Intel "copied everything from AMD"

The fact remains that Intel does know how to do better business. Even when Intel had bad performing processors, they still made pretty good profits, whereas even when AMD had better chips, they couldn't convert that to money!! Also, you can't forget the truth that AMD may have made few technology innovations in the past 3-4 years, but Intel's been innovating for long in the processor industry!

And who did AMD copy the original x86 technology from?

Intel don´t copy AMD. Nehalem come from Digital Alpha architecture ( IMC and tree way interconect ) And about 86-64. Intel invent IA64 and have 64bit extensins disabled in P4 but Microsoft only support AMD64 and Intel has to emulate it in Presscot core. And don´t forgot, AMD dont develop x86, they copied it from Intel.

AMD redesigned from scratch the current architecture and released it in 2003...Intel is been using the same architecture for +20 years now... Intel has a marketing budget that equals AMD's yearly turnover...if you tell the world consistenly again and again they need a product - quadcore - they'll buy it...no IT manager has been fired - yet - for choosing Intel technology, sounds familiar ? Doesn't matter which one has the better architecture/technology 'cause in the long run the one who sells the most chippies will survive. The world is not fair...but hey...that's how it goes! Merry Christmas

No surprise Intel can make money. AMD spends money on development of new things. Intel rips off the good stuff without having to pay for it. That saves a bunch of money.

So, two things they list. "AMD spends money on development of new things", And Intel doesn't all of sudden with the mentioning of two fairly minor technologies? X86 helps you...how? AMD HAD to invent something other than using the FSB because they legally had to. Now it's fair game once the time frame was lifted. So, let's say Intel invented the 65 and 45nm process. AMD copies them? No, just released it. Just like the other techs mentioned.

amd is been copying intel since it was two-four year old due to Big Daddy "IBM", what they have copied, "integrated memory controller" in cpu, mr ruiz should search google or msn.live for "Timna + intel", they had working demo cpu with imc for rambus's rdram, itanium was 64 bit processor, which came to market first, (only between intel vs amd), well mike are you using 64 bit os right now, lets say who would have spend money two years ago for 8 gb ram beside server and workstation environment, still what percentage of desktop pc using 64 bit again besides workstation, itanium was design for workstation is vision, intel was wrong with approach that they neglated x86 architecture (most successful in history of cpu architecture) well imc intel is cranking over amd's annual revenue in chipset business why would you shot in foot by putting imc. well i am not intel fan, but i like dividend. well i guess its enough

When it comes to who copies who, just go back and re-read the cross-license agreement and ask, who pays who in royalties? http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html Section 4.1 "4.1. AMD agrees to pay INTEL a royalty on the Net Revenue from sales and other dispositions of Royalty-Bearing Units as a percentage of such Net Revenue according to the following schedule: ... "

Since when does being the "first" to commercialize something make you the inventor? Does anyone actually believe that Intel never concieved of or at an R&D level worked on 64 bit / on die memory controllers before AMD announced them? Intel runs a business and their roadmaps reflect their business needs (including changing directions) just the same as AMD's business decisions brought 64 bit and memory controllers onto the die earlier because they needed to. Isn't there also a cross sharing technology agreement between Intel and AMD? I am sure the engineers drink at the same pubs (Faultline?) Just like everyone else in the area.

Hector's rhetoric aside, it is how the idea is rendered that drives value. Apple did not invent the PC or the MP3 player they just redefined them. ANd their value today is greater than AMD, Intel and Creative put together. While Intel pushed a tired bus up the hill too long and traded memory flexibilty over applications latency until discovering virtualization, their new platforms and process mastery combine to deliver much more value. AMD and Intel are making big mistakes not getting as close to customers as Apple-esepcailly with their realization that the future is wireless devices. Gene Roddenberry showed us the compute future - omnipresent services delivered wirelessly to smart clients with natural language interfaces. As we come close to that realization, the next milestone is clearer - Borg-like implants to enhance human platforms. Do you want Intel, AMD or Apple builidng your bionic implants?

A couple of points: -AMD licensed x86 from Intel (along with Cyrix and a couple of other old CPU players) and in the long run did it better than Intel ever did. -AMD licensed many of the DEC Alpha chip features and used it since the first Athlon's, doing away with the stupid Intel GTL FSB bus that's been used for 10-12 years now since Pentium Pro. -Same goes for the on-die cache. -IA64 is for the Itanium which is COMPLETELY different from x86 chips (And doing a much worse job considering the R&D money Intel and HP shed in it). Either way modern X86 are RISC at heart, converting the X86 instructions in microcode. In many ways both Intel and AMD benefited from Alpha (AMD through licensing and Intel from buying the IP from HP, who bought Compaq who bought DEC). The stupid man in the middle must be HP who stoped their own chips for the Itanium instead of focusing on Alpha for use on all platforms. There's an oportunity lost forever !!!

Intel invented the microprocessor. Sorry Hector, I didn't quite catch what you said about copying? If he spent money on R&D rather than flying around shouting to rooftops about how Intel ate all his pies, maybe he'd have a leg to stand on.

