Intel's underhanded dealings goes all the way back to the advent of MMX in the Pentium 1 days.

the x86 compilers that were used to make every program under the sun only recognized Intel CPU's as processors that can run MMX, which was false, Both AMD's and Cyrix's procs could run MMX code.

This little tweak cause Reliability and performance problems that were never there to begin with.

It gave Intel an unfair advantage in the gaming segment right from the get go. An advantage that only could have been had on purpose.....the inclusion of that flag was a deliberate and underhanded attempt to completely dominate the market with technology that was available to both Intel and AMD.

In the beginning when things were even IE the 286/386/486 days AMD was often ahead of Intel in inovation, and were equal in process technology. The above mentioned topic was where it all changed as people's AMD chip ran like crap because the program didn't recognize an Intel CPU, and used x86 code instead of MMX.

That's nowhere near what happened. The suit covered branch prediction, cache management, all kinds of things. 10 patent violations were alleged. Intel gave Compaq over $700 million as a settlement, and we all know how intelligently and gracefully Compaq was run.

The Intel DEC suit was over the Slot-1 that Intel used for the Pentium II CPU. it was found that Intel did not steal it. If you really want to get down to it. AMD owes their whole buisness to a deal with Samsung over the Alpha EV6 and 7 bus without them Athlon would not be here.

AMD wanted to get it directly from Alpha but they said no, so they went to someone with a lifetime license to the technology and who they already had deals in place with. That was Samsung.

DEC went after AMD over that but it was thrown out due to the fact that they got the tech from Samsung (who had full rights to it) DEC was hemorraging money when Compag picked them up as the RISC CPU was on the decline (especially considering MS announced that NT4.0 would be the last OS to support Alpha from them). Intel then bought them from Compaq, as Compaq did not know what to do with them. At the time of the sale many DEC engineers went over to AMD.

The simple fact is that both AMD and Intel owe much of their sucess to other companies, there are cross license and patent sharing agreements all over the Semiconductor industry. Without them nothing would get made.

Yeah, Intel beat AMD to market for the quad, but lost to EVERYONE else. PowerPC, Sparc, everyone else beat those two. Everyone beat Intel to 64-bit as well - Sparc, PowerPC, Alpha, PA-Risc. The Itanium was late to market and useless performance wise - still is.

Intel was sued by DEC over the stolen Alpha technology. Compaq bought DEC and "settled" because otherwise Compaq wouldn't have been able to make computers any more. Being a monopoly is good...

Hmmm, I think you missed your timelines.

Intel launched the Kentsfield Quad almost a full year before AMD had a quad on the market (original phenom).

As for x2 yes you are right there, as for x64 the itanic was out as a true 64-bit CPU long before AMD's x86-64 came out.

Granted the x86-64 was the better way to go but Intel was still first with 64-bit.

In fact DEC Alpha was truly the first with 64-bit. Intel did not steal the internals they bought the company from Compaq (who was miss managing it).

"...first to 300mm, first to 45nm,..."

Last to dual core, last to quad core, last to virtualisation, last to 64 bit, last to GHz....

If it wasn't for them getting away with stealing the internals of the DEC Alpha chips there wouldn't be an Intel now. But that doesn't stop the fanboys...

79.1% + 12.8% = 91.9%

Who has the rest of the market? VIA? :)

I actually parsed Drashek's original post and it made sense to me! That's a first.

Face it, for most people money spent on an i7 would be better spent buying a better graphic card or a nice SSD. AMD is solidly competitive in all the mainstream desktop segments right now, though I'm not convinced it has much to offer yet on the notebook side...

Q1 saw some pretty dramatic inventory corrections in the industry (especially mobile which tends to lag the other sectors) - so while this 2% change may be real it may also just be a reflection of inventory corrections in the supply chain. You need at least one more data point (or two) to make a 'trend' and give the # any meaning.

iSuppli does a good job reporting the #'s, the 'press' and the armchair analysts does not have the industry background to interpret them...yet still try to anyway.

