AMD sues Intel!

By Derek Sooman on June 29, 2005, 6:28 PM
In some very interesting news, AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp., accusing Intel of unfair competition, which limited market share growth of AMD. AMD claims that Intel's actions have led to freedom of choice being stolen away in the microprocessor market, in addition to a number of other complaints.

“Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation -- and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market,” said Hector Ruiz, AMD chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer. “Whether through higher prices from monopoly profits, fewer choices in the marketplace or barriers to innovation – people from Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel’s monopoly abuses.”
AMD's list of complaints is extensive, accusing Intel of numerous crimes, including forcing major customers to accept exclusive deals, threatening retaliation against customers doing business with AMD and forcing PC makers to boycott AMD product launches. AMD have also set up a website dubbed "Fair and Equal Competition Home", where AMD lays out the innovation the company has undertaken in the years its been in business.

Where this one will go is anyone's guess. Many of these allegation are very serious, and whatever happens we are doubtlessly looking at a very long case and eventual resolution, if any.




User Comments: 16

Got something to say? Post a comment
jasonbrus said:
If you can't win by playing ball, then you cry baby. AMD is doing the cry baby strategy. We will see if this works, don't know yet.
Moralt3nacity said:
I absolutely and completely agree. AMD processors can be good in cases. But the highest AMD I've seen at a reasonable price is a 2.0 GHz Athlon XP for about 200 bucks. I've seen 3.2 GHz P4s for 200. That kicks the tail out of AMD's best. There ya go. Cry baby all you want, AMD, but you won't win pricing and supplying crap like that.
intheknowonthis said:
Moralt3nacity, you're dead wrong. The Intel processors have a faster speed but are less efficient. The AMD chips can process more at a slower speed so you're comparison is all wrong. The AMD chips are cheaper and better.Secondly, this is not crying foul. I know positively that this stuff is true and fair competition has been smashed into the ground by Otellini and compadres. What's going on is sickening and Intel employees should be ashamed. These allegations are true, whether it's illegal is for the lawyers and court to figure out.
Per Hansson said:
Interesting take on this by Anand: [url]http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx#228[/url]
Mictlantecuhtli said:
[quote]accusing Intel of numerous crimes, including forcing major customers to accept exclusive deals, threatening retaliation against customers doing business with AMD and forcing PC makers to boycott AMD product launches.[/quote]Substitute Intel with Microsoft, and AMD with other software manufacturers...
Phantasm66 said:
Whatever it is, you have to admit its the best laugh in ages.
Spike said:
LMAO!!!Seriously though, I think AMD have been wanting to file against Intel for a while. They just needed an excuse, and now they've found one. I can't say I blame them though.
reavance said:
Intel inside, more like evil inside, Intels are crap, your 3.2 "Gigahertz" is more like 2.6. Intel lies.
warcraft said:
Intel is a complete ScamI only got a Sempron 2500+But it runs better than a Celeron D and some pentium 4s at 2500+ when it comes to how stable it is.I've had an Athlon xp 1600+ and it ran faster than alot of 2.2ghz pentium 4s I've seen and much cheaper then the pentium 4.My Father has an Amd Athlon 64 939 3500+ and it runs faster than 3.6ghz pentium 4s and yes the athlon 64 3500+ is much MUCH cheaper.This isn't bias ether, the mechines I'm comparing these cpus to are compared to intels with the same kind of video bus, video card, sound cards, ram, etc.And with these details the amd chips were faster and alot cheaper, more stable, better performance.One of the reasons for example Athlon 64 939 3500+ is really more like 2.2 ghz is because Amd is trying to keep the cpus from over heating, because intel chips gaint heat sinks to fill that high clocked cpus.Amd may not have the Ghz speed but they are still faster, more stable, with better performance.If Amd made an athlon 64 3500+ with a 3.5ghz the speed may get way to hot and thats not amd is aiming for, as I said they are aiming on quality, performance, stability.
