Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FTC Opens Formal Antitrust Investigation of Intel

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the setting-the-antitrust-bar dept.

Intel 117

andy1307 writes to tell us that according to the New York Times, The Federal Trade Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation of Intel. Reversing the decision of former FTC chairperson Deborah P. Majoras, the new chair William E. Kovacic is pushing the investigation to look into Intel's pricing policies. "Since it will almost certainly be many months before the commission decides whether to make a case against Intel, as European and Asian regulators have already done, the investigation could mark an important early test for the next administration on antitrust and competition policy."

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Intel is a monopoly? (-1, Troll)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686627)

I hadn't realized that AMD, VIA et all don't exist.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (5, Informative)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686741)

Monopolies, in markets like this, are not meant in such that there are 0 competitors. However, when a company becomes so large that it can sway the market on its whims, then it becomes abusive, and therefor detrimental to consumers and competition.

Intel has been using their size, money and influence to keep competitors out of use in their customer's systems. This is anti competitive, and when on a scale of this size, is considered monopolistic. Intel owns over 80% of the microprocessor market, plus they design specs for systems, such as their PCI spec.

If Intel is guilty of keeping other processors out of machines by being anti competitive, they are going to see some sanctions and fines.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (5, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686867)

If Intel is guilty of keeping other processors out of machines by being anti competitive, they are going to see some sanctions and fines.
If the senior management were likely to get thrown in prison, could we make jokes about "Intel Inside"?

Sorry... :(

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (5, Funny)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686989)

Yeah. They would be shown some new backdoors and have their interfaces expanded to accept all sorts of new peripherals.

What about Microsoft? (2, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687513)

Intel, shmintel. Who cares about Intel?

But Microsoft has to be watching this very, very closely. If the post-Bush FTC is willing to go after Intel, you have to think they're going to get after Microsoft, too.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688357)

If Intel is guilty of keeping other processors out of machines by being anti competitive, they are going to see some sanctions and fines.
If the senior management were likely to get thrown in prison, could we make jokes about "Intel Inside"? Sorry... :(
Liquid Cooled/Injected?

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686991)

So, Intel does the R&D on a product that everyone needs and wants, then gets rich because of their invention.

Thne along come some other people, who make clones of Intel's chips. No one wants to buy the chips from the competitors, because they have no significant cost savings, no significant performance increase, and lack the feeling of being a "genuine" article.

So, all these companies that are trying to ride the coat-tails of Intel, and failing, get together and complain to the government that its not fair?

Maybe they should have tried coming up with their own ideas and hoping that people would want to buy them instead of just trying to hop on a bandwagon and complaining that they got there too late and there is too little space.

no one is saying you have to buy an x86 cpu. SPARC and PPC work and do a good job. If Intel has solidified a market dominance that's pushed out OTHER architectures, that's more to do with Microsoft than it is to do with Intel.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687047)

no one is saying you have to buy an x86 cpu. SPARC and PPC work and do a good job. If Intel has solidified a market dominance that's pushed out OTHER architectures, that's more to do with Microsoft than it is to do with Intel.
Hey! Stop ruining our Intel-bashfest with such irrelevant things as "facts" and "common sense"!

Major buzzkill, man.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687753)

Sorry I squandered my last set of mod points. That was funny.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (5, Informative)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687129)

Except that's not how it worked or works.

Intel was a single source supplier for CPUs. IBM wanted a second source or they would not deal with Intel. Intel then sourced production of pre 486 CPUs to AMD. However, they did not restrict AMD from selling them as their own, which they did. Then, AMD was developing their own chips based on the instruction set and specification that intel developed. Intel sued for trademark infringement, knowing that AMD had the license to produce likewise chips. The courts in the US ruled that Intel could not trademark a number, which is why there was no 586, but rather the "Pentium" with the 5 prefix Pent. This is a trade-markable name.

Being more agile than Intel, and being willing to accept thinner margins than Intel, AMD and competitors were pricing very attractively to OEMs. Intel, however, looked disfavorably on this. They punished their customers with "shortages" of their chips and chipsets, knowing it would allow their customer's competitors, also their customers, to gain an upper hand. They also offered special pricing, not for volume, but for "loyalty." They would give their customers a break if they were 100% intel customers and not "Buy 10,000 units and get 200 free, which would likely have been legal.

The issue is not substandardness nor the inability to compete. Instead, it was that after the original Athlon, AMD was able to out maneuver the challenges that intel through in its way and was able to out innovate them in many areas. The FSB that intel still uses can cause memory bottlenecks as well as poor scaling to multiple sockets and cores, but that is a topic for another discussion. Intel was abusing their customers, their competitors, and consumers with their methods of market manipulation. But, to quell your intent to show that AMD et al were simply riding on Intel's coat tails, ask yourself "Who built the spec to extend x86 to 64bits with extended register counts?"

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23687805)

It's not really discounts, but "marketing support". Which is why nearly every ad for a PC has the Intel chimes/logo at the end.

This plan was really devious because not only does it encourage OEMs to use Intel, it also made "Intel Inside" into consumer religion.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687915)

Well now there you going using the ACTUAL and REAL facts to get in the way of someone trying to present some sort of "facts."

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23689585)

"AMD... was able to out innovate them in many areas"
    Sorry, but AMD has never innovated. They have licensed and, in the recent years, built solid traditional designs (after NexGen acquisition -> K6). They do not have a culture of innovation, which is part of why they are suffering now.

