[AMD vs Intel] Intel "paid vendors not to use AMD"

2008-05-07 07:44:24

#1

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6440|Finland

And AMD got evidence now...

Processor manufacturer AMD has introduced new evidence in the anti-trust case against its competitor Intel, in federal court in the US state of Delaware. According to the Wall Street Journal, the evidence shows that Intel coerced and paid computer manufacturers like Dell, Acer, Gateway, IBM and Hewlett-Packard not to use any AMD products. Large swathes of the 108-page document that the court made public on Monday are blacked out to prevent trade secrets from being made public.

According to AMD, the new evidence is the result of an evaluation of 200 million pages of documents which AMD obtained from Intel and PC manufacturers in a discovery request. According to US press reports, AMD's legal counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, claims that these materials contain documented email exchanges between leading PC manufacturer employees and Intel that demonstrate the illegal practice of crowding competitors out of the market. Intel denies all of the allegations and accuses AMD of using the courts to protect itself from legitimate competition.

AMD filed suit in Delaware against Intel in June of 2005, accusing its competitor of abusing its monopolistic position. The complaint charges that customers were forced not to use AMD processors. At that time the Japanese anti-trust body was investigating Intel and the EU Commission also had its eye on Intel's behaviour. In 2006, AMD contacted the German anti-cartel office (Bundeskartellamt), claiming that Media Saturn Holding – majority share holders in the two largest retail electronics chain stores in Germany – was giving Intel preferential treatment. Intel's German office was searched in February of this year in connection with the complaint. The German Federal Government changed its procurement practices for IT projects nearly four years ago as a result of a complaint from AMD.

source: http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/107495

sooo.... what will they do to punish Intel nao? (eeeekkkk my Nehalem prices might go up! )

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-05-07 07:46:56

#2

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|6762|Salt Lake City

If Intel is found guilty they may be fined, and they will probably be under a watchful eye for awhile, but I wouldn't expect much beyond that.

2008-05-07 07:49:02

#3

killer21: Because f*ck you that's why.; +400|6616|Reisterstown, MD

lol. That is quite hilarious. 200 million pages of evidence?

Edit: I fail at bbcode.

Last edited by killer21 (2008-05-07 07:49:34)

2008-05-07 08:21:00

#4

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6223|Winland

Good thing.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-05-07 08:54:02

#5

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6494

Yay!

2008-05-07 08:58:41

#6

Airwolf: Latter Alcoholic; +287|6745|Scotland

old news...

2008-05-07 09:19:19

#7

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6440|Finland

Airwolf wrote:
old news...

how come? it is dated yesterday and has new info on it.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-05-07 09:29:50

#8

']['error: Banned; +630|6670|The Netherlands

INTEL:

https://www.fopshop.nl/fotos/groep13/1355866500003.jpg

de kleine doerak

2008-05-07 10:08:07

#9

jamiet757: Member; +138|6648

Pepsi and Coke pay Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, and other stores to only sell their products all the time...so what? That is the way the world works. If you can form an alliance with another company to only use your products, then so be it. Maybe AMD should try to ally with a company and do the same.

Most that will happen is a fine, possibly.

2008-05-07 10:21:05

#10

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|6762|Salt Lake City

jamiet757 wrote:
Pepsi and Coke pay Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, and other stores to only sell their products all the time...so what? That is the way the world works. If you can form an alliance with another company to only use your products, then so be it. Maybe AMD should try to ally with a company and do the same.

Most that will happen is a fine, possibly.

Part of the allegations are also that Intel threatened these vendors with things like withholding or limiting supplies of Intel chips if they didn't deal exclusively with Intel.

2008-05-07 10:25:32

#11

02fxnmaurer: Member; +75|6508|Birmingham UK

meh amd are shit ...they deserve to get beat

2008-05-07 10:26:59

#12

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6472|Chicago, IL

02fxnmaurer wrote:
meh amd are shit ...they deserve to get beat

my computer hates you

2008-05-07 10:37:41

#13

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6575|UK

S.Lythberg wrote:
02fxnmaurer wrote:
meh amd are shit ...they deserve to get beat
my computer hates you

I hates you

He has a point, though if they got destroyed by intel, then, expect your next CPU to cost as much as your graphics card fellas :\

Martn

2008-05-07 11:53:39

#14

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6607|SE London

Bell wrote:
if they got destroyed by intel, then, expect your next CPU to cost as much as your graphics card fellas :\

?