XweAponX said:
[b]Originally posted by Moralt3nacity:[/b][quote]I absolutely and completely agree. AMD processors can be good in cases. But the highest AMD I've seen at a reasonable price is a 2.0 GHz Athlon XP for about 200 bucks. I've seen 3.2 GHz P4s for 200. That kicks the tail out of AMD's best. There ya go. Cry baby all you want, AMD, but you won't win pricing and supplying crap like that.[/quote]Er, sorry to blast yer bubble, but that statement is compleat horse poop. First off: AMD Speed is calcutaled differently than Intel speed, Intel uses more cycles per process, ergo, 3 GHz Hypertheaded P-IV (Dual Channel = the same as NON-Hyperthreaded 2 GHz Athlon 2400+ XP Model 8 - not even a model 10).How do I know this? First, from building PC's - The AMD's are ALWAYS faster AND more reliable. Next, I ask questions.Questions like, Hey! I just built a PC, a 3 GHz P-IV (Socket 478 even), Hyperthreaded, Dual Channeled, on an MSI PT880-FSR Neo, which is THE hot poop P-IV setup: 1 GB 400MHz DDR Ram, 512 per Stick. WHAT a waste of money! But I built it anyway - And charged 50 bucks for the build. I was even being generous cos I usually charge more.If Intel is SO damned Fast, I just wanna know why is it so damned SLOW.Intel = Put a load on ANY P-IV or Celeron CPU and you get Squish City, slows down like insanity.AMD = Put a load on it, and it does not drop ONE HERTZ of Freq.AMD is Justified in bringing this to court - TOO long has Mictosoft AND Intel monopolised the trade. Time for BETTER companies that make BETTER Product have a chance to be distributed.And even so, we are seeing AMD being demanded by the public, well, that is me, I DEMAND AMD: I can do WITHOUT Intel.The last good CPU that was made by Intel was the 800 MHz P-III EB, 512 cache.So, Break a leg AMD! Time to kick some ARSE. :p :) :p :) :p
XweAponX said:
[b]Originally posted by reavance:[/b][quote]Intel inside, more like evil inside, Intels are crap, your 3.2 "Gigahertz" is more like 2.6. Intel lies.[/quote]AMEN to THAT
onbar said:
Personally I don't know how to really rate AMD... On the Sempron Mobile Processors they have released. It did perform good in comparison to other Intel Celeron D Type that I have tested at stores. However I have bought a PC made by ACER AMD 2800+ Sempron Mobile Processor that had a DVD+-RW drive with a 40GB HD and a 256MB DDR x 4 running ant 1.6GHz bus speed... Problem was this The AMD chip is very heat sensative. As soon as I put a load on the machine the computer would shut down. Because of the temprature of the chip reached 100 degrees Celcius. Well personally I have owned many Pentium using Laptops such as Sony XG-19 PIII 650 w/SpeedStep, Dell Latitude CPx or CPi PII 300MHz, Dell Latitude L400 PIII 750MHz w/SpeedStep,Dell Latitude C640 P4 2.0GHz w/SpeedStep and my latest Dell Inspiron 600m with 1.8GHz Centrino w/Centrino's SpeedStep(Pentium M processor).And the way I would rate it all is that Pentium 4th Generation named Pentium IV and the Pentium III were the best processors I have used. Very efficient and pretty god damn fast. Centrino is another story... Just got the new 1.8GHz Centrino which they say will run as fast as a 2.9 to 3.0GHz Pentium 4... Personally I really don't think the Centrino is ever going to perform as fast as long as the BUS speed on the board isn't made any faster.Overall rating I give for the AMD generation Mobile Proccessor is: SUCKS BIG TIME (very poor in performance for anyone doing any thing that uses the CPU too much. Personally I have never had a Pentium Shut down on me in such a manner other then the one I had plugged in to my desktop when I had gotten the New CPU at the time Pentium III 650MHz and 133MHz bus speed that had a build in fan and I did not connect the power on the board. ;-)Overall rating I give for the Pentium III and Pentium IV generation Mobile Proccessor & Xeon Processors for desktop/servers is: OK to use on projects and servers that need good processing power for specific professional tasks. They can handle a load and not go dead on you like the AMD did to me. However the BUS speed slowness of these proccessors is something Intel needs to take care of. Which I think will happen in two to three years of time about 2007-2008 time.General Rating:Pentium still is better then AMD's in all ranks.