Oops. Sorry.

I don't know what came over me. I just came out of a daze and realized I had posted some meaningless dribble,

Just ignore :-)

Dual Core Made 100% Transition in Market Expectation. that, indeed computer can keep running for months & Recovery Disc Have Become Automatic Enough To Fill In Blanks, for Home User.

AMD Is Less At ALL Price Points, Intel Decieves with supposed $1,000.00 Processors, yet actual market is Strong -$100-$300, almost NO consumer Sales lie above & quite few less expensive work better, due to LESS Demand on Processor.

Likewise in Desktop, AMD As Good AS ANY, yet unless you take your system to 100% 4 or more hours day, AMD will be LESS yet Performn AS Well as TOP Performing Brands.

Its good to Know bleeps to 100% Are well Cared f0r In Laberinthe of Cores, Libraries & memory within cpu. yet, 85% of time cpu sits at 8%, idleing. Making not Much difference if its FULL k.Unit buckos' or Just C.Unit .$ C$="NEW EDITOR".....appalling equipment shortages force computer editors to use primarily pencils.EDITOR Paid OFF With Former Rivals "Puter!!!Refuses; MAD,DAAMIT!!!NO INTEL, Next:....

quote: "Thats how they maintain market dominance, its nothing to do with products"

Sure.

Intel bribed their way into always being ahead in process technology, first to 300mm, first to 45nm, first to 32nm. Bribed their way to the Merom, Conroe, Core, Core 2, Core i7 product families. Bribed their way to Atom and ultra thin products.

Give me a break. It's about superior technology and manufacturing. Look back 20-30 years. Intel didn't get to 80% market share by bribing customers to buy their products.

I really don't care if AMD got cut of any deals. That's life. I currently buy intel because its better, not because Intel told me to. When AMD can beat intel in the mainstream performance segment, I'll buy AMD.

It has to be the Core i7, that is the problem for Intel. It totally rocks, but is priced way too high for the world's masses, where I assume AMD, and their pos CPU products are selling better. Price trumps absolute performance for most consumers and companies. We are after all in a recession. No premium buyers right now.

Let's not kid ourselves, AMD is rarely profitable and only exists because of IBM, and various nations are propping it up with technical advice or with cash subsidies and anti-Intel investigations/ fines. Artificial competition for the greater good of all.

I call them, Germany's GM, even though it is a US company, we know who pays the bills.

Quote: "iSuppli claims that the decline ended a year of sequential growth for Chipzilla that started in 2008."

Its only 2009 now so a year of growth was bound to start in 2008, or was that bit added when some future archaelogist uncovers the the inq webserver disk dated from way back in 2009..

...that Intel has tried to maintain dominance through anti competitive techniques, trying to squeeze out competitors through strong arm techniques and marketing development fund cash bribes, restricting supply to those who don't dance to their tune. They were doing this 15 years ago, and they are still doing it now. Thats how they maintain market dominance, its nothing to do with products, and thats why they are being quite rightly spanked for it in the European courts as are that other computing tyrant Microsoft.

My thoughts exactly 'anonymous'. You know, Wandering, a statement like 'Intel's dominance ends' IS foolish, but you're the only one that's said it.

Read the article, spoon.

"AMD HAS CARVED a chunk out of Intel's market share over the last few months, according to figures just released by iSuppli."

Read between the lines, idiots...it doesn't state that Intel's dominance is vanishing...
you really are still WANDERING...

If you have a superior product offered at a superior pricing point and are still losing market share then there is an external force to the pure market that is having an effect. Intel must identify these issues and correct them without creating more non-competitive issues or monopoly issues. This is going to be the new challenge for Intel.

A 79% market share is dominance, as anything much more than 50%. They may have had a slight decline, and AMD an increase in share, but there is no way their dominance was even touched.

Statements like that are simply foolish.