Ehem. . . Monopoly?
Last I checked, AMD were gaining market share until they got PWN3D by the Core and Core2 Architectures. Intel is playing fair, and AMD just lost the technology lead.
AMD boss Hector Ruiz today called for an end to “illegal abuses” by Intel - the AMD competitor that controls 80 percent of the worldwide x86 microprocessor market. Speaking at the annual conference of the American Antitrust Institute in Washington, D.C., he proclaimed: There is no proper or defensible place for illegal …
Someone need to give Hector Ruiz a pacifier PLEASE... So he stops whinnin n cryin...
Hector tries to misinterpretes Intel's innovations and R & D as a monopoly...
If Hector really cares about AMD he should step down...that would be a great & much needed favor to AMD
Whether Intel have gained a technology lead is irrelevant; as it happens, I agree that Core and Core2 are outstanding developments, but that has no bearing upon the questions of whether Intel have a dominant market position and whether they have been abusing that market position. It's difficult to argue against the first, and as to the second, Intel have repeatedly been found guilty of unlawful practices. Now they might still be doing well on a level playing field, but the fact is that they have been leveraging their market dominance to ensure that the playing field is not level, and to ensure that competitors are frozen out, unable to compete even when they have a superior product (as in the case of Opteron v pre-Core Xeon). That hurts US as buyers.
Clay do you actually know anything about what Intel is doing?
If Intel is supposedly playing fair then how come Japan has ruled against them?
Intel is a monopoly. Monopolies are legal however Intel is a hostile monopoly and this is what AMD is talking about.
Intel was ahead with or without the technology lead and as far as i can tell the AMD processer is still more efficient.
Why do you thing Intel is in court now? It's trying to twist its way out of breaking the law. They will keep the case going as long as they can in the hopes that AMD will go bust.
This post has been deleted by its author
They have taken them selfs down to a level that involves filth play and squeeling of little arguments. AMD need to face the fact that they are loosing it, my suggestion would be to pursue there development in the notebook industry, c2d wont be fully needed in notebooks for a while and im sure AMD can come up with a decent line of powerful single core proc's.
Intel have dominated, no question about it, although there quads arnt as popular as they hoped, due to the fact nothing uses them to the full potential and not much of a game for the average user. but in a year when they have spent some time with the technology they have unearthed, its un doubtable they will be the official mainstream proc manufacturer.
As far as I am concerned, the consumer has the right to choose what they want, and if more consumers wanted AMD and not Intel, then the shops would be selling AMD - basic rules of supply and demand. Ruiz needs to look at the PC market a bit closer - no change in 10-15 years!! Get real; 15 years ago I paid £1250 for a 486 DX4/100 Compaq desktop that could just about run basic DOS games; my latest Dual Core Intel system that I built myself costing no more than £600 (thanks to Ebuyer.com's great prices) and it has enough power to play games; encode media and fold for World Community Grid all at the same time. AMD need a competitive product that people want, they almost did it with the Athlon64 but you can't argue with Intel R&D as the Core Duo is ace.
So first off, I've got to say that I've heard and seen a number of things that Intel has done to leverage against AMD, but I think AMD has done a reasonable job battling against them up 'til this year.
I've always liked AMD because they've been the underdog, and that forced them to innovate in order to succeed. Their K8 arch was amazing, with dual core ability built in from the start. Keep in mind that when it was released Intel was still claiming that dual core and 64 bit were worthless and that they'd never do that. They changed their minds in a few months.
Intel, with their market lead, can produce nearly anything and keep their lead. That doesn't make for better products.
Whoever mentioned Intel's R&D should read up on the Core products. You know the last new arch that Intel made from scratch? Yeah, that was netburst, and look how well that did. If I do recall the 1.8ghz chips at the initial release were not only slower than the AMD chips that had been on sale for a while, but also had to be recalled for thermal issues.
The Core series is based on the Pentium M series, which is heavily based on the Pentium III, which was just a Pentium II with some added instructions, which was, in itself, just a Pentium Pro with a new shape and new cache.
So Intel's great R&D has come up with... the Pentium Pro. And even with all the features that they advertised for the core chips, they still had to pack 4MB of cache onto them to compare to Opteron speeds. And what, are they the last company on the planet to use an FSB? Hell I think my RPN calculator has moved on to bigger and better things than an FSB.
As to the AM2 socket upgrade, AMD hasn't changed sockets any more often than Intel, who've had 775, then 2 seperate 470 something pin sockets (one for P4, one for Xeon) in the amount of time that AMD has gone through just as many. Plus I think that an on chip memory controller is worth some socket upgrades.
If there's anything that AMD hasn't done right, its get their K10 out in time. If they were shipping those in January or February, Intel would be in rather worse shape than they've ever been. Its really hard to compare the Core series with the K8, which was released about 4 years ago, and I reckon that once K10 is out, we'll see some more of that amazing innovation that AMD does with regularity.
"As far as I am concerned, the consumer has the right to choose what they want..."
Not strictly true. Can a UK consumer legally purchase a copy of Manhunt 2? The simple answer is no because it is not an available option. And that is where your argument falls down, imo.
The consumer has the right to choose BUT only from what is available to them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021