So AMD is suing Intel. First, I'd suggest reading through the 48-page complaint filed by AMD. Given that Vinney is in law school, I've seen a few of these things, but this one is surprisingly legible even for us non-legal types :)
I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:
I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:
1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard
Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.
The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.
The list goes on and on.
What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.
Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.
What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.
One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.
Your thoughts?
I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:
I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:
1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard
Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.
The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.
The list goes on and on.
What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.
Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.
What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.
One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.
Your thoughts?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
TheChefO - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
I wonder if it's just going to be renamed "tech.com"...hmm....
Anonymous - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Refer to #84Anandtech without Anand!
I'm pissed. I'm also surprised to see the 1st article still up since it also mentions the consoles having a weak cpu.
Broken - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Sorry, Steve, the CEOs stealing being smarter was not intended to be aimed at Intel, just a general business ethics reference in the light of what has been happening lately..As far as even beginning to defend Intel on the design (thermal issues, throttling) of the P4, you are a brave, brave man. Everybody that has followed chip architecture for the last 5 years has seen how 'broken' the hyperpipelined P4 design is. The processor is just beginning to turn the corner in performance at passing 3 gig. Intel's own launch white papers from the original P4 launch comment that the architecture was designed for 5 - 10 ghz speeds and will take an efficiency hit at the slower intro speeds. True, Intel has seen the utter end of the performance road with the .09 process Prescotts running HOTTER than the .13 cores. Please explain this to me..it makes no sense.
AMD's switch to .09 process has brought a cooler running processor and faster clock speeds - two things that Intel's move failed to achieve. True, Intel has it right with the Pentium M design, especially the Centrino implementation.
A thorough analyst will be able to see a pattern here:
AMD intorduces the Athlon 500 - beats PIII 500 in benchmarks.
AMD first to 600 mhz.
AMD first to 700 mhz..
AMD first to 1 ghz..
Intel fails with 1.13 ghz PIII, all review samples and OEM alotments recalled..
Intel designed the P4 for one thing: EGO.
Designing an inefficient processor that has to run at an artificially high clock rate to get the same work done as processors running 500 mhz slower is marketing trickery. When suzy homemaker goes to the store to get a PC in 2000, 1.6 is bigger than 1.2 (P4 to Athlon) so the 1.6 MUST be faster. Absolute marketing bullshit..
Inasmuch as this kind of blatant lying to the public may sell more processors to the sheep, an analysis of the technical merits of the designs are what get discussed on a board like this. I am not some big AMD fanboy, but I have done enough research to write 2 research papers for different classes on the subject of comparing the Athlon to the P4 architecture and a marketing analysis of Intel based on the development of the P4 as a tool to show 'artificially' high mhz numbers.
I just think it is about time that some of the things that have been happening get put out on the table for the public to judge for themselves. It's all about the ethics: Just because you CAN get away with something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD. Everybody has to pay the piper sometimes and Intel shouldn't be any different..
Creathir - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Anand, where did ya go? It has been over a week and NOTHING. The last we heard, you posted an article, then it disappeared, followed by your own magic act?!? 8 days and counting....- Creathir
Anonymous - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
oh!TheChefO - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Oh and btw - please clear up this amd/intel mess and just put on the label that ms minimum requirements are amd 1.5ghz or equivelant (ie: intel 3ghz+)thx
TheChefO - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Ahhh - Microsoft now OWNS Anandtech ... I get itwell ... in that case can we get all this garbage about MACs off this site along with all the LINUX garbage?
thx
Bob Sears - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
Due to the unauthorized release of information violating several NDA's Anandtech is now under completely new management designated by Microsoft. Anand will not be returning. For futher questions on the matter and the cpu article incedent. Please contact me by email.Bob Sears - Microsoft
rem - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
value for money is always the first I think about when I buy something.as long as AMD supports whatever technology or standard is thrown to the computing populace (nerds or not),they still have the edge although not all the time.Steve Rodrigue - Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - link
#72 you are wrong"I've read that AMD64 can add about 10% improvement over the 32 bit counterpart (that's being generous). On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that?"
You can't directly compare Athlon XP and Athlon 64 rating. In fact, the performance of an Athlon XP 3200+ is equal to an Athlon 64 2800+.
- Athlon XP 3000+ are listed at 93$ on Pricewatch (Athlon XP 3200+ are so highly priced, we can'T consider them as comparison and they are EOL)
- Athlon 64 2800+ are liste 110$ on Pricewatch
So paying 18% more to get 64bit support, on-die memory controller AND better performane is not a bad deal from my point of view.