CPUs already cost more than GPUs....

(and always have done)

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-07 11:53:55)

2008-05-07 12:00:03

#15

ReTox: Member; +100|6525|State of RETOXification

Screw Intel.

I have been running non Intel processors since the early 90's. Are Intel good chips?... yes but are they worth the price Intel wants? Fuck no. AMD has shown that a good chip can be made and sold for a decent profit while not insulting consumers. You see originally Intel was the only significant name in the IBM and their clones CPU game. They got greedy thinking they could charge ridiculous markups and for many years it worked. IBM tried to make their own chips to save money (Intel gouged them too) but their Cyrix line just plain sucked ass water. AMD did it right and I'm glad they came along, they made Intel drop their prices and further innovation.

That's why competition is important and it is also why most countries have anti-competition laws and anti-trust laws that don't allow one entity to damage, outside of pure ethical business, another entity. AMD's claim seems to support that Intel did exactly that and that they did it willfully. That is a big deal.

As for Pepsi/Coke there are instances of exclusivity but Pepsi has sued both Coca-Cola and Wendy's for anti-trust and I'm sure if you go back far enough you'll see they have fought lawsuits against each other for a hell of a while.

2008-05-07 12:06:22

#16

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6607|SE London

ReTox wrote:
AMD has shown that a good chip can be made and sold for a decent profit while not insulting consumers.

I thought the whole point is that's exactly what they haven't shown. Which is why they're going down the pan. Crap (current) chips and crap profit margins.

The only time AMD really had a lead on Intel was with the travesty that was Netburst (K7 was better than the late PIIIs as well, I know - and it's important because it established AMD as a household name), but the experience from that (better branch prediction developed to cope with the madly extended pipeline) has placed Intel perfectly for all these new series of CPUs.

2008-05-07 12:23:22

#17

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6575|UK

Bertster7 wrote:
Bell wrote:
if they got destroyed by intel, then, expect your next CPU to cost as much as your graphics card fellas :\
?

CPUs already cost more than GPUs....

(and always have done)

Not in my case, my old E6600 cost me £150. Last 8800 I had was nearer the £250 mark.

Martyn

2008-05-07 12:27:11

#18

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6440|Finland

Bell wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Bell wrote:
if they got destroyed by intel, then, expect your next CPU to cost as much as your graphics card fellas :\
?

CPUs already cost more than GPUs....

(and always have done)
Not in my case, my old E6600 cost me £150. Last 8800 I had was nearer the £250 mark.

Martyn

Except the highest-end extreme level CPUs, GPUs are more expensive. not even my Q6600 G0 was even near the costs of the GPUs I got.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-05-08 02:11:47

#19

Nikola Bathory: Karkand T-90 0wnage; +163|6812|Bulgaria

omfg, AMD for life!! \m/

>>>BF3 Central<<<

2008-05-08 04:02:53

#20

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6607|SE London

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Bell wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

?

CPUs already cost more than GPUs....

(and always have done)
Not in my case, my old E6600 cost me £150. Last 8800 I had was nearer the £250 mark.

Martyn
Except the highest-end extreme level CPUs, GPUs are more expensive. not even my Q6600 G0 was even near the costs of the GPUs I got.

That's just not true. Top end CPUs cost loads more than top end GPUs. Mid-range CPUs cost more than mid0range GPUs and low end CPUs cost more than low end GPUs.

Just because you buy GPUs that are better than your CPU (comparatively), doesn't prove anything.

For comparison, using recent Intel and nVidia products for simplicity (since there are no new low end nVidia GPUs I'll use the 8600GT):

Top end:

GPU: 9800 GX2 ~ £350

CPU: QX9770 ~ £950

Mid-range:

GPU: 8800GT 512 ~ £130

CPU: Q9300 ~ £180
E8400 ~ £140

Lower end:

GPU: 8600GT ~ £50

CPU: E7200 ~ £80

There we have it. CPUs cost more than GPUs.

2008-05-08 04:07:28

#21

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6479|The Twilight Zone

Bertster7 wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Bell wrote:

Not in my case, my old E6600 cost me £150. Last 8800 I had was nearer the £250 mark.

