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!

Despite FTC Settlement, Intel Can Ship Oak Trail Without PCIe

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the bizarre-micromanagement-from-on-high dept.

Intel 140

MojoKid writes "When the Federal Trade Commission settled their investigation of Intel, one of the stipulations of the agreement was that Intel would continue to support the PCI Express standard for the next six years. Intel agreed to all the FTC's demands, but Intel's upcoming Oak Trail Atom platform presented something of a conundrum. Oak Trail was finalized long before the FTC and Intel began negotiating, which means Santa Clara could've been banned from shipping the platform. However, the FTC and Intel have recently jointly announced an agreement covering Oak Trail that allows Intel to sell the platform without adding PCIe support — for now."

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

Lol (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34144836)

First!

Re:Lol (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34144930)

Oh friends! You do not know how great it feels to finally be honest with my family, friends, and self! I came out of the closet today and it feels great to no longer be living a dark life of lies. My family and friends were not so happy, however, as they denounced me and shit. I'm sure they will come around though. There are millions of people like me and we become more and more accepted every day. So, how many other ./ers are pedophiles as well?

Am I the only one who is confused... (4, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144856)

...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.

Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144942)

At a guess, the FTC is the enforcement body for the ISO standard that Intel agreed to follow which includes PCIe.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34144960)

its something nvidia got put in the settlement

otherwise the chipset, northbridge and southbridge can be a monopoly to intel, on intel cpu's

since intel doesnt license DMI to nvidia/amd

also without PCI-E there isnt a wag to connect most graphics cards, other choices are AGP and PCI

i think the actual settlement states PCI must be supported which is the worst/oldestg of the 3 but might be ok for the super lowend, at that it could be further defined as PCI-E or that the nontechs who drafted it assumed they were specifying the useful interconnect

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146660)

I looked at the picture in the fine article: Oak Trail, Lincroft, Whitney Point, Langwell, and I thought they were talking about some suburban development in California.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (4, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144974)

Okay as far as I can tell

The FTC sued Intel alleging Intel had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

A little more digging brings us [computerworld.co.nz]

The FTC filed its complaints against Intel on Dec. 16, 2009. It charged the chip maker with illegally using its dominant position to stifle competition for decades. The complaint was filed just a month after Intel had settled antitrust and patent disputes with Advanced Micro Devices for US$1.25 billion.

The FTC site adds that [ftc.gov]

").(1) Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition," and was amended in 1938 also to prohibit "unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Seems to have been part of a broader move against Intel at the time, I admit I don't remember it very clearly, but Reuters adds [reuters.com]

A wide range of antitrust enforcers have gone up against Intel for its controversial pricing incentives. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused Intel in November of threatening computer makers and paying billions of dollars of kickbacks to maintain market supremacy. The European Commission has fined Intel 1.06 billion euros ($1.44 billion) for illegally shutting out AMD. In June 2008, South Korea fined Intel some $26 million, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying microprocessors made by AMD. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly act. The case before the FTC is "In the Matter of Intel Corporation," docket number 9341.

Oh and that case can be found here [ftc.gov]

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145858)

Instead of telling Intel how to make their product, I consider it much better to confiscate the relevant patents and copyrights and put them into the public domain. That way AMD, nvidia, etc. will have all the access they need. They use asset forfeiture on us all the time. Time to use it here. Fair is fair.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146010)

Um, no?

Windows marketshare hasn't suddenly plummeted because their IP can be licensed and their protocols more or less be specified and available.

Intel would just change their bus to something else, then protect it as a trade secret.

I find it hilarious that Intel has thrown so much time, money and effort into trying to expand into the graphics market, and they still have such a mediocre solution that they have to glue it onto the CPU just to get people buy it.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146074)

Personally I think that a graphics integrated with the CPU is a good thing.

The "video card" is an essential component of a system, and having a last resort GPU built into the CPU is a nice backup measure.

What would piss me off is if the chip then blocked access to external video card ports.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146720)

like by not including support for PCI-E?

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146810)

Precisely.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146140)

mediocre solution that they have to glue it onto the CPU

The mediocre solution (GMA HD) they are gluing to the CPU is a derivative of the solution they shipped 140,000,000 of last year (GMA* in 90%+ of every laptop manufactured.) That's pretty hilarious. It will be downright hysterical when, integrated into the CPUs, another 100,000,000 displace most of the discrete desktop graphics cards.

Do not bet against integration.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147066)

Not quite sure at what you're getting at. I'm not trying to control market share. I want to see access granted to abusively licensed tech. If they want exclusivity, they must license it at reasonable prices. A fair compromise. These are the kind of things we can do to mitigate abuse of the law. And then people might give a bit more respect.

Some cities make people do a version of this with their real property. If they want to keep it or avoid huge taxes and fees, they have to use it, even if for a parking lot. Of course a house is ok, but it must be maintained. I like those kind of rules. It help to reduce speculation. And it makes the place look nicer, not to see it all overgrown with weeds and animals.

...then protect it as a trade secret.

Just another asset to take away if they misbehave.