"Who built the spec to extend x86 to 64bits with extended register counts?"
    The spec was simple. It adds basic 64-bit extentions, leverages SSE, and adds a few registers. It wasn't a hard one to write, just to get adopted.
    Intel had a very similar one for the chip after the Pentium Pro, but this was killed in favor of HP's EPIC architecture.

Overall, you are correct. Intel degraded when they won the market in the 90s and they're compitition was unable to make equivilant chips. Cyrix was the #2 maker, and had the best P5-compatable chip, but died after National Semi bought them and they went super low-end with integration solutions. AMD was traditionally the worst, but after purchasing NexGen they began to become competitive. The NexGen chip (rebranded as K6) was a good P5 replacement, but never a Pentium-Pro/P2/P3-clsas chip as it was marketted against. The Athlon was the first good in-house design, from NexGen and former-Alpha employees. But AMD has cancelled every replacement since and allowed only incremental gains. Even the more recent Fusion project was cut back to be a shell of its original intent - the name was kept and the design scrapped.

Intel has gotten better and AMD has gone back to their old ways. I'm not sure who can bring Intel back in-line if they win the market again and go back to their old behavior.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689787)

HP and Intel joined up for the EPIC (Explicitly Parallel) architecture. AMD HAS innovated, by the way. Just because you choose to ignore or make light of it does not change that fact.

AMD went to on die memory controllers for x86 CPUs. They did away with the front side bus with their HT (formerly LDT) system, they have also gone on to be the first to 1Ghz in the x86 arena, using alpha technology and also, their 3DNOW! technology was one of, if not THE first SIMD architecture to handle FP calculations.

All this is NOT BAD for a company whose total worth is less than Intel spends on marketing.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690435)

Wow. AMD, a company which in 2006 had 10% of the revenue of Intel, managed to hand Intel its hat in the CPU performance game for a couple of years, an you dare to say that they've never innovated?

Moving the memory controller onto the die and making multi-core mainstream is innovative.

Killing Intel's own preferred IA-64 and making them follow AMD's AMD64 is also a sign that AMD innovated where the market wanted to go, even though Intel pushed as hard as it could.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687303)

Windows on a SPARC? That just makes me cringe.

I think, or have always passively believed, that Intel is great, but that Microsoft dragged them along for a ride on the success train. I don't think 90% market share should be usable as evidence of monopolistic practices, but it is reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigation, IMHO.

Also, by comparison, Cisco was investigated for the same reason, but discovered to have simply done business better through innovation and such, not underhanded dealing. There are a lot of BAD Cisco wannabe knockoffs out there, but do you really believe Cisco v. D-link is comparable to Intel v. Sun, IBM, et al?

I really am curious.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (4, Informative)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687305)

I think you need a history lesson. When AMD released the original Opteron in late 2003/early 2004, it had numerous desirable, innovative features that Intel's offerings at the time did not have:

  • 64 bit support in the form of AMD64
  • An on-die memory controller
  • HyperTransport point-to-point interconnect for non-coherent I/O links and coherent socket-to-socket links
  • Better power numbers than P4
  • Better performance than P4

AMD has alleged that Intel used its monopoly position to exclude Opteron and other K8 derivatives (Athlon64) from major OEMs for 2 years, from its release in late 03 until sometime in 2005, when the antitrust allegations were filed. During that time, the problem was not poorer, "cloned" products which offered no advantages over Intel's. Basically, anyone who followed the x86 processor market during that time knew that Opteron/Athlon64 was better than P4, for a competitive price.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23689641)

An on-die memory controller
  - This was brought to market first by Transmetta
HyperTransport
  - This was licensed from Alpha Inc. Not sure if its innovative.
Power/Perf
  - That's not innovation, but good. The P4 was innovative and bad. Learn what "innovative" means.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690365)

Posting anonymous.

It's common knowledge at IBM that Intel did lots of behind the doors stuff to keep AMD out. When they finally figured out the code name for one of the projects was an AMD one, they completely flipped and we are now supposed to keep anything that may mention a code name that may upset a company hidden.

I actually was told to keep anything like that hidden until we announced it officially, even though it was unofficially announced and taking bids for the projects I was working on. We didn't want another incident in the department like what happened with Intel.

That initial AMD project at IBM was epically bad, by the way.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687967)

Didn't AMD win out with the standard for 64-bit x86 instructions?

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688615)

And you can run your Windows-only bespoke apps on PPC and SPARC can you? Will libertarians ever stop pretending that one over-powerful company dominating a market is good for consumers and should be left alone until a competitor magically appears and isn't squished by all sorts of very difficult to compete against tactics.

Owns share vs serves share (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687043)

Intel owns over 80% of the microprocessor market, plus they design specs for systems, such as their PCI spec.

This can be written also as "Intel serves over 80% of the microprocessor market and their open standards like PCI are widely accepted."

Every time Intel has started acting like it "owned" the market, somebody has started drinking their milkshake.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687111)


If Intel is guilty of keeping other processors out of machines by being anti competitive, they are going to see some sanctions and fines.

back in the good old days, the FTC and courts actually did their jobs and broke up [wikipedia.org] abusive [wikipedia.org] monopolies [wikipedia.org] .

Not [bbc.co.uk] anymore [slate.com]

I guess that means we need new laws to compel the executive and judicial brances to actually enforce the law? or maybe establish a saddam-esque paranoid circle jerk of watchers watching watchers?

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688103)

How exactly would you break up Intel in any way that makes sense?

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Insightful)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688645)

How exactly would you break up Intel in any way that makes sense?

How was AT&T broken up in any way that made sense?