Martyn
Except the highest-end extreme level CPUs, GPUs are more expensive. not even my Q6600 G0 was even near the costs of the GPUs I got.
That's just not true. Top end CPUs cost loads more than top end GPUs. Mid-range CPUs cost more than mid0range GPUs and low end CPUs cost more than low end GPUs.

Just because you buy GPUs that are better than your CPU (comparatively), doesn't prove anything.

For comparison, using recent Intel and nVidia products for simplicity (since there are no new low end nVidia GPUs I'll use the 8600GT):

Top end:

GPU: 9800 GX2 ~ £350

CPU: QX9770 ~ £950

Mid-range:

GPU: 8800GT 512 ~ £130

CPU: Q9300 ~ £180
E8400 ~ £140

Lower end:

GPU: 8600GT ~ £50

CPU: E7200 ~ £80

There we have it. CPUs cost more than GPUs.

mid-high end 8800GT 512=250€, high end dualcore E8400=180€ bouth both as soon it was released.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-05-08 04:13:47

#22

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6440|Finland

That varies so much depending on country and models. There are many steps in mid-range for example. 8800GT being lower midrange and Q9300 being higher midrange. It is impossible to start comparing GPU/CPU prices that closely but you are much more likely to spend more money on GPU than CPU.
For example 9800GTX costs about 270€ here and the q9300 on the other hand is only 200€.

And I wouldn't count E7200 low end. It is just a tad away from E8200.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-05-08 04:14:32)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-05-08 04:17:13

#23

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6479|The Twilight Zone

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That varies so much depending on country and models. There are many steps in mid-range for example. 8800GT being lower midrange and Q9300 being higher midrange. It is impossible to start comparing GPU/CPU prices that closely but you are much more likely to spend more money on GPU than CPU.
For example 9800GTX costs about 270€ here and the q9300 on the other hand is only 200€.

And I wouldn't count E7200 low end. It is just a tad away from E8200.

Well my card ain't mid-high end anymore since the new 9series came out but it was when i bought it.

2008-05-08 04:53:01

#24

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6607|SE London

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That varies so much depending on country and models. There are many steps in mid-range for example. 8800GT being lower midrange and Q9300 being higher midrange. It is impossible to start comparing GPU/CPU prices that closely but you are much more likely to spend more money on GPU than CPU.
For example 9800GTX costs about 270€ here and the q9300 on the other hand is only 200€.

And I wouldn't count E7200 low end. It is just a tad away from E8200.

Look at it this way, the most expensive GPU is way cheaper than the most expensive CPU as well as the cheapest currentish CPUs being more expensive than the cheapest GPUs. If you want to get down to things like the E1200 (which is why on my post I didn't call it low end, I called it lower end) then that's more expensive than a very low end current GPU like the 8300GS or the 8400GS. The price gap is smaller, since they're priced so low anyway, but it's still clear.

2008-05-08 05:04:30

#25

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6440|Finland

Bertster7 wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
That varies so much depending on country and models. There are many steps in mid-range for example. 8800GT being lower midrange and Q9300 being higher midrange. It is impossible to start comparing GPU/CPU prices that closely but you are much more likely to spend more money on GPU than CPU.
For example 9800GTX costs about 270€ here and the q9300 on the other hand is only 200€.

And I wouldn't count E7200 low end. It is just a tad away from E8200.
Look at it this way, the most expensive GPU is way cheaper than the most expensive CPU as well as the cheapest currentish CPUs being more expensive than the cheapest GPUs. If you want to get down to things like the E1200 (which is why on my post I didn't call it low end, I called it lower end) then that's more expensive than a very low end current GPU like the 8300GS or the 8400GS. The price gap is smaller, since they're priced so low anyway, but it's still clear.

the lowest end AMD seems to be priced the same as 8300GS in here. And I challenge you to look it at this way: decent CPUs cost today less than decent gfx cards. like HD3870 I sold to freezer at 110€ is a very decent gfx card. And my E2180 is very decent CPU but it costed only 56€.
Although I see your point as well.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

BF2S Forums [AMD vs Intel] Intel "paid vendors not to use AMD"

Airwolf wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

02fxnmaurer wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

02fxnmaurer wrote:

Bell wrote:

ReTox wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bell wrote:

Bell wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bell wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Bell wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Bell wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Board footer