If corporations want to be treated like people, then by all means, let's sanction them like people, treat them just as badly, with a death penalty and everything.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34146652)

The following line is what gets me. "using its dominant position to stifle competition for decades". I maybe alone in this regard, but shouldn't the FTC also sue the USPTO? After all, doesn't the issuing of elementary patents also have the same effect?

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0, Offtopic)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144994)

even more confusing is that google is not mentioned.

and this is a slashdot article. there *has* to be a google angle somewhere.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145060)

even more confusing is that google is not mentioned.

and this is a slashdot article. there *has* to be a google angle somewhere.

If you are deliberately trolling, you suck and I've seen far better. If you thought you were really contributing something then I must ask: are you a nigger?

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145032)

Here is a good article [arstechnica.com] about the original antitrust settlement.

Basically, Intel refuses to license it's new DMI or QPI bus protocols to NVIDIA, so they can no longer make chipsets for intel processors (like nForce). Furthermore, it has been feared that with the push towards systems on chip, that Intel would eliminate the PCI-e bus as well leaving no way for any graphic company to supply a discrete graphics chip for netbook or notebook computers.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Interesting)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145080)

You mean leaving no way for nVidia to do it. ATI has always had solid mobility offerings and AMD owning them just means that nV is left out in the cold if Intel goes down the course you say.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145224)

AMD also has HyperTransport. Maybe this was why there were rumours about Nvidia making a CPU.

If Intel & AMD decided to offer GPUs linked by QPI & HT it would give their GPUs a big advantage with Nvidia unable to compete.

I think non-portable computers will end up a lot more modular in this way. Memory, CPUs, GPUs, Northbridge all connected to each other on a future generation of a switched HT/QPI bus. It would make the computers much more scalable, futureproof, adaptable and efficient. It might also allow you to mix different components. Imagine having an ARM CPU in your computer to handle day to day work. It would be more than enough and much more efficient to use an ARM CPU for OS work and leave more powerful components idle unless they're needed. If you need more expansion just link it to another bus switch to add a few more CPUs, GPUs or whatever remembering its associated issues.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145300)

If Intel & AMD decided to offer GPUs linked by QPI & HT it would give their GPUs a big advantage with Nvidia unable to compete.

That would also kill Intel's high-end consumer products. Most high-end Intel CPUs are sold to gamers, who aren't going to be gaming on some crappy Intel integrated graphics chip.

At least for the forseeable future, Intel need Nvidia for the mid to high-end gaming market, because they're not going to be releasing GPUs in that arena any time soon.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Insightful)

Starrider (73590) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147154)

High-end graphics and discrete cards are making up a smaller and smaller percentage of the market. It is quickly getting to the point that the only people who are buying discrete GPUs are gamers and graphics professionals. Most people just don't see the need for the added expense.

The "mid to high-end gaming market" is fairly small on the PC, relative to the entire PC market.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147750)

Intel's high-end consumer products aren't where they make their money.... and enough of them make it into prebuilt machines from Dell, HP, anyways.

Most high-end Intel CPUs are sold as server solutions, where a graphics card makes very little difference.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34147880)

That would also kill Intel's high-end consumer products. Most high-end Intel CPUs are sold to gamers, who aren't going to be gaming on some crappy Intel integrated graphics chip. Thank you for the information of this information with your name on my Chat [liderchat.net] mirc [mircbul.net] site I share my own mind, do not they?

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145832)

> AMD also has HyperTransport. Maybe this was why there were rumours about Nvidia making a CPU.

Uh, seriously? NVIDIA is a founding member of the HyperTransport consortium, they should have no problem connection their GPUs via that if necessary.
http://www.hypertransport.org/default.cfm?page=ConsortiumAboutUs [hypertransport.org]

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34147640)

If Intel & AMD decided to offer GPUs linked by QPI & HT it would give their GPUs a big advantage with Nvidia unable to compete.

Hmm, integrated GPUs have been linked to the CPU via HT for quite some time in the AMD-land. I'm not so sure a socket based solution could be cheap and frugal enough for enabling a standardized high bandwidth connection for motherboard based GPUs. A 10-layer motherboard wouldn't be very cheap to make. A HTX-slot based solutions might have merits for GPGPUs, especially after the release of 6100 series Opterons. Intel has licensed their QPI for some FPGA usage as well but I'm not sure if a coherent link would provide any benefits for a graphics subsystem..

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145318)

So would AMD me out in the cold. They supply video chipsets for Intel processors too.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145472)

I'm sure the parent knows that AMD's cards work with Intel processors. They were just ignoring that fact because AMD can keep selling the cards for use with their own CPUs, nVidia would be forced to compete against AMD on AMD's own turf without being able to sell any products to Intel customers. AMD would easily squeeze them out completely in that situation.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145440)

I like and buy AMD CPUs, but I've always preferred nVidia for graphics cards; mostly because I run linux, for which ATI/AMD cards have notoriously poor support compared to nvidia. Vendor lock in, no matter the company is a terrible thing, I and everyone else should be able to get GPUs independent of CPUs, or any other hardware for that matter.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145268)

Furthermore, it has been feared that with the push towards systems on chip, that Intel would eliminate the PCI-e bus as well leaving no way for any graphic company to supply a discrete graphics chip for netbook or notebook computers.

