I'll await your evidence that AMD offered free processors to Compaq. If this is indeed true then I am missing a part of semiconductor history - along with every contemporary writer and publication I've ever read.
Very surprised I am you missed this:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-745_en.htm?locale=en
For example, rival chip manufacturer AMD offered one million free CPUs to one particular computer manufacturer. If the computer manufacturer had accepted all of these, it would have lost Intel's rebate on its many millions of remaining CPU purchases, and would have been worse off overall simply for having accepted this highly competitive offer. In the end, the computer manufacturer took only 160,000 CPUs for free.
It was compaq.
PS
Will respond to the rest of your post a bit later.
"It was Compaq"
No it wasn't. Compaq as a company ceased to exist in late 2001 when HP acquired them. The processor deal was with Hewlett-Packard in 2003 and is a well known part of semiconductor lore. I was well aware of the HP deal, and was totally unaware of a Compaq one - unsurprising since you've attributed one to the other.
The actual deal hinged on supplying chips and chipsets for HP's entry level SFF workstations and business laptops. AMD had a surplus of K6-III+ chips ( the die-shrunk K6 -III low power chips using PowerNow!) because most vendors were more interested in K7. HP, like most other OEMs wanted 1. new models going forward, and 2. a guaranteed supply. AMD was supply constrained because of a lack of fab capacity at their own Dresden plant and were firmly opposed to outsourcing production to third party fabs (they eventually
struck a deal with Chartered Semi once shortages started
biting deep). Intel's actions are certainly shitty in the extreme, but had AMD offered an uninterrupted supply of new chips (i.e. addressed the ability to outsource 20% of their x86 production before it became critical - such as a partnership with UMC and
later TSMC) they would have had way more leverage. Intel had it's own chip shortages of course, but due to its higher number and diversification of fabs, recovered from setbacks faster. Issues tended to be more chip specific (usually the flagship part).
Anyhow, no doubt you'll want some
proof of the free CPU deal offered to HP - and not Compaq...
According to AMD, in 2003, HP was negotiating with AMD for a deal that would result in AMD processors being included in its new line of Evo computers. But HP asked to be paid for that privilege, as AMD alleged in its original complaint against Intel, requesting that $25 million be paid per quarter to help offset what was anticipated to be retaliatory response from Intel...[ ]...HP ended up only utilizing 160,000 of the free million processors AMD offered, the complaint says. As a result, McCoy said yesterday, customers paid more for Evo computers than they might have otherwise. "Customers paid more and were forcibly deprived of AMD alternatives," the Mercury News quotes McCoy as saying.
So yeah, I'll reiterate that:
1. Intel's manhandling of AMD was heinous. That has never been in dispute.
2. AMD , via Jerry Sanders ego, became a willing conspirator in their own demise by not pursuing ANY third party manufacturing of their CPUs and thus eroding OEM confidence in their ability to guarantee supply. Most of the information regarding OEM/ODM contracts and IHV interaction is reserved for the written memoirs of those concerned, but you get the general gist from
this brief quote from the time:
AN ARTICLE claims AMD is running out of Athlon 64 X2 3800+ dual core processors and Athlon 64 3000+ at a time when it can least afford to.
According to Digitimes, the 3000+ Athlon 64 is AMD's sweet spot while the dual core model is aimed at the lower cost end of the marketplace.
The Digitimes article at this URL claims that better than expected demand has caused the shortages.
But European motherboard firms, talking to the INQ on conditions of anonymity, were rather more blunt about the problem. One described the shortages as due to "bad planning".
I've quite happily pointed out Intel's (and everyone elses) nefarious business practices in numerous examples in this thread and elsewhere. If that makes me an Intel supporter, what does that make people who only grudgingly admit AMD "did stuff" when pressed, while doing their best to gloss over the "stuff" and provide a long list of excuses mitigating the behaviour.