Had AT&T been broken up by service layer instead of service area, we might actually have good telecommunications and true competition in the US

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23688593)

I guess that means we need new laws to compel the executive and judicial brances to actually enforce the law? or maybe establish a saddam-esque paranoid circle jerk of watchers watching watchers?
What, you mean like some sort of system of checks and balances? What a wonderfully absurd idea!

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Insightful)

tygt (792974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687335)

I have only a minor technical complaint about your posting:

when a company becomes so large that it can sway the market on its whims, then it becomes abusive
Such large companies may be able to sway the market, but do not necessarily become abusive. Most likely they do, of course - power corrupts....

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689153)

Such large companies may be able to sway the market, but do not necessarily become abusive. Most likely they do, of course - power corrupts....
Indeed, that's a very good point, and it's equally worth pointing out that as long as the monopoly is not abusive, then it isn't breaking any laws.

Monopolies aren't "punished for success" as I heard a few thousand too many times during the MS anti-trust trial. Monopolies are punished for parlaying that success and resulting market power into back room deals designed to prevent any competition from getting a leg up.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23688979)

Intel has a goal of faster, better, cheaper. Other than getting fantastic yield, leading edge speeds, and standard profit, what's the beef? It sounds like if someone started making a profit making large volumes of gasoline and selling it for a profit at $1.00 a gallon, the Shell and Arco would have the exact same complaint. Intel as far as I can tell isn't dumping on the market at a loss or inking secret back room deals to eliminate the competition. They simply are shipping the best fastest most efficient chips for the money and able to do it at a profit better than the completion. If they weren't able to do it cheaper and used it's massive bankroll to simply undercut the market, then they may have a real concern, but last time I checked, they were making money, not dumping on the market.

References? Certainly.
Profit Margin (ttm): 17.32%
from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC [yahoo.com]

AMD able to do it?
Profit Margin (ttm): -49.74%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AMD [yahoo.com]

Just because AMD can't get good yield and efficiency, they think Intel shouldn't be able to either. It's a desperate act to keep afloat in a sea of affordable chips.

Have you seen the number of Atom chips on a single 12 inch wafer? They are cranking them out cheaply and for a profit.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689095)

Intel has a goal of faster, better, cheaper.
Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9775: $1549/ea in batches of 1k. AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition: $229/ea in batches of 1k. Yeah, cheaper...because the QX9775 is 7 times as fast as the 9850? Amirite?

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

ps2os2 (1216366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690711)

But you forget the Republicans run everything now and it may be an attempt to wring more money out of INTEL for the election. Also you will probably see that all INTEL people get a pardon. Color me use to seeing the Republicans are far more crooked than the Democrats (not that they are immune either).

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686759)

As per TFA "[Intel]controls 80 to 90 percent of the microprocessor market. " if that isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. The market shares for AMD and VIA are somethile like 8-15% AMD 2-5% VIA if I remember correctly. The greater majority of computers sold still come with Intel processors. Not to mention low power mobile StrongArm and newer ATOM processors.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687005)

There are such things as natural monopolies from simply making better products.

However, it's different when you squash the competition. You can do better than them, that is completely acceptable, but to force everyone to not buy their stuff, is not acceptable.

Difference: I own the world market on water. Someone else wants to produce water too. Do I continue to produce safer and better water (aka compete and also give a reason for my competitor to do better), or do I abuse my market control by doing something financially that the competitor cannot compete with (and/or making people agree to such things).

Another fine example (which I suspect will hit monopoly issues/etc) was when (MS was it?) made a company sign an agreement to agree to not produce HDDVDs (or was it bluray discs) with a major manufacturer. Legal? 100%, actually. Monopoly abuse/attempt? 100%.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23687313)

Bullshit examples. People need water to live. Also, how exactly can a company force another company "agree to" something? Monopoly laws are just stupid anyway, they only make sense in the face of a commodity of a physically limited nature. It's just creeping socialism, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his ability to whine and litigate like a little BITCH."

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

dshadowwolf (1132457) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688401)

No, the "Water" example is using something simple to showcase a problem. The but about the agreements has occurred.


MS has a history of refusing to do OEM agreements with a company if that company wants to offer more than MS Operating Systems. AFAIK they are still doing similar to this – it's one of the reasons Dell took so long to offer Linux – but now it's differences in licensing cost.


So, AC, it appears you are either misinformed as to the truth, or you are just an idiot. I'd like to think that it's the first, but know that it's probably the first with the cause being "willful ignorance". Now go away.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

dshadowwolf (1132457) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688411)

should be "the bit about the agreements" - I missed the typo. (not the first time I've missed a typo, but it makes me feel bad)

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691325)

And whose fault is that? AMD was growing rapidly and every gamer that walked through my door wanted an Athlon because at the time they were stomping Intel. Then they screwed the pooch by buying ATI at a grossly overinflated price which blew their R&D capital down the toilet,and then it turns out their successor to the Athlon 64 was a big old pile of suck,which I'm sure that they had to know there was problems with the Arch BEFORE they got the bright idea to over pay for ATI. And finally while Intel was marketing like mad and even those that don't know squat about a PC know the "Intel Inside" jingle AMD had a CEO that was of the attitude that "good chips sell themselves". Which of course meant when their performance went into the toilet and the gamers ran to Intel that they went down in flames.


