Intel wants AMD dead

I'm not AMD fanboy, but I think its time to start fight for fair competition. Dead AMD = dead competition, and we