If they did that, every manufacturer of even moderately high-end laptops would drop their CPUs faster than an LSD addict drops acid.

Even if Intel's GPUs were the best in the industry, there are too many other critical things you wouldn't be able to properly support without PCIe---ExpressCard slots, FireWire, maybe even eSATA (unless they add more SATA ports to the chipset).... IMHO, dropping PCIe would be suicide for Intel.

Ya I can't imagine them not wanting it (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145990)

Intel doesn't want nVidia making chipsets, true enough, because Intel makes chipsets. However the want expansion slots on their boards because they want people using their boards. I'm quite sure they are plenty happy with nVidia and ATi graphics cards. Heck they've included ATi's crossfire on their boards for a long time (they didn't have SLI because nVidia wouldn't license it to them). Intel has nothing that competes in that arena, and they recently revised their plan so they aren't even going to try. They want people to get those high end GPUs because people who get high end GPUs often get high end CPUs since they are gamers. Not only that, they STILL sell the Integrated GPU, since it is on chip.

I just can't see them not wanting PCIe in their regular desktop boards. They know expansion is popular, and they also know that the people who expand the most also want the biggest CPUs.

Now on an Atom platform? Sure makes sense. These are extremely low end systems. PCIe logic is really nothing but wasted silicon. You don't have room for PCIe expansions in there, never mind the desire for it. Those are integrated, all-in-one, low end platforms.

However desktop and laptop? I can't see them wanting to eliminate it there.

Re:Ya I can't imagine them not wanting it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34146180)

I was actually trying to find a netbook with an nvidia graphics on it.

The desire is there for non shitty graphics. Intel needs to stop screwing its customers over with its horrible graphics chips.

Re:Ya I can't imagine them not wanting it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34147482)

Laptop wireless (Wifi, HSPA/3G, wimax) is almost always on a PCIe card internally since RF equipment regulations vary from country to country and type of card required sometimes vary by celphone provider.

On an amusing note, I subcontract for laptop repairs for one of the phone companies... Their laptops have built in 3G antennas and an empty PCIe slot inside labeled wwlan, but they use the USB sticks (which don't have as good of antennas) so customers can see them do it. The same model of laptop is available from the manufacturer with the card installed and a pre-activated sim card on the same phone company!

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146100)

Depends on the market. How many laptop users actually care about ExpressCard? I've had one on this machine for 4 years, but never plugged anything in to it. FireWire and SATA controllers are small enough that they could be on die on a low-power SoC. Things like USB and Ethernet / 802.11 are already commonly provided on die by ARM SoCs, so I'd imagine that they would be with most Intel single-chip solutions too.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145866)

Eminent domain seems appropriate in these cases. But instead of buying the "property" from them, just reduce the fine to nothing.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (-1, Offtopic)

zhengai (1935538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145042)

...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.

Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.

...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.

Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.

...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.

Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.

...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.

Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/ [shoesforking.com] The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time. 3 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal 90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$ jordan shoes $ 32 90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$ nike shox $ 32 Christan Audigier bikini $ 23 Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16 Sandal $ 32 christian louboutin $ 80 Sunglass $ 15 COACH_Necklace $ 27 handbag $ 33 AF tank woman $ 17 puma slipper woman $ 30 90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$ http://www.shoesforking.com/ [shoesforking.com]

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145106)

Hmmm, I did everything I could think of to find the message hidden in the spam, but no dice. That's some good crypto.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145126)

... I went there expecting shoe porn.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145194)

Basically Intel locked down all I/O on many of their chips to specifically lock out Nvidia and force their lousy GPUs onto you, whether you like it or not. Considering this is the same company that bribed OEMs [pwn3d.com] , rigged their compiler [digg.com] , and paid 1.25 billion to AMD [nytimes.com] just to keep them from digging all the skeletons in their closet? It really shouldn't be surprising.

I was a life long Intel man, going back to the 486Dx, but after all the dirty underhanded shit they've pulled recently I've gone full AMD for my customers and myself. If you win a market because you are faster/cheaper/better? No problem with me. But rigging the market is a BIG no no in my book, and makes it worse for all of us. Just look at how many power hogging P4s are still in use, thanks partially to the fact that Intel paid off OEMs not to run the better at the time AMD chips. The regulators in the USA may not have any teeth anymore, but I can't wait to see what the EU does to them. Intel has been so nasty lately they make MSFT look like the Care Bears.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145316)

Just look at how many power hogging P4s are still in use, thanks partially to the fact that Intel paid off OEMs not to run the better at the time AMD chips.

Prior to the Athlon-64, P4s _were_ better than Athlons unless you wanted to run x87 floating point instructions. When I bought my last Windows PC I expected to go AMD but when I actually looked at the benchmarks the P4 was up to twice as fast as a similarly-priced Athlon at rendering in the 3D and video editing packages I was using at the time.