Now while I am the first to admit that I have always been an Intel user,since back in the days of the superclockable Celeron 300, AMD had numerous chances to really take a chunk out of the market,but they were just too damned cocky and arrogant for their own good. From the power suckage of Turion to the so horribly crippled it isn't usable for squat Sempron,AMD just seems to keep taking the opportunities they are handed and blowing them. So IMHO this has less to do with Intel rigging the game than with AMD dropping the ball. But that is my 02c,YMMV. And this conversation reminds me that I have a nice Barton core Duron board sitting in the closet so I think I'll get to building. Have a great weekend y'all!

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (3, Interesting)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686767)

I'd say so:

Intel...controls 80 to 90 percent of the microprocessor market.

Also, for those of you (like me) who were wondering what exactly they did:

A.M.D. has asserted that Intel offers rebates and discounts that, in effect, result in its chips being sold at prices below the cost of production, a practice that some courts in cases involving other companies have said can be a violation of antitrust law.

Intel denies that its discounts and rebates drive its prices below cost, or at predatory levels. Intel has said that it offered legitimate discounts based on the volume of chips that have been purchased by companies, and that consumers benefit when personal computer manufacturers â" using the discounts â" are able to lower the cost of making their products.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686793)

You don't have to have a monopoly to comit illegal business practices. Conversely, you can have a legal monopoly that doesn't violate antitrust laws.

Intel violated the concept of competition by threatening companies unless they only carried Intel products. They threatened to hold off shipments of paid products, etc. etc.

They've already been found guilty of antitrust in other countries. AMD claimed to have a mountain of evidence, and several companies willing to testify. I'm shocked it has taken this long to even really open the case in the US. The sad thing is that it almost worked out for Intel, that by breaking the law, they almost drove AMD out of business. At that point, a fine doesn't matter because they would have total market share.

Re:Refrences please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23689087)

Intel violated the concept of competition by threatening companies unless they only carried Intel products. They threatened to hold off shipments of paid products, etc. etc.

Please provide something current, not a rehash of older already corrected issues. I thought all that was corrected. The issue today is they are making chips faster and cheaper than the competition can produce them and keep their traditional price points below Intel. AMD is the one trying to underprice Intel at any cost. Lately for them the cost to produce has been much higher for AMD than their target selling point. That's why the finance page on AMD looks so dismal. Take a look yourself in Yahoo under finance. Look up AMD and check the key statistics. The % profit is a big negative number. They are selling at a loss.

Intel is not selling at a loss to kill AMD.

Re:Refrences please? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689513)

Taiwan and the EU were coming down on issues from 2003-2007. I'm not sure if the practices are still happening or not, but I haven't seen anything that suggests they've stopped the practices of bullying and extortion.

The issue isn't the price of the CPUs, but rather forcing vendors to exclude other products, or refusing to ship products they've already paid for, and other such nonsense.

If you want references, try Google and Wikipedia. Perhaps you've heard of them.

Re:Refrences please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23689943)

If you want references, try Google and Wikipedia. Perhaps you've heard of them.

I've heard of them. I've heard the accusations. We can't sell to company XYZ becasue of this. What I haven't seen is the smoking gun contract, agreement, etc on this exclusionary anti-competitive practice. That is why I asked for refrences. There are lots of accusations, but no documentation of actual ethics violations. Got some email? Company contracts? Do you make machines? Do you have an exclusionary contract? If so, how about a scan and post?

One company selling quad core chips at a profit for a lower price at a profit while another company is selling a slower part with supply issues for a loss does not make an exclusive contract anymore than trying to sell $12 gas in a market filled with $4 gas. If your gas has a cost to produce of $10 and you have a policy of underpricing the $4 producer by 20%, don't scream monolpoly abuse when your profit is a negative number.

Intel does not have exclusionary contracts that I know of. They do offer volume discounts and rebates. Other than leave little room for a shop to produce both lines without cutting back on the rebates and volume discounts, I haven't seen anything regarding a bonus for having absolutely no other processor. Microsoft is more in this camp where a PC manufacture does indeed get a substantual break only if they buy licenses for 100% of their product. This has been rulled bad boy behavior. Only after anti-trust action are we starting to see non-Windows PC's enter the market. This is not the case with Intel and PC manufactures. Many manufactures carry both Intel and AMD lines.

Oh, refrences,,, OK.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23076019/ [msn.com]
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/09/14/dell-amd-boxes-vastly-cheaper-than-intel [theinquirer.net]

Dell boxes with AMD are cheaper, but at a loss for AMD.
AMD can't compete on price anymore as Intel has upped the ante for lower cost to manufacture.

Re:Refrences please? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690099)

When AMD filed the initial suit, the claim was something like 300 pages, with a whole slew of companies cooperating in the suit, willing to testify.

Still you miss the point entirely. This has little to do with price.

And Intel has already been found guilty of antitrust violations in other countries, because of the exclusionary contracts.

Dell, as you may know, the biggest PC company out there, refused to carry AMD processors even when AMD processors where smoking the P4 line.

There was also some accusations of shady practices when Intel stole the Apple contract away from AMD out of the blue. Apple had been openly courting AMD, and then signed with Intel when no one even thought Intel was being considered. At the time the deal was signed, AMD's processors ran faster, were cheaper, and used less power. Perhaps Apple had the foresight to see that Intel was going to regain the performance upper-hand, but there were certainly allegations again of bullying/threats that landed the exclusive contract.