And who invented MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3 and who copied it ? And who invented SSE4 and who is *going to* copy it ?

Frodo Jones asked whether we want Intel, AMD, or Apple making our bionic implants. Well I, for one, don't want Apple making them, at the very least. I don't want Apple telling me I can only get services on my new bionic implant from one carrier.. or ruining the device if I get them from another carrier. I also don't want Apple's snobbery. So if the day comes when Apple makes a bionic implant.. they can go to hell before they'll get *my* money.

Getting 'close' to the customer has squat to do with it - the big 1,000,000 shipment OEM deals are what make and break a company, retail products are just money on the side for companies like Intel... In any case, AMD wouldn't've even become a player in the industry if it weren't for IBM and Intel's chip designs. Does anybody here really care about 64-bit? It's a total evolutionary crock! It would've happened anyway. Memory controllers certainly aren't a 'make or break' design point for a microprocessor, clearly. Look at Intel's Core architecture, still uses the FSB, still trounces Hammer and Agena...

He said 'the last 5 years' "If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel," Keep that in mind.

Onboard memory controllers as part of the build, is part of the HT consortium. NOT AMD's invention. When AMD split from AMD, it's dictated they can not use the FSB, so they adapted by joining the consortium and persevered. They had to do this, but the only "invention" was how they implement this on their cores. The HT invention was already out there in form and function. What's not good is that the dictation to not use the FSB is forever firm, yet the onboard controller use was temporary. Since lifted due to patent limits, Intel is free to use it. Not copy it...just use it. "Copying" is pure semantics. So if Intel now has a shot at it, does it better...is it a copy? Not at all. It's better implementation. AMD had their shot, so let's see if another can do it better. It's tough to go in competition with the Juggernaut Intel is. It's a large rock that's pretty impossible to stop rolling once it's set in a direction. But this tit for tat "we did it first" doesn't mean anyone invented anything. The only invention worth noting is, in fact, theory...and that's Moore's own law. If you cant' meet Moore's law...you're not playing the game right. Sadly, we NEED AMD to grasp the name of the game, or they've learned nothing...and we all lose.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel," he claimed. A dilusional person would claim this. I know some Hi-k gates would like to speak with you mr. ruiz Oh whats that? You are having issues going to 45nm? How is this possible? I thought intel was stealing your ideas. Hector should be fired post haste if AMD wants to have a chance at survival.

AMD better get around to designing something similar to hyperthreading which Intel is planning on releasing in its next architecture. Intel has gotten ahead with features like memory disambiguation and macro ops fusion. AMD has some catching up to do.

Doesn't anyody remember that AMD trumped Intel with AMD64 architecture that runs 64/32 bit, while IA64 was only 64-bit? Intel was truly caught with their pants down and it took them a year or two to come up with their own clone of AMD64. AMD was in the x86 market in the first place because some customers (mainly military) insisted on at least two sources or they wouldn't buy. AMD chips always outperformed Intel ones, even back in 286 / 386 days.

Historically, most of the "innovative" products have simply been existing concepts repackaged in simple, more affordable ways. Multi core/64-bit computing, the iPod, etc, all embody this general idea.

I see... so AMD cooked up the recipe for high volume 45nm production, eh? They're just saving 45nm for later, like wise squirrels. AMD's tireless struggle to get 65nm up and running is just an obsessive desire for "closure." They could easily step in with a 32 core, 32nm game-ender, if they wanted to. More evidence that Hector Ruiz is the Hugo Chavez of silicon valley.

....and Intel were the first to add extensions to their P166-233Mhz MMX cpu's. Who should come out the very next gen after that with 3D-Now! only AMD.

The reason AMD still couldnt get greater marketshare, during pre core (when AMD had the better CPUs) is because Intel had forced computer vendors to only use Intel CPUs. If computer vendors, as Dell, thought of using AMD, then the vendors would pay a higher price for Intel CPUs. This is a fact and AMD has sued Intel for this in Japan. If the government were to buy computers, then only Intel CPUs were considered, AMD cpus would not be an alternative - because of Intel.

This is like Microsoft someone comes with an idea they take the idea and just add MS in front of it here's an example. For secure file transfer like SSL (Secure Socket Layer) and MD5 (Message Digest 5) they took that and just MS in front of it. Look at Netscape they where the 1st browser light bulb glows over gates' head we'll make Internet Explorer.

Hi! Fact remains fact, Intel came up with the smart idea since the dual core chips came onto market. Amd SHOULD have learnt from the example and should have put together a dual die chip. If we are using paralellization as the way to increase performance, then a chip with one defective part renders the whole chip useless (3 other cores), and a chip with one component that acts as a thermal bottleneck has a lot of oher components that have to work lower speed couse of it. But no, Amd said "we re smarter than that", and here is what it brought them, financial panic, and chips with poor performance. In my opinion, Kudos to Intel for realizing that "the easiest way to gain performance is the easiest way to gain performance". Les

"Intel invent IA64 and have 64bit extensins disabled in P4" But they are totally different. IA64 was a large rewrite with no real compatibility with x86. It was also a total flop. X86-64, which is what was in the P4 but disabled, is the AMD variant of 64bit which maintained backwards compatibility with x86

Since the 64 bit and integrated mem-controler they have benn sitting on theire fat asses. NO BODY forced them to do this. Now, AMD is p*ssed because they have to take the consequence Intel did not do anything out off the ordinary with the conroe. Short pipeline, optimized use of level 2 chache and i think 4 dividers instead of 3.