It was only in the final P4 space-heater era that choosing AMD became a no-brainer.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145546)

You really do have to consider that the performance per watt in the era since the P4 has been stellar from Intel, while AMD hasn't quite been up to par in that department. The roles really have reversed in the past few years in regards to wattage, with Intel also keeping the raw performance crown on the high end.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145758)

You really do have to consider that the performance per watt in the era since the P4 has been stellar from Intel, while AMD hasn't quite been up to par in that department. The roles really have reversed in the past few years in regards to wattage, with Intel also keeping the raw performance crown on the high end.

On the other hand, for the price of the highest-end Intel chip [newegg.com] (and a motherboard [newegg.com] to run it on) (also note: board and chip ONLY; no OS, no drives, no case, no nothing), I can practically build two high-end AMD systems [newegg.com] (If Newegg will sell me a pre-built system for just under a grand, I'm willing to bet I can build it myself for $800 or less - especially without the MSFT tax).

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145854)

Yeah it is truly crazy how much "bang for the buck" from AMD and lets be honest here: VERY few of us are gonna have the kind of day to day work lined up that is gonna pound the dog snot out of the CPU hard enough to make the price difference worth it. For less than $530 after MIR I got an AMD 925 quad with 8Mb of Lvl 2 cache, 8GB of DDR 2 800MHz RAM, 2 500GB HDDs, a HD4650 1Gb GPU, a 20x DVD burner, and a nice case to put it all in. You really can't beat that.

And everyone here on /. is always talking about "voting with your dollars, now here is your chance. We have Intel being caught in bribery, rigging their compiler, and bribing OEMs so badly that nearly 40% of Dell's "profits" some quarters were nothing but Intel kickbacks. If you value a free market you might want to look at something like what I linked to below. And don't forget FOSS guys that AMD has been good to the FOSS community, as they have been opening up the ATI specs as fast as they can crank out the docs and they also support the x86 Open64 Compiler [amd.com] which unlike Intel's accelerates BOTH Intel and AMD CPUs.

So if anyone is shopping for desktops this Xmas? How would you like a quad desktop fully loaded for $199 [tigerdirect.com] ? That is with a Phenom X4 at 2.4GHz, 2Gb of RAM, DVD burner, 500Gb HDD, and case. Just buy a CPU fan and put whatever OS suits your fancy. Hell with prices so cheap when my dad decided it was time to retire his old P4 I went ahead and got him almost the same deal, just went with 4Gb of RAM instead of 2. Will my dad ever need that kind of power? I doubt it, but with C&Q it drops down to just 800MHz and is whisper quiet, and I know that for the foreseeable future he will not need anything done to this PC. Well, except for adding more USB ports. I swear that man can go through USB ports like crap through a goose.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146034)

That's not a good comparison. Intel has an obscenely high priced chip. Fine, they always have for those people who have more money than sense. They also have reasonably priced chips. Try instead looking at, say, a Core i5-760. 2.8GHz quad core chip for $210. Look up some performance numbers and then compare to AMD chips. It isn't very favorable. More or less they need their 6 core chips to compete, and then it is only competitive if you happen to have an app that can use all 6 cores (which is very rare still). For example if you look at Anand's benchmark (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/5) you find that the 760 matches the 1090T in many tests, and an 860 beats in almost all of them.

Once you've got some roughly even performance, then compare build prices. You'll find that Intel compares quite favorably. Not saying AMD doesn't offer good value, but Intel does as well.

In performance per watt and raw highest performance, Intel has AMD beat. In performance per dollar, they are highly competitive too. AMD has just not been doing well lately, unfortunately.

Don't try to contrive situations to spin the truth, look at things accurately.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146760)

Sure if you are the type to run only one app at a time.

my list:
1)emerge
2)ffmpeg
3)Wow.exe
4)Chome while on carrerbuilder.com(something is dumb there and loops using 10% cpu).
ffmpeg can use 2-4 cores, emerge can as well, wow uses 2, and chrome could use a bunch as well. hmm just about everything i run is threaded 6-12 cores sure sounds nice.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (3, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146808)

Try instead looking at, say, a Core i5-760. 2.8GHz quad core chip for $210. Look up some performance numbers and then compare to AMD chips.

Performance numbers based on Intel crippling compiler.

Yeah. Even in cases where Intel's compiler isnt used for the benchmark program, many benchmarks still use libraries compiled with Intel's compiler.

Of significance are Intels Math Kernel Library and even AMD's Core Math Library (compiled with Intels fortran compiler!)

These libraries are extensively used in most benchmark programs.

Well then perhaps AMD needs to get on that (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147514)

See here's the problem: Even if Intel's compiler does better for Intel's own chips, which I'm sure it does, it is still the best compiler out there by a long shot. Any time you see compiler benchmarks it is consistently the best thing on the market. Intel has a really, really good compiler team. So if that is a problem for AMD, well then they should be writing their own compiler. Like the ICC, they should make it plug in to Visual Studio so that VS developers can use it as a drop-in replacement to speed up their code. If they made it so it produced fast code for both kinds of chips and made it cost less (or even be free) than the ICC I cannot see it failing to take off.

However they don't, so the ICC remains the best compiler out there. That would be AMD's problem.