terabyte_pete said:
It is very predictable how many people are brainwashed by marketing and other propaganda to believe that if a company is financially successful their product(s) must be superior. The reverse it typically the case - as stealing is the most efficient (though illegal) means to get $. Big corporations are the biggest pirates around. The bigger they get, the more abussive. These corporations are made from the actions of the people who work there. Everyone is responsible. As you move beyond the corporate food chain to the big government that regulates it - corruption really goes off the map :P That's just how it is - like math - stealing and cheating is the shortest distance to a point. People are short-sighted, lazy creatures always lookin' 4 A quick buck. Don't blame Intel OR AMD. We must blame ourselves as a species. Stuff like this is systemic - the natural order. You don't see sharks appologising to other sea creatures any more than you will find anybody at Intel OR AMD or Micro$oft to admit what they really do - for example, bundling bugs into stuff on purpose to trap people in 'upgrade cycles'.More to the point of this thread - you can bet that AMD and Intel only make a few different chips, to take advantage of economy of scale, then label these (and cripple some) as different variants. In fact the purposeful crippling of CPU is widely known and there are many 'do it yourself' web sites that explain how to 'unlock' higher speed from cheaper 'slower' variants - but in fact the same chips with different crippling features that can be bypassed. Most companies play games like this, but not mine. I just use whatever has the best price/performance ratio and let things compete via sport 'shootout' as it were. I don't care a wit about who makes what. I just pick the winner in value and use that. Be it Intel or AMD, I don't care. At the moment (and for many years now) it has been AMD. For drives: Seagate. For motherboards: Asus. For RAM: Micron. For video cards: Matrox or Nvidea (depends on requirements). I could go on but you get the idea :) Actually it's not even that general - it is speceffic models from particular brands. Next year it may change. Each company tends to have a one best product - so that is what we choose. It is the 'simply solve the problem' approach, rather than the 'constantly search and change and waste your money' approach.Another important thing to mention is the fact that something fails in a particular application is not necessarily the fault of AMD (the cooling problem you noted). Certainly that is either a defective unit, or substandard cooling, or AMD has (unlikely) underrated the cooling requirements for that CPU. Bla bla - Really most industries these days operate like drug dealers - trying to lock people in addiction style to their brand or scams - like the American cars all designed to break. I never knew cars weren't supposed to break until someone in my family bought a Honda. I hear Toyota's last a long time too - some of them. I drive a Land Rover Discovery because I like the aesthetics :) I acknowledge that mechanicaly and engineering-wise it is a hunk of junk. I don't delude myself. Just be honest - if you buy Intel because of the ads, admit it and your soul will be more clean you might say - less inner conflicts. I cold go on and on lol Just be honest with yourselves. If you want the best value, AMD has it. Maybe next year it will be Intel (who knows). All these mindless 'cry baby' comments have ZERO to do with the issues of speed or the facts of monopoly abuses. If you want no competition (to let Micro$oft or Intel crush the competitors) eventually all you will have is slow junk for 10X the price. Why give people something fast if you have no competitors? Simply sell them a 200mhz and tell them the rest of the fast stuff 'never existed' etc - you know, like how certain people in politics say one thing, then say they never said it - same old pirate game LOL It's entertaining actually. Wow I sure type fast...
jasonbrus said:
well, guys. i am not a techie or technologist. just a businss guy trying to make a buck. can't tell computer chip to doritos chip honestly LOL. having said that, many guys on this board got it wrong. the fact that AMD filed a suit does not mean it has merit. this is america, even your little doggy can file suits. so talking about the performance of the chips and the pricing is missing the point as this AMD suits has everything to do about politics and pyschological marketing and little or none to do with pricing, market share or performance of the AMD chips vs. intel. if you track AMD's 10Q filing to SEC, the reasons couldn't come out more clear. AMD's operating performance has been very sporadic and weak. it can't sustain a degree of stability and AMD is trying to buy some breathing room with this suit.to those of you who think Intel, MSFT and all these big corporations are evil, then next time when you visit your local grocery, think twice. you think that can of lima bean appears on the shelf by magic? or to the forzen meat department, that bag of chicken nuggets your kids so love stored in that freezer by magic and all based on "free market" forces? ha!! think twice. the food conglomerates have been employing the Intel like program long before Intel even existed and their incentive program to the store is even more generous. LOL. again, i urge everybody to focus on the politics, the business. not the technology or the chips..... lol.