The apple fan bois are running amuck. Apple does not make more money than Intel, thats jus silly!! Intel is one of the biggest innovators in wireless technologies having investments and r&d in 802.11, Bluetooth and WiMax. Not too mention they actually make wireless chipsets for various devices. And where did that last statement come from :S in any case i wold rather have an Intel or AMD implant at least i wont have to ask St. Jobs if i can jump with my implant or him knowing when im taking a widdle

"One thing Intel certainly didn't copy is AMD's poor financial performance." I LOL'ed...a lot.

AMD does Copy intel technology - and has always improved on it when doing so. But what has Intel done lately that anyone wants to copy? Core 2 Duo was created by the isolated Isreali branch working on Pentium M technology - a total fluke that proved the stupidity of the Pentium 4 lie. And since then they can only sink the dies. Not much creativity there. Throw more cache at the processor - not much creativity there - how about Itanium - oh, I forgot nobody wants that piece of cr@p. stick more core on a chip and shove multi core down everyones throats? Sorry, but tell intel I don't swallow.

seems as I recall, Intel got what they wanted from DEC Alpha when the DEC law suit against them was settled..but they put it on the shelf, then the DEC Alpha team went to work for AMD and wala...all the great stuff from the DEC Alpha chip is in AMD chips and Intel has to steal what they already may have had...and BTW..DEC had 64 bit processors long before Intel who kept saying the world isn't ready for it yet(translation:we're not quite sure how we'll do it...and when they did..a FLOP..itanium anyone??)

It's all about implementation. Currently, Intel does it better. Intel has always had the edge in manufacturing, and that is no small feat. Ruiz is a pathetic whiner.

@ Frodo Jones, It is pretty bold to say that Apple's "value today is greater than AMD, Intel and Creative put together". How would you measure such things? Market Capitalization (MC), Revenue (R), Gross Profit (GP), or Net Income (NI)? Perhaps you could suggest some other metric? If you look at finance.yahoo.com for these stocks today I believe the numbers are: AAPL MC = 156.60B R = 24.01B GP = 8.15B NI = 3.5B INTC MC = 153.48B R = 37.32B GP = 18.22B NI = 6.2B AMD MC = 5.36B R = 6.02B GP = 2.79B NI = -2.18B CREAF MC = 374.7M (Pink sheets - see investing.businessweek.com, the rest are not published here) By none of these yard sticks is your statement true. Please don't proliferate the Apple Fanbois stereotype, their products are strong enough to stand on their own even if they are designed for the non-technical among us and significantly overpriced.

Since the 64 bit and integrated mem-controler they have benn sitting on theire fat asses. Was'nt the hammer just a thunderbird with more registers? NO BODY forced them to do this. Now, AMD is pissed because they have to take the consequence. They didnt complain when Intel was struggeling with the last netburst-part. A xeon-system could pull a half kilowatt and STILL get its ass whopped. Intel did not do anything out off the ordinary with the conroe. Short pipeline, optimized use of level 2 chache and i think 4 dividers instead of 3.

Since the 64 bit and integrated mem-controler they have benn sitting on theire fat hinies. Was'nt the hammer just a thunderbird with more registers? NO BODY forced them to do this. Now, AMD is p&&&&& because they have to take the consequence. They didnt complain when Intel was struggeling with the last netburst-part. A xeon-system could pull a half kilowatt and STILL get its butt whopped. Intel did not do anything out off the ordinary with the conroe. Short pipeline, optimized use of level 2 chache and i think 4 dividers instead of 3.

and what architecture does Apple run in its systems? Hmmm lets think about that for a minute... ahhh guess what ITS INTEL.... so in reality, Intel is close to its customers......

The ironic thing was that the new tech centre in Bangalore which Hector inaugarated was a former Intel premises. No chip design was never done in that building since it was not safe or secure enough. Well AMD just follows in Intel's footsteps

-1st off this is not really "NEWS" again, since hector has been crying about this for some time, but Hey, this is the INQUIRER's idea of news so wtflame eh? 2nd: look at http://ocirs.com/2007/12/01/The-Fall-of-AMD -umm Hector, it just can't get clearer, other than YOU (Hector the Wrecktor of AMD)and thus "...AMD got "complacent and stopped innovating." This is evident in the release of it's unpolished and disappointing Phenom quad-core processor a year behind Intel's first quad-core processor, the QX6700...." -It doesn't matter who copied who. ! That 64-bit Innovation and Opteron that once easily BEAT even the Intel wannabe's years ago are NOW OVER ! Its time to pass the Baton Hector, I think you'll be happier drinking your Tequila and dreaming complacently about your virtual Nobel Peace Prize buddy.