Also you are doing a classic fanboy thing of arguing what you think the world should be, not what it is. When someone is buying a processor they don't much care why the performance is what it is. They only care how it does in the apps they actually use. So if all their apps are ICC apps and they run better on Intel processors, well hten that's all that matters. You can rant and rave that the AMD processor "should" be faster, if it isn't it is all irrelevant.

Re:Well then perhaps AMD needs to get on that (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147832)

Even if Intel's compiler does better for Intel's own chips, which I'm sure it does, it is still the best compiler out there by a long shot.

This isnt about not putting effort into optimizing for non-Intel. This is about intentionally putting effort into sabotaging non-Intel performance. They have been convicted of this act, and so far have not honored the courts ruling on the matter.

Remember when Microsoft intentionally sabotaged competing DOS clones? Yeah.

They only care how it does in the apps they actually use. So if all their apps are ICC apps and they run better on Intel processors, well hten that's all that matters.

Who claimed that all their apps are ICC-based? The claim is that most BENCHMARKS use ICC-generated code at some point, and this claim is DEMONSTRABLY true (simply changing the CPUID VendorID string to "GenuineIntel" proves it, as many have done.)

Most apps for Windows are compiled with VC++ and most apps for Linux are compiled with GCC.

In spite of Intels unfair benchmarking advantage, AMD is still king of price/performance. [cpubenchmark.net] Thats how killer AMD's are on the very metric we are talking about.

The first Intel showing is only 75% the price/performance value of AMD's best and of the top 20 or so CPU's on that chart, only two of them are from Intel. Quite frankly, Intel fanboys such as yourself should be embarrassed for not realizing how badly you are getting ripped off.

Those prices are just for the CPU as well, so doesnt include the higher price that Intel users pay for motherboards.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34146536)

Benchmarks measuring power from the wall position them roughly equal, with the upper end Intel chips consuming more than the AMD. Don't confuse TDP for consumption, it's not the same and both companies use different calculations to determine it anyway.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146304)

Prior to the Athlon-64, P4s _were_ better than Athlons unless you wanted to run x87 floating point instructions.

Clock for clock the Athlons beat the shit out of the P4. Only by getting a fast and thus very power-hungry and expensive processor could you build a faster machine with a P4. Does that mean they were "better"? Also, at the time floating point had just become massively important to gaming since we were fully into 3d land. fp math was one of the most important differentiators and competition over specfp benchmarks was intense.

When I bought my last Windows PC I expected to go AMD but when I actually looked at the benchmarks the P4 was up to twice as fast as a similarly-priced Athlon at rendering in the 3D and video editing packages I was using at the time.

Only if you bought your AMD from someone whose pricing was designed to remove their competitive advantage. And guess what? Intel was convicted of various price fixing schemes including stuff similar to the above.

The P4 is a gigantic piece of shit slower clock for clock than the P3. Get over it.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (3, Funny)

monktus (742861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145928)

"...they make MSFT look like the Care Bears."

Can't....type.....horrible image of Ballmer....in Care Bear outfit.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146056)

From 2000 - 2005 I bought a few AMD systems because they were a bit cheaper, but I also had quite a few CPU's fail and even one melt despite heatsink, fan, two case fans, plus another PCI slot fan. Maybe it was just my luck of the draw, but since 2005 everything I've bought except my PowerMac G5 tower has been Intel CPU's. And I haven't had any problems with the intel CPU's.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146196)

Basically Intel locked down all I/O on many of their chips to specifically lock out Nvidia and force their lousy GPUs onto you, whether you like it or not.

They did, but the DPI license is mostly a diversion. The real story is that with the Core i3/i5s you already have integrated graphics on the CPU, so even if nVidia manage to claw their way back into the motherboard game there's nothing for them there since graphics used to be the main differentiator. By turning it into a license/contract issue it seems a lot cleaner than "oh, you can still produce boards but we moved the essential functionality into the CPU". Though honestly AMD has been talking about the merger of the CPU and GPU ever since they bought ATI so I think Intel will have enough legitimate reason for doing it.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146318)

. The real story is that with the Core i3/i5s you already have integrated graphics on the CPU, so even if nVidia manage to claw their way back into the motherboard game there's nothing for them there since graphics used to be the main differentiator.

They still have shit graphics, so there is still a need for fancier graphics for laptops. If I was buying a laptop for my girlfriend I would have used intel integrated video before and I would still use it. If I am buying one for me then I wouldn't use it before, and I won't use it now. Nothing has changed except where the hardware I don't want lives. Before it was soldered to the motherboard where I couldn't (reasonably) remove it. Now it's built into the CPU and I still can't remove it.

Nothing has changed.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147008)

Nothing has changed.
What has changed is that with core 2 stuff you have the option of a nvidia chipset with integrated graphics that were better than intel integrated graphics while being physically smaller and lower power consumption than a discrete solution with it's own memory.

With current gen intel stuff that option is gone (though admittedly from a users point of view the fact that intel integrated graphics are better than they used to be somewhat makes up for it).

Afaict Nvidia was afraid that intel would take it even further and remove fast PCIe support from some of their chips so they persuaded the FTC to include a clause about that in the antitrust settlement.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146734)

Basically, no.

Basically Intel locked down all I/O on many of their chips to specifically lock out Nvidia and force their lousy GPUs onto you, whether you like it or not.