XweAponX said:
[quote]Personally I don't know how to really rate AMD... On the Sempron Mobile Processors they have released. It did perform good in comparison to other Intel Celeron D Type that I have tested at stores.[/quote]This statement is pure shit. 100%. In the last 2 years I have either thrown away several Celeron D Processors which I replaced with real Pentium IV's - Or, I tossed the entire Intel Motherboard/CPU combo in the trash (Not even worth trying to sell in my POV) and bought the client an Athlon.Semprons are better than Celeron D's in several ways, one of them being that they do not stall and crash on computer boot like C-D's do when Norton or Mcafee is installed. I have had about 6 major programs running and processing gigs of audio and video data without a single glitch - The same work done on a Celeron machine gives me Audio with artifacts embedded and video that does not sync with the AC3 audio track.Last November, I had the misfortune of having to work with a BRAND NEW 3 GHz Celeron D in a Dell package (May have been a Dimension 2400, a pretty common box, Dell still uses the design, cos they just cant get rid of all those POS Celerons) - Tjis is a DELL that came right out of the Box, I set it up, Activated XP Home edition, and right away was bombarded with about 5 different pre installed POS Antivirus programs. The machine would not even boot properly until I got booted up in safe mode and removed the 45 startup programs (A normal XP installation has Zero programs starting up at boot) - Even afdter removing the offensive programs, I was NOT able to install the client's software. I had to tell the guy, Sorry, it just will not install. We traded for a P-IV and then the products he had bought, which cost more than his whole PC setup, instalkled properly. Personally, I have always liked Pentium IV's and Pentium III's - But the last GOOD Celeron was the malaysian(?) (Or was it Costa Rica?) made 300A - The Slot Celeron that could be clocked up to 500 MHz. That was the only good celeron, ever.People have a bad view of Athlons because of the slot Athlons being so unstable, but they fixed that with the first Socket-A chips. People forget that the first 1 GHz Chip was a SOCKET Athlon, NOT any Intel chip. And AMD beat Intel to the 1 GHz barrier by months!Well, I have a Dell 2400 herre, that originally had a Celeron D 2.6 gig CPU. I lucked out and found a Pentium IV 3.2 Gig CPU for 59 dollars, and so I replaced the CPU. IMMEDIATE improvement. I threw away the celeron, I'll tell you the address of my trach can so you can come get it.However, my other computers are all just regular Socket 754 Athlon x64. Now, I see a lot of people barking about "Duo Core" this and that. Well, AMD was again first at the punch by about 3 months, coming out with the Dula Core AM2 - 64 BIT processor at the same time Intel was touting the Dou Core 32 BIT processors.Now, I am a sport, and the 32-BIT Duo Cores are nice... BUT, They are 32-BIT.The 64-Bit AMD Dual Core CPUs are much better.So, this article is 2 years old. I want to ask, What Happened, and it seems that AMD must have won... Cos Now I see lots of AMD processors built right in to machines like the Lenova, HP, Dells, Gateways, and Sony high-end machines.AMD Kicks arse over Intel six ways from Sunday- It is not too hard to prove that, and I have, to about 50 of my own clients who will not touch Intel now (Which is too bad, cos this P-IV I just bought, is actually a nice chip - But my clients will nto touch it, not with 12 10 foot poles.)
Ironwulftoo said:
Has anyone experience with video capture systems? I recently put a Geovision capture card in my Acer Power APFH ( 3.2 Gig/80 Gig HD )and it really eats up memory. ( 1.99 Gig DDR2 RAM )Another thing is my limited knowledge of computer structure.I understand when I read that a certain processor is advertised at 3.2 but actually performs at 2.6, etc. Like automobile milage claims.What I would like to know is what I can do to improve performance?If that chip in this machine is replacable, what would be better?I have a background in electronics, and I am handy with tools ( 35 years as a Tool & Die maker ) And this is not even my first computer. I have owned more than a dozen and put in various cards and drives; modem, video, capture card, floppy, etc.From what I read here, there are some pretty savvy people out there.What can I do on a budget? Am I trying to do too much with one computer?On this same computer I have the Video surveilance card and software, I have designated it to the 'back' drive of my 80 gig that is partitioned 40/40.On the front half, I am running several programs, including a great DVD/CD RW drive, all the Kodak EasyShare 5100 stuff and a couple of video editing programs. I also have Norton's 360 program slowing things down, but I once upon a time had this horrible confrontation with the devil in Trojan in THREE of my computers the same weekend. ( I learned the value of 'backup' that day. )So whatever advice you care to share, I am all messageboard or email: Ironwulf@withagun.comThanks
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.