| 3:37 am on Nov 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
OH YEA DUH! 100%! we've all known this for about 10 years!
| 7:25 am on Nov 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I get the feeling this has been well known yet not discussed for quite some time now. The thinking has been as the defendants now say, "Neither consumers, who have consistently benefited from lower prices and increased innovation, nor justice, are being served by the decision to file a case now,".
Is it too late in the game to do anything about this?
| 10:43 am on Nov 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It's only too late when AMD go bankrupt, which is clearly Intel's preferred option.
If the case is proven, a solution is simple - Intel and AMD must agree to publish their price lists and stick to them, come what may, with absolutely no backdoor/exclusivity deals. Any such deal should then be treated as bribery and be punishable in the criminal courts with jail time.
That would create a transparent, level playing field which would doubtless lead to more innovation and better deals for consumers. For most of the last fifteen years, AMD products have been faster, cooler and cheaper than Intel's so, if Intel had played fair, AMD would now be the dominant force - it's fair to say that AMD shareholders have been robbed as well as consumers.
| 12:00 am on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I won't touch an intel chip unless someone asks for one by name.
| 3:21 am on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
the other alternative explanation is that AMD's marketing sucks and Intel's got a machine.
everyone knows that little sound bite and intel inside logo. What's AMD's marketing department done again? Oh yeah, some of us geeks suggest their chips run faster and cooler. Uh-huh.
| 12:56 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
AMD's marketing is awful - there's no doubt about that, however, CPUs and chipsets are components, not consumer goods, so marketing should be largely irrelevant.
If Intel sustained its dominant position solely by marketing, it would not be in trouble with the courts.
| 6:12 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)|
^ right they havn't go to a big box and TRY to build an AMD powered computer.
the late 90's and early 00's was fun to watch AMD and Intel go back and forth and AMD bringing out the first 1000Mhz chip. I guess intel got tired of that and decided to cut them off at the source.
| 3:40 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Intel pays AMD 1.25B! its almost like they are admitting it and paying to get it over with quickly
| 4:42 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|As part of the deal, Intel agreed to abide by a set of undisclosed new business practices. The two companies will also cross-license each otherís patents for five years. An Intel spokesman said the companies would release more details of the agreement shortly. |
It will be interesting to see those details. It will also be interesting to see what happens to antitrust cases worldwide - Intel could still be in for a serious battering, but if it pleads guilty then perhaps fines will be moderated. In view of this settlement, non-guilty pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears!
| 10:08 pm on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|their chips run faster and cooler |
| 1:25 am on Nov 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If you take Intel-supplied specifications at face value, then no, however you need to look beyond those values, for instance Intel used to claim their CPUs used less power than the equivalent AMD CPUs - this was entirely true but omitted to take into account the onboard memory management of the AMD chips.
I say "used to" because I really don't follow hardware very closely any more. Nevertheless, between about 1995 and 2002, it was mostly Intel that was playing catchup. Initially, AMD failed to get their own Pentium-class processor working but bought NexGen and then produced CPUs which were far in advance of anything Intel could offer. It's also worth noting that Intel's attempt at a 64bit CPU was a miserable failure and they were forced to adopt the AMD instruction set (a fact that has never been properly acknowledged by Intel - indeed when they first launched their 64bit AMD-compatible CPUs at a press conference, journalists were left completely baffled as to whether they were code compatible or not because Intel could not bring themselves to admit that they had copied the AMD instruction set).
| 3:25 am on Nov 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
intel didn't really fail at the 64 bit chip. it was just that..it was exactly like all the other 64 bit chip that ran before it. 64 bit OS - 64 bit programs - 64 bit drivers
AMD just made it rock because their chips would execute 32 bit code and now we have the world we live in today! CATCH UP PROGRAMMERS! stop making 32 bit programs.
at any rate TODAY intel leads the pack on the fast of the fastest, and thats it! BUT intels fastest of the fast chip will cost you 900 to 1000 FOR THE CHIP ALONE!
all the other chips intel will have a slight advantage over the AMDs in some stat on a benchmark but AMD is MUCH MUCH MUCH better priced chips and its not worth that small performance gap. the only real gap is with AMDs fastest quad core and Intels fastest quad core i7. but you could do 2 quad core AMDs and still be cheaper then a core i7 build. if you know what you are doing you can pretty much always build a faster AMD setup and still put cash in your pocket!
| 3:50 am on Nov 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"Neither consumers, who have consistently benefited from lower prices and increased innovation
CONSUMERS never benefit from current innovation, dell, HP and the likes LOVE to sell you 2 year old hardware for TODAYS price! go find a core i7 for sale anywhere on any of their sites. even a core i5. nope but im sure you'll see them all over 2 years from now when they are obsolete! only dells alienware will sell you a core i7... for $4,000!
so to everyone buying dells and HPs, you are buying last years junk for todays prices.
| 3:33 pm on Dec 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|