Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Intel Microsoft isn't the only company in the technology industry with a monopoly. Its partner in crime, Intel, has often been accused of monopoly abuse as well, and is currently under scrutiny by the same European Commission who fined Microsoft. Sources have told eWeek (which generally has a good track record) that Intel will indeed be found guilty this week of abusing its monopoly position to stifle the competition.
Thread beginning with comment 362842
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by daedalus8
by daedalus8 on Mon 11th May 2009 14:56 UTC
daedalus8
Member since:
2008-03-10

I would have to agree that in recent history Intel has come up with better products and even though I do believe that this is unfair, I also think that AMD never did came up with a good product to compete. Just look at Phenom vs Core 2 Quad, then you have the Core i7, AMD doesn't have anything to compete with that platform. Although if you go to dual cores, they do have some good processors for quite less money.

Intel does need to pay for this as I'd like to be able to choose my hardware rather than having a wealthy company choosing for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by daedalus8
by adkilla on Mon 11th May 2009 16:05 in reply to "Comment by daedalus8"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

The problem here is with the artificial restrictions by Intel (aka ChipZilla) to corner AMD into limited market growth by strong arming the OEMs.

Is it morally acceptable for a dominant competitor to corner an underdog by strong arming their clients? How could we expect an underdog to continue to compete when they can't rake in the needed revenue for R&D and manufacturing?

It's like fighting with your arm tied behind your back. You might get lucky but its still isn't a fair fight. AMD has proven that despite the odds, they could deliver outstanding products, the playing field has to be fair if consumers expect them to do more of that.

ChipZilla guilty of anti-trust outside of the US? Who would have thunk it? *wink*wink*

FYI, I concur with your comment, just adding some thoughts that others may miss.

-Ad

Edited 2009-05-11 16:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by daedalus8
by Phloptical on Mon 11th May 2009 16:57 in reply to "Comment by daedalus8"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

IMO - AMD was left in the dust when Intel released the Core2, based on performance. That chip is why I switched to Intel. AMD was caught with their pants down, and until they stop playing catch-up, I will remain with Intel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by daedalus8
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 16:58 in reply to "RE: Comment by daedalus8"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

IMO - AMD was left in the dust when Intel released the Core2, based on performance. That chip is why I switched to Intel. AMD was caught with their pants down, and until they stop playing catch-up, I will remain with Intel.


AMD being t3h suck doesn't magically allow Intel to break the law.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by daedalus8
by adkilla on Mon 11th May 2009 18:11 in reply to "RE: Comment by daedalus8"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Hardware virtualization (AMD-V), HyperTransport, 3DNow!, x86-64 (AMD64) are innovative technologies that AMD pioneered.

What did Intel bring to the table? SSE that was inferior to 3dNow? Nehalem QPI that is a copy of HyperTransport? AMD64 branded as EM64T? An AMD-V copy that is Intel-VT?

I would like to see Intel bring improvements to the x86 ISA than merely using and abusing AMD.

IMHO AMD has much better value for money:
http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/01/23/why-spore-may-look-so-p...

Raw CPU performance alone does not make an overall good platform. The question is are you really getting your moneys worth?

Well if you mainly do Folding@Home or SETI@Home then that might be a different story. ;-)

-Ad

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by daedalus8
by 0brad0 on Tue 12th May 2009 06:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by daedalus8"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

IMO - AMD was left in the dust when Intel released the Core2, based on performance. That chip is why I switched to Intel. AMD was caught with their pants down, and until they stop playing catch-up, I will remain with Intel.


AMD still has the best bang for the buck by far. That's all I care about. I'm not paying a premium for the top 5% of the performance range.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by daedalus8
by swtestuser on Wed 13th May 2009 04:39 in reply to "Comment by daedalus8"
swtestuser Member since:
2009-05-13

those u could argue was a result of AMD pushing Intel to compete. Without AMD, we would all still in the Ghz game.

Also, Intel blocked sales when AMD really came out with its then superior Athlon CPU. Not letting AMD have the sales they deserve is simply wrong !!! AMD needed the money to continue pushing the boundary. Intel with its money squeeze AMD by illegal soliciting OEM not to buy from AMD while trying to scramble something to catch up. That is just wrong. AMD could have a bigger market share today. Because Athlon was really that superior at that time. But AMD could only do so much when you dont have more money coming in.

Reply Parent Score: 1