I believe Intel is currently in trouble in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the EU and now the States for antitrust. Yet you insist clearly they've done nothing wrong.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687103)

The scope is computer microprocessors, by which I think they mean home PC. Also, AMD is much more x86/x86_64 than anything else. I am just curious, while they operate in very different markets, how does ARM compare to Intel for embedded devices? I can't seem to find much information on the issue.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687267)

Yes, they only operate in the PC realm. Please do not look at this:

http://h20219.www2.hp.com/integrity/cache/342254-0-0-0-121.html [hp.com]
or http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/specs.xml [sun.com]
PCs may have higher shipping volume, but servers are no slouch either, and produce higher margins.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

jdschulteis (689834) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687455)

[...]I am just curious, while they operate in very different markets, how does ARM compare to Intel for embedded devices? I can't seem to find much information on the issue.
Numerous firms [wikipedia.org] , including Intel, make chips that run ARM code. The overall ARM share of the market for embedded 32-bit processors is about 75%; I couldn't readily find how big Intel's piece of that pie is.

Re:Intel is a monopoly? (1)

PipsqueakOnAP133 (761720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690025)

ARM competes with Intel in the embedded market by:
1) Licensing the core design to be manufactured by the company using the core in their designs.
2) Making core designs that have 1 or 2 magnitudes less power consumption.

I believe ARM, MIPS, and PPC are the major players in the embedded market for the same reason.

Essentially, Intel has no stake in the high end embedded CPU market except as a manufacturer of ARM-based Xscale chips when they still made those.

Never understood.... (3, Interesting)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686661)

Not that I have ever had a problem with Intel (though I have always bought AMD), but I never understood how why Microsoft gets ALL the blunt of the anti-trust stuff. Intel made a killing with their "Intel inside" campaign, but was it THAT great? I think more architectures for home PCs would be a major benefit to open source software, and a big hit to the stranglehold M$ has had over the sheeple for a long time. I have wanted to get a sparq for a long time, but it has felt a bit to risky to just make a statement. I really hope something comes of this investigation, if Intel was really playing unfair.

Re:Never understood.... (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687283)

I don't believe Intel and Microsoft are at all comparable. I can buy an AMD processor that runs all the same software, heck I wouldn't even know the difference without opening the box. The same cannot be said for the OS.

I still resent Intel for gouging me all through the 90s, but let's face it they are the best and AMD have largely kept Intel in check.

That said, if their pricing strategy is illegal, well I guess they should get sued.

Re:Never understood.... (1)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688243)

But was it necessary for Windows to be built for Intel-based processors only in order to secure their monopoly? Was it only Microsoft that saw an advantage in only developing for one processor type, whether or not it was the best? Not that I'm worried, just not convinced there wasn't any collusion between Microsoft and Intel that helped secure each others monopoly.

Re:Never understood.... (2, Insightful)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689631)

I think this is more about practices with vendors that were similar to Microsoft tactics.. How long did Dell refuse to use AMD processors even when performance exceeded Intel's ? .. but there are extenuating circumstances, so I don't think much is going to happen.. mainly that vendors claimed that AMD didn't have the capacity to supply in the volumes they required.. which is why Macs are also Intel... If you can't deliver "production wise" then you can't really complain if you don't get the business.

I'm an AMD guy, from forever.. and I still don't think Intel is wrong in this situation.

Not just Anti-trust (1, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686671)

I hope people remember that there are some good reasons to avoid AMD besides pressure from Intel. More than a few people got burned by the poor support for OEM cpus that were DOA. I was one, and avoid AMD to this day because if it. Yes, they are better now, but I have a long memory.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686689)

Could be said both ways... I'm quite happy with my Intel products myself, but I know someone who won't buy an Intel chip because of poor support for a DOA top of the line Intel CPU he bought.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (2, Informative)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686935)

Indeed, When I was working as an in store sales rep promoting Intel. I spent half my time hearing about overheat disasters with Pentium D series processors. When the Core came out for laptops and Core2 finally came out I thanked the heavens since I could finally talk bad about the D's and not have to worry about my bosses getting word. Although once they had enough sales from the Core2 series they were kind enough to kick my entire region on our collective butts. From most of what I have heard AMD's OEM issues were often due to an improperly installed or insufficient heat sink.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690661)

That's a problem with the retailer. Any reputable one, even online, will take a dead CPU back.

One time, I even took a mobo and CPU back to the retailer (Fry's) (no reasonable way for me to tell which was busted without buying more equipment) and they figured out which part was broken (the CPU), letting me keep the mobo which I had purchased at a discount with the bundle.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23686753)

AMD's problem is that Intel's market standing has pushed them mainly into the home/budget segment. This means AMD CPUs are typically packaged with cheap mobos, crappy harddrives, etc leading to the impression that AMD is "cheap".

If AMD can prove that Intel colluded with OEMs to limit AMD's ability to get into the business/workstation market, they could have a real case.

(However Intel should have no problem proving that AMD has been a technology generation behind except for a couple years after the K8 came out.)

Re:Not just Anti-trust (1, Insightful)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687025)

AMD is STRONGEST in the Server market.
Period.
The may not sell the most, but this is where they shine the best.

There is absolutely no denying this.

The Opteron chip is what basically saved AMD from liquidation and pushed Intel to come up with a new architecture to compete.

This like most of the techno anti-trust cases is plain old Bullshit and reeks of nothing more than more bashing on big guys, which our government appears to like to do more and more.

And they wonder why more and more businesses are starting to locate outside of the USA.

Intel has done plenty to go after them for, so has Apple, AT&T, Verizon, every cable company in existence, and most utility companies.

go spend the tax dollars doing something useful and not merely justifying your useless political existences.

asshats.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23687315)

I can't help but notice that your comment makes no sense at all.

This like most of the techno anti-trust cases is plain old Bullshit and reeks of nothing more than more bashing on big guys, which our government appears to like to do more and more.