Do you understand what this chip is? It's a system on a chip. The whole point is a small, integrated, specialized, low power chip for things like tablets. There's absolutely no point in allowing for an NVIDIA chip on it because 1) the integrated graphics are ALL you need. 2) if you added another GPU chip you would hurt power consumption and increase overall costs and 3) why the hell increase the complexity of the chip to support something that it fundamentally contrary to the design goals (simplicity, low power)?

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34147904)

While it's commendable to withdraw your custom from Intel because of the way they have behaved, why do you not withdraw your custom from Microsoft for the same reason? They have done many of the same things and have actually been much worse. Unlike Intel, few of their competitors are still around to lobby for antitrust suits against them.

Re:Am I the only one who is confused... (2, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146042)

Issue is that Atom except Intel STB boards with their media accel processor is deliberately crippled in terms of video performance. As a result the entire system ends up being crippled wholesale giving the consumers a perception that the computer is slow while it really isn't.

Nvidia has demonstrated this - when paired with a devent video chippery Atom makes a perfectly adequate desktop and notebook. As a result Intel has gone as far as damaging its own media STB roadmap to lock Nvidia out so that Atom does not cannibalise its more expensive CPUs. This is all being done with the tacit support of Microsoft to ensure that demand for "cheap windows" wanes together with cheap computers.

IMO, this decision is a BIG loss for the consumer. This platform is an example of what is wrong about Intel "innovation" as we now it. It is driven not by the desire to improve, but the desire to screw competition. was Nvidia or AMD I should definitely take the FTC to court on this one. This allows Intel a wholesale way out of the concent degree in the segment where competition is at its fiercest - low end notebooks and tablets.

I think this was in the pipe line befor the fcc ru (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146792)

I think this was in the pipe line before the new FCC rule came out

Don't see any other way for Intel (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144880)

I went and looked up the specs for the chip in question. It's a SoC chip, just a PCI bus is all I could find. There's no market reason for PCIe, and it really wouldn't even offer much of a benefit, since the single-core CPU is barely pushing a gigahertz. The FTC behaved pretty much reasonably in this case.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144978)

The FTC behaved pretty much reasonably in this case.

I'm pretty sure that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145384)

REPENT! THE END IS NIGH!

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146216)

Indeed it is. (:

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1, Offtopic)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145016)

Maybe they can just glue on dummy PCIe slots, kind of like the Chinese used to hand-paint barcodes on boxes.

Dang, I'm no good with Google today. I can't find the reference. Years ago, when barcodes were just starting to become popular on boxes/cases used for shipping, I recall a story where some American company had specified that their Chinese supplier had to begin bar-coding boxes of goods sent to the US to make warehousing here easier, and proceeded to have fits when none of the barcodes scanned. They eventually figured out that the Chinese had complied by hiring skilled artists to paint these "little symbols" on their existing box stock rather than buying bar-code printing equipment as intended. Interesting both because it demonstrated failure-to-communicate and also demonstrated how little Chinese workers were paid, even skilled artists.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145038)

The thing you're forgetting is that Intel is trying to stop third-party chipsets... like nvidia and tegra. The FTC founds this anti-competitive, which is what they're trying to prevent.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (2, Interesting)

sarkeizen (106737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145216)

I don't even see the relevance of the Atom platform anymore. It used to be about power efficiency and they really got there with the Z series maxing out at 2.4W. This was, of course at the expense of processing power, addressable memory and such. However after the release of the SU7300 which maxes out at 10W - and doesn't have the limitations of the Atom. I get that there are some power savings in there with all the integration Intel is planning but I'm skeptical how much that bares out. My wife was recently in the market for a more portable machine for work and I steered her toward an machine with an SU7300 core. It's battery life rivaled my Z series netbook and was much more functional (in addition to the other things I've mentioned my netbook had a GMA 500 graphics controller which Intel severely hobbled in Windows 7). When that netbook died I replaced it with the ASUS UL30 - a bit more screen space, longer battery life, full 64 bit OS, well supported video hardware, up to 8GB of RAM...

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145446)

Off-topic, but FYI I think Oak Trail basically is a PC-compatible chipset for Moorestown (the other chipset was not PC-compatible). It includes all the legacy stuff that is need to maintain compatibility back to the original IBM PC in 1981, and extensions such as ACPI, so most normal x86 OSes will run.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145500)

Oak Trail basically is a PC-compatible chipset for Moorestown

Oops, replace Moorestown here with Lincroft.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145620)

It's a SoC chip

To be more precise, Lincroft is the SoC chip, Whitney Point is the codename of the PC-compatible chipset, and Oak Trail is the codename for the entire platform.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145922)

Reminds me of drugs naming, where the same drug might be sold under several different names depending on intended purpose, per manufacturer, in addition to a generic name or two and a scientific name.

