

F*ck Intel!!!

They were fucking us with the prices when AMD was not on the Scene...

When AMD came to the secene with S939 Processors Intel just F*CKED UP! And had to lower the prices!

At that time Intel started to use its marketing ^^capabilities^^ to surpass AMD...

BTW Neither AMD nor Intel should be alone on the market! I know if AMD gets alone he will f*ck us too...

Here's a snippet...

Summer 2005.

* Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;
o According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.
o Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD’s share of Sony’s business went from 23 percent in ‘02 to 8% in ‘03, to 0%, where it remains today.

* Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
o Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC’s purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC’s business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.

* Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
o When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.

* Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;
o Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying “he had a gun to his head,” he told AMD he had to stop buying.
o According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has “beaten them into ‘guacamole’” in retaliation.

* Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;
o AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Markt, Europe’s largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany’s retail sales.
o Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.

* Forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;
o Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer’s Chairman with “severe consequences” for supporting the AMD Athlon 64™ launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.

* Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.
o Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD’s participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.
o Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program’s performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.

I hate how any computer advertised on TV will have the BIG SCREEN FILLING 'Intel Inside' which is brain washing customers. I bet if AMD did that Intel would throw the teddy out the cot.

Maybe they should sue Intel for 1 Trillion. That would scare the crap out of them and then Intel could maybe change or go out of business.

Nah, they'd still be around. Make up the debt they go into in about a year...

SilverelHere's a snippet...

Summer 2005.

Thanks for putting this together!! There was a lot of stuff in there that I never knew about. ;)

It has nothing to do with processors, but it has to do with what Intel does behind the curtain. Silverel listed all that in a post above.

proud to be a new yorker :)

ah companies have been using anti-competition strategies since day one, just another example that'll end in a small payoff and then back to business and screwing the consumer for every available penny as normal

SilverelHere's a snippet...

Summer 2005.

Thank you for putting up some data on the subject.

This has been going on for a while people, probably on both sides, but Intel being the "Market Leader" and the bigger company. Just like Microsoft, has to be the "bigger company" and fight fairly because of their advantage. Microsoft is now an antitrust company and if Intel doesn't play this smart they may be TOO!
It happens in every industry but right now technology is the biggest ($$) industry.

too little too late.

this has happered amd enough for intel to take the mantle back.

just hope that they get a nice payout and horowitz and his team give amd a real core2duo beater soon.

I know back in 2000, I bought a Gateway Computer with an AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1200mhz proc in it. 6 months later, they didnt offer any AMD procs at all on any systems. Only time Gateway did offer AMD procs (besides here in the last year or so) was on QVC,HSN and shit like that. So, Id say Intel had something to do with it. But, if AMD cant get back on the Athlon 64 roll it had, it wont matter whats ruled.

mdm-adphYou couldn't be farther from understanding what all this is about. I could give you charts, and graphs, and news stories dating back years to help you understand, but I have the nagging suspicion that it would be a waste of my time.

It's pretty difficult to enlighten anybody who has an emotional investment in their point of view. I wouldn't bother. That goes for all of the responses that seem to have a "my team is better" point of view. Silverel did a pretty good job of explaining the situation.

We all root for teams, I get it. We have our favorites. But when people hope or wish competition is wiped out in favor of their 'team' they only do themselves harm.

panchomanproud to be a new yorker :)

Proud of your taxes too?