And they wonder why more and more businesses are starting to locate outside of the USA.
You do realize, as the article says, that the US was one of the last countries/organizations to investigate Intel, right? The EU has already opened an investigation, and just recently, South Korean fined Intel $25 million. So yes, more businesses should locate outside the US, so that they will be under the jurisdiction of sane government entities who aren't pussies and will actually investigate companies for antitrust violations.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (1, Troll)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687847)

And you do realize that the practices which Intel were supposedly fined for in Korea, are perfectly legal in the USA, right?

In fact, if you read the fucking article you referenced there, it specifically said so.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (1)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687027)

I knew about AMD's problems when I first started buying AMD processors. I see it as what are you willing to put up with? I narrowed the argument down to this: 1/10 AMD processors are DOA (based on hearsay), BUT are only perfect or DOA, never shoddy with intermittent problems. AMD has a GREAT return policy for their retailers (never dealt with them directly). Intel can be counted on to be perfect every time out of the box, but you pay, IMHO, up to double for comparable performance. I am not going to pay a few hundred extra dollars to avoid a trip back to the store (and mind you one I love having an excuse to go back to).

But just to be fair, this was a conclusion I came to 15 years ago and haven't thought too much about since. I am satisfied with the range of problems with AMD, and still laugh (light heartedly) at Intel's little "can't divide" fiasco.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687363)

I don't know where you were buying your CPUs, but I have had exactly 1 DOA processor from AMD in dealing with oh.. dozens of dozens.

Often times, what appeared like a bad CPU was actually a motherboard issue with voltage not being applied correctly. I found this on a few KT266A boards where the BIOS would be set for 1.65v but instead supply 1.58v, or barely enough to boot. The fix for this, was to set the BIOS voltage to 1.7 and usually achieve a voltage of 1.6+ which was sufficient most times.

This was not exactly AMD's fault, per se, but to the consumer, they don't care. It would be like a customer knowing if you take a Ford to Jiffy Lube, nothing goes wrong, but they can't get their wrenches in to GM cars and get the nut back on right after an oil change. Jiffy Lube doesn't get the major blame, GM does, because nobody with Fords is having the problem....

Re:Not just Anti-trust (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23687927)

We've bought about 700 desktops over the last seven years, all with AMD processors and have had around two or three confirmed cases of the CPU being bad

I've personally bought 5 AMD processors in that time and have never had a problem.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (2, Informative)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687523)

Not that my anecdotal experience is worth more than your anecdotal experience, but I remember the exact opposite. Several years ago, I had a problem with JPEG's not rendering correctly. I contacted my video card manufacturer's support, assuming it was a video card problem (some things would render fine, others wouldn't, so my first guess was the video card). I was told that it was a known manufacturing defect in some AMD CPU's. I contacted AMD, and they said that it was odd that the problem would show up after owning the CPU for about a year, but they had me send it to them to check out. I ended up getting a replacement that was a little faster than the old CPU.

Re:Not just Anti-trust (0, Redundant)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687933)

Nice... did your new CPU render .jpgs correctly?

I wish I were dead. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23686675)

Dead.

Re:I wish I were dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23686757)

wow. i went from 'regular day' to immensely sympathetically depressed in no time flat. i hope things get better for you.

Re:I wish I were dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23687559)

What we need is more action, less wishing for things to be different.

Seriously though, there are so many cool opportunities if you're not worried about staying alive.

moron open investigations of ftc/corepirate nazis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23686695)

liars & touts & shills oh my. looks like the manufactured 'weather' is causing disastrous effects nationwide. better days ahead. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Re:moron open investigations of ftc/corepirate naz (1)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687155)

Is Godwin having a slow news day?

Read this... (0, Flamebait)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686813)

There is only one chip--Intel. There is only one chip--Intel. Thou shalt have no other chip before thee!!!
There is only one chip--Intel. There is only one chip--Intel. Thou shalt have no other chip before thee!!!
There is only one chip--Intel. There is only one chip--Intel. Thou shalt have no other chip before thee!!!
There is only one chip--Intel. There is only one chip--Intel. Thou shalt have no other chip before thee!!!

hehehe...

Let the evidence gathering begin... (3, Insightful)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686851)

I can definately see the reasoning behind AMDs push to get this investigation underway.

I used Intel when they were fastest and AMD when they were, and now I am using Intel Chips again.

If Intel used its position to force vendor lock-in and exclude AMD, and AMD can prove they lost a healthy chunk of market for the Athlon 64 that, most likely, would have went to resolve the teething problems with Phenom so that it made its original launch date and frequency...then Intel is going to have to break out the checkbook and make sure they got a lotta ink in the pen, cause it's gonna cost them a LOT.

If it's proven that actions resulted in events like this, you can bet Intel will settle all allegations before a final finding of fact is ever released...and pay a healthy sum to AMD to just shut up.

I just hope that, if these allegations are true, they are forced to pay an equitable amount to AMD and not fight it for years because these two companies vying for my business keep prices low enough for us to get some great gear these days...

Wait a Minute.... (2, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686857)

Why is this happening now instead of years ago? The harm Intel has created is egregious and has been obvious for a long time.

Did someone at the White House get up on the wrong side of bed one morning? Maybe the White House didn't like what the Executives were doing with their political action funds?

Why now?

Re:Wait a Minute.... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687081)

Intel missed their monthly bribe payment?

Re:Wait a Minute.... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689437)

Why now?

Easy. Now is the first time they hold 100.0000186732% of the market.