Re:Don't see any other way for Intel (3, Interesting)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146464)

I thought that Intel wanted to break into the embedded market that contains a lot of ARM and PowerPC cores with Atom? The FPGA + Embedded processor combination is pretty common, and PCIe is the way to interface them. Hence your low power/low performance chip is bundled together with another (FPGA or ASIC) that does the heavy lifting for a specific task. Every application that requires some serious, but fixed, number crunching is appropriate for this. I do broadcast related stuff, so the things that spring to mind are video compressors, deinterlacers, etc. Why spend lots of dollars and lots of watts on a powerful CPU when you can combine a amsll core and an ASIC/FPGA and get the same result? Without PCIe no one is going to consider the Atom for these applications.

There is only one right answer (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34144948)

Homosexual gay babies.

Gaybies!

Re:There is only one right answer (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34144982)

Is it wrong that I get turned on when I change baby diapers? I don't know if it's the cute little dong or the milky, warm and rancid shit.

Sometimes I run my fingers through the baby poo and use it for lube. The smell and the texture makes me pop in seconds!

Re:There is only one right answer (0, Offtopic)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144992)

Naa, I do the same. I think most linux users do.

As least the linux users here at /.

The rise and rise of the parallel port.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145018)

...and in other news Apple has been forced by the FTC to try and fit a parallel port into the new 11" MacBook Air. It is anti-competitive to only offer USB.

Damn capitalists. What is their agenda? Next they will remove PS2 from motherboards and some poor Chinese keyboard manufacturer will go out of business.

Re:The rise and rise of the parallel port.... (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145040)

I was thinking more like Intel would be likely to add PCIe to the thing by making a PCI-to-PCIe bridge chip, making everything traverse the PCI bus. That'ud show 'em.

more like light peak only no DVI no USB no vga (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145210)

more like light peak only no DVI no USB no vga.

also light peak only works with intel video and if you want to use your usb keyboard or mouse $30 cable or hub that needs a wall wart as light peak may not pass power.

want Ethernet $30 cable

want to use a ati or nvidia video chip you may need a piggy back cable to make it tie into the light peak network.

Re:more like light peak only no DVI no USB no vga (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145642)

also light peak only works with intel video and if you want to use your usb keyboard or mouse $30 cable or hub that needs a wall wart as light peak may not pass power.

Not really, light peak complements USB as they share the same physical port. You can still use your cheap USB cables at USB speeds. If you want "light peak" speeds then you need to use a more expensive cable - one with 4 fiber optic lines in addition to the 4 regular USB electrical lines. Passing power will work just like with USB.

want Ethernet $30 cable

Possibly, but only in those rare situations where your device is so small that there is no room for a regular ethernet port.

want to use a ati or nvidia video chip you may need a piggy back cable to make it tie into the light peak network.

Unlikely, just look at displayport. Displayport can cannel both USB and audio despite the fact both signals do not originate from the graphics card. It would be safe to assume that Light Peak can do something similar.

Re:more like light peak only no DVI no USB no vga (1)

nateman1352 (971364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145718)

It still remains to be seen if lightpeak is vaporware or not. I suspect that Intel will find the power consumption of fiber optic interconnects to not be acceptable for a laptop battery.

Re:The rise and rise of the parallel port.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145372)

-----> point

    o
/|\ <-- you

  / \

PS. and slashdot formatting fucked up you too, but you deserve it

Re:The rise and rise of the parallel port.... (1)

sjwt (161428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145520)

Dude, its more like if apple went back to the parallel port and removed the USB.

Please explain. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145078)

I don't understand why IBM is being forced to support PCI-E.

Re:Please explain. (2, Informative)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145138)

Please re-read, it's Intel, not IBM... and there's lots of useful info in the comments.

Re:Please explain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145370)

sorry, typo.

Please explain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145204)

I don't understand why Intel is being forced to support PCI-E.

Re:Please explain. (2, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145422)

Two identical posts this close together? You must be a Slashdot editor.

Re:Please explain. (0, Offtopic)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145518)

Mod +6, Fucking Hillarious and +7, Truth.

That makes my next PC purchase easier... (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145720)

With no PCI Express support, I can just skip anything from Intel, since I won't be able to use any decent video card in their rig.

Thanks, Intel, for throwing away any chance you had at selling stuff to the gaming market.

Wait... does this mean Intel is going to be the next big corporation screaming about piracy hurting their profits? I mean, obviously, if no one is buying their crap anymore, it's the fault of the pirates...

Re:That makes my next PC purchase easier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34145750)

Haven't you seen the specs on the upcoming sandy bridge integrated graphics? Who needs something standalone when you have something that is just a tiny bit slower than a HD 5450 built in.

Re:That makes my next PC purchase easier... (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146968)

because intel's cards don't do CUDA. And the 5450 is rather slow if you want to push a game to 3 monitors. Does the Intel card do 3 monitors? how about 6? how about decent h264 decoding in mainline mplayer? VLC? xine?

Re:That makes my next PC purchase easier... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147442)

You mean besides the fact that a $40 video card is only good for entry level gaming?

Even the HD4650 blows the doors off of the HD5450. That HD5450 ranks right up there with 2 year old mid range (at the time) graphics cards.

That the Intel integrated solution is a "tiny bit slower" than something no serious gamer would even consider buying today. The Farcry 2 benchmark for the HD5450 puts it at an average 20 FPS on Medium Settings, Low Shadows, No AA. Simply horrible. Its probably fine if you want to play WOW, but not fine for any serious gaming.