Re:Wait a Minute.... (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689925)

A: Inevitable change in US administration
B: EU antitrust case

And we care why? (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686899)

Lets say they do get declared a monopoly. What happens to them? From the record of late, nothing. They walk away with a token slap, while they keep their market share.

And we tax payers got to foot the bill.

Feds, you're stupid... (-1, Troll)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23686923)

Ever heard of AMD?

You're going to be told... (1, Flamebait)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687013)

That a company can engage in "unfair" business practices, which are illegal, without being a 100% monopoly. You will then be told how Intel did unpleasant things to customers in order to force them into positions favorable to Intel.

If you're anything like me, you'll roll your eyes and pretend this nothing story matters.

That wasn't flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687309)

There was NOTHING in that post that was flamebait. Are you people really so devoid of intellectual ability that you have to censor anything that doesn't kowtow to your beliefs?

Or am I not allowed to think this non-story is a story?

You're a joke mod, a pathetic fascist joke.

You're STILL a joke, keep wasting those points (-1, Offtopic)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687725)

There was NOTHING in that post that was flamebait. Are you people really so devoid of intellectual ability that you have to censor anything that doesn't kowtow to your beliefs?

And my karma is STILL excellent, and you're still a pathetic fascist joke.

Keep wasting those mod points twat, why bother modding tings up when you can censor those you can't refute right?

ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23688389)

I checked out your profile, hassanchop, and I can't help but notice a distinctly hostile theme among your posts. I would go so far as to say you created this login for the sole purpose of trolling (and just generally being a putz).

Not that you care, of course, but I really don't have much respect for you.

And in case there was any doubt, I am aware that I am posting as A/C.

Re:Feds, you're stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23687135)

Why mention VIA/AMD when we can ruin free market?

fir5t p0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23686947)

In addition, paranoid conspiracy outreach are FreeBSd because leaving core. I fly...don't feAr at my freelance asshole to others Standards should

How the monopoly might be construed (3, Insightful)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687099)

It used to be you got the Intel chip, chipset by whoever, a video card and a NIC. Now buy an Intel based computer and you get an Intel processor, Intel chipset, Intel video, and Intel NIC. So with the bundling you save a lot of money but it in effect shuts out a lot of other companies.

But personally I never have any problems with Intel chip + Intel chipset... It always just works. It seems any time I have problems it is when I use some other chipset.

Re:How the monopoly might be construed (3, Informative)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687835)

Really? Because I have an Intel processor, an nVidia chipset, and an nVidia graphics card. The reason for this anti-trust case isn't entirely because of a monopoly. It's because of a monopoly + noncompetitive practices made to artificially keep AMD's market share low. Intel fan boy, AMD fanboy, it doesn't matter. There is 0 debate in the fact that AMD's Athlon core was a much superior product [tomshardware.com] to Intel's Netburst. However, their market share [billcara.com] has not reflected that. AMD alleges that that's because Intel has been offering $37 million worth of discounts [nytimes.com] to OEMs, but only if they keep AMD at or below 20% of their products sold. Intel says that these are not unfair or anticompetitive at all. That's where the anti-trust stuff comes in. Abusing dominant position in the market place to keep others off your turf.

Re:How the monopoly might be construed (2, Informative)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688021)

For the time being I haven't and won't buy anything but an intel board and proccessor. I used to run AMD's and still run a couple but they have not been without their problems. You can buy a Intel mobo with X3500, Gigabit nic, 7.1 sound and a Core2Duo 3.0ghz for $250 to $300 and everything will, like you said, just work. Now you might be able to build something comparable with AMD for a similar price but is anyone really arguing that the Core2Duo isn't better than AMD's offerings. I like having the graphics card, nic, and sound integrated on my office machine not to mention it saves me money. Should I really have to buy those things seperate just to make life easier for AMD. Are they incapable of producing AMD brand boards with their own AMD brand chipset and integrated graphics, nic and sound. I thought we were supposed to protect the consumer not the underdog corporation.

Re:How the monopoly might be construed (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688229)

the Core2Duo 3.0ghz is about $189.99 just for the cpu and a MB with X3500 is $89.99. But Nvidia and ati have much better on board video. But you can get amd 3 core or quad core for less + a 780g board with better on board video for less. That 780g board can also boost an ati video card.

Re:How the monopoly might be construed (2, Informative)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688893)

I have about 100 servers for my small hosting business, 100% AMD, and I can think of only 1 machine that has an AMD chipset on it, and it still has Broadcom nic's and some not well know video on the board, a Tyan dual opteron board, so not some cheap desktop equipment either.


I recently compared a Dell dual quad opteron and a like Dell dual quad Xeon, and wound up buying a few Tyan barebone dual quad's with adaptec raid cards and double the ram and still saved a couple bucks over anything Dell could do for me. And since Dell was right there in line like a good puppy to the Intel overlords, I've avoided their products since the P3.

I have always felt AMD has been beat down unfairly, and other than the K6 stuff, have always bought their products since the 386's

Not a monopoly (-1, Redundant)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687117)

Having a large portion of the market isn't necessarily a monopoly. I don't think Intel is really that close to having a monopoly. As someone else said, everyone else has more or less cloned Intel ... I don't think Intel should be punished for making a good product that no one else has competed with yet. But, I realize this isn't really about a monopoly, it seems... unfair business practices, should probably be looked into.

That said, IMO, there's a huge thing nowadays to be anti-big-corporation... but when it comes to me wanting to go buy a chip, I usually will buy the best quality at the cheapest price, right? Nobody goes out of their way to spend more. With big corporations usually comes cheaper prices... it's a hard balance to make sure there isn't a monopoly or unfair business practices without seriously meddling with the basic idea of a free market...