Re:That makes my next PC purchase easier... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145944)

This applies only to one chip, and that chip's codename is right in the title.

Human-readable analysis of the stuff (1)

coldmist (154493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145780)

Here is a semiaccurate article on this, with human-readable analysis: http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/04/intel-settles-ftc-and-nvidia-win-big/ [semiaccurate.com]

Secondly, Intel doesn't need to be bastards, they can just continue with the bog-standard half-speed PCIe 2.0 link that they have on their Atoms. This doesn't provide enough bandwidth to run a retired analog cigarette vending machine let alone a modern GPU. If Intel doesn't want a GPU on their platforms, it is trivial to abide by the letter of the law and still screw Nvidia. Won't this be fun to watch?

Rumors have it that Intel was making changes to their chipsets that detected Nvidia GPUs and hamstrung performance on them. Having the GPU not work at all would be too obvious, but performance losses are a bit of a "he said, she said" argument. These changes broke the PCIe spec, but are basically impossible to prove without a lot of specialized equipment, trained engineers, and time. Given that it was Nvidia complaining, it is more likely that it was simply bad engineering by the GPU (formerly) giant. Either way, it is a moot point now.

Re:Human-readable analysis of the stuff (3, Interesting)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34145926)

If Intel doesn't want a GPU on their platforms, it is trivial to abide by the letter of the law and still screw Nvidia

During the public comment period, I submitted a comment about this and the FTC actually responded:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/101102intelletterbao.pdf [ftc.gov]

Semi-accurate is Fully-retarded (2, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146006)

Don't believe their bullshit. Two major flaws with their argument:

1) Nobody gives a shit about PCIe speed on the Atom. It is a low end platform, for netbooks. You are not putting discrete GPUs at all on it, never mind fast ones. You do not want that kind of battery drain, or cost, for that platform. Speed is really not relivant.

2) PCIe is way, WAY faster than it needs to be. 8x, which is half speed, is still more than you need as HardOCP found (http://hardocp.com/article/2010/08/16/sli_cfx_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x16x8/6) even for extremely high end cards in multi-card setups. For that matter on the forums Kyle said that 4x (quarter speed) is still more than enough for cards at 1920x1200. The highest end discreet cards don't need it, you are fine.

Semi-accurate is more of a raving opinion rag than a news site. The guy who runs it was fired from The Register for bias, and that is right up there with getting fired from Fox News. He hates Intel, hates nVidia and loves AMD/ATi.

Re:Semi-accurate is Fully-retarded (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146988)

CUDA or GPGPU stuff needs more bandwidth. As for the atom, it makes a decent media center when used with a gt240, or even a gt220.

Re:Semi-accurate is Fully-retarded (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147568)

And neither of those things at all matters. So CUDA stuff needs more bandwidth? I can believe it (though I'd like to see evidence) but you don't go and run CUDA stuff on an Atom. Intel's desktop boards have plenty of bandwidth for PCIe. All the desktop chipsets and boards support full PCIe 2.0 16x on their slot. Their x58 and 5520 chipsets support multiple 16x slots. You can pack on the CUDA cards and have plenty of bandwidth, no problem. We've got a Supermicro system at work that uses an Intel chipset that supports 4 PCIe slots at 16x and 1 at 4x so you can have 4 CUDA cards and still have reasonably graphic performance.

As for an Atom with a GT 240, given that PCIe 2.0 4x (or PCIe 1.0 8x) is plenty for gaming with a high end card like a 5870 or GTX480, how then hell would it not be fine for media on such a PC?

You seem to have an obsession with bus speed that is entirely unwarranted. Like I said, look at the [H] review. This is using multiple high end cards, in extremely high resolutions and it STILL doesn't matter. PCIe just has more bandwidth than we need, and it'll have even more with 3.0 which is coming soon.

Now that's a great thing, we never want our systems to be limited by a bus, so it is good that they grow faster than they need to. However it also means that if Intel wants to cut out half the lanes on a low, low performance chip there is no big deal.

Please remember shit like PCIe lanes aren't free, they cost silicon. There is no reason to have extras if they aren't needed.

Re:Semi-accurate is Fully-retarded (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147470)

In response to your point 1, Atom processors are used for a lot more than netbooks these days. It is not uncommon to find them in all sorts of servers.

People buy Atom motherboards and use them for all kinds of uses. Hell, for most people an Atom is all they need to their day to day work.

this is why monopolies suck (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146314)

Imagine a world without AMD, cyrix, Nvidia or other chip manufacturers. There would be no market or competition to face Intel and the company could force you to run whatever they wanted. I mean, a lot like it is now, but more so. As a consumer, figure out how to support the competition equally or there won't be any.

Re:this is why monopolies suck (1)

SledgeFA (1742580) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146598)

Yes, invention speed would definitely slow down. They'd use all kinds of trick that customers still needed to keep buying new hardware and that at higher prices, without getting much in return. Intel would surely try to save expenses in development and building new plants and just try to maximize their profits. That's why we needs regulations to keep competition in a state that's good for customers/society.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?