More news on this (1)

VENONA (902751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687511)

I submitted an article yesterday (still pending, but you can imagine it's future). It was based around a Reuters article which points out that there are several legal actions pending now. The article is at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0540220820080605?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 [reuters.com]

Sorry I couldn't get it accepted. As a journalist, I'm a complete lamer. But it's an interesting article, and it may even be around for a bit--I don't know Reuter's policies, vis-a-vis demanding registration to articles more than x weeks old, etc. I never reference the NYT, for instance, as I don't much like their access policies. They could learn a lot from the Europeans.

Anyway, you may want to have a look at the Reuters article. I'm becoming more and more ashamed to admit that I used to work for those guys.

Intel is Guilty (2, Interesting)

byteherder (722785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687759)

The dirty little secret of the industry has been that Intel has been guilty of unfair business practices for a long time. Basically, they say to their customers, if you cut out AMD we will give you cut rate prices. If you don't we will only give you a limited supply of chips and your competitors will kill you on price and volume. They are like the mafia in business suits.

The European commission made a estimate of the damage Intel did to the market and it came to $60 billion. I would like to see that much given to AMD but I am not holding my breath.

The apple deal may also be part of this as well... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23687989)

Back when apple was talking about going to x86 amd was kicking intel's ass.

They even had better dual cpu systems vs the intel ones with FB-DIMMS and a poor bus with a weak pci-e setup VS the dual amd of the time with lower cost and less heat ECC ram as well the better Hyper Transport bus with alot more pci-e lanes. The nforce pro chipsets of the time of the time had dual pci-e x16 with SLI+ 2 x4 with dual gig-e with tcp/ip off load and teaming VS the intel chipset at the time that used FB-DIMMs and had less pci-e lanes then the g5's had also intel used pci-e for part of the NB to SB link and some of the pci-e lanes came from SB in the Mac pro also with AMD you had the choice of useing a few differnt NB chips unlike intel.

You can even have a Hyper Transport to pci-x link on there as well.

I said this back when the intel mac pro came out as well.

Apple could of had a system with 2gb of ram 4x512 2 per cpu at the same or lower cost then the mac pro with 1gb of FBDIMM and apple wanted $300 per gig back then.

also Nvidia and ATI that much better on board video then what ended up going in to the mac mini at the time as well.

Apple was useing Hyper Transport in the g5 so why not go to a amd system with 2 cpus and Hyper Transport links?

AMD was also full 64bit back then unlike intel.... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23688023)

AMD was also full 64bit back then unlike intel and apple had a few apple system with 32bit intel cpus back then as well.

Re:The apple deal may also be part of this as well (1)

bledri (1283728) | more than 6 years ago | (#23689651)

... why not go to a amd system with 2 cpus and Hyper Transport links?

The short answer is "I don't know." My assumption was that it was some combination of:

  1. Marketing: For non-technical customer's Intel means something, AMD has less mind share.
  2. Relationship: Maybe Intel was more willing to work with Apple on future chips/chipsets. I assume they were pretty pissed about the G5 never being usable in a notebook and were looking for some guarantees that their requests would be taken seriously.
  3. NDAs: Related to above, they no doubt were given inside information on what was coming and future direction and maybe that looked better to them.
  4. Price: Intel may have given them one of those sweet, anti-competitive, discounts for going 100% Intel.

Of course, it's pure speculation.

Re:The apple deal may also be part of this as well (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690143)

4 is likely the news about the amd intel lawsuit came out around the time apple said that they where going to intel and people said that intel may of did some anti-competitive stuff to get that deal. Also soon after that dell said that they will start useing amd cpus so parts of the apple deal may end up in court / FTC report.

Re:The apple deal may also be part of this as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23689677)

>Back when apple was talking about going to x86 amd was kicking intel's ass.

But they were talking about the fancy new core2 stuff, which is obviously better.

Even more importantly, Intel were dealing with power consumption issues.

What about SCO? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23689477)

When will the FTC open the formal investigation of them?

This is why I've always used AMD (2, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690529)

Ever since my dad got an AMD processor when upgrading our PC in the early 90's, we've always been an AMD family. I know that right now the Core 2 Duo is better than the Athlon64 X2, but I want to keep giving AMD my business so I can do my part to help keep them from getting crushed by Intel due to Intel buying off companies like Dell.

While I know I'd be getting a better product, I'd rather make sure my money goes to a company I support instead of one who tries to force people out of business instead of JUST making better products and letting consumers decide what they like best.

Does Anyone Remember (1)

saibot-k7 (1242596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690545)

Does anyone remember (given that there is no mention of it) the skype-intel controversy - where skype used a software check to determine if the running processor was AMD and disabled certain features if it was (regardless of the processor's performance)?

Either way, all the non built-in processors on my machines are AMD. My eee is the only computer running an intel processor - and even that wouldn't be case if I could pick. I care about performance, sure, but not as much as integrity.

Supercomputer class machines sell for $300+ (1)

bsharma (577257) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691211)

I am not seeing the pernicious effects of Intel's "anti-competitive" behavior looking at Dell prices. J6P can buy an essentially Supercomputer class machine in the $300+ range. If I remember correctly, in a monopoly, price increases (as in gas prices ?). Why waste government resources on a product that an average person spends a couple of days wages anyway. If they really want some work, they can target Big Oil, because that IS going to cause a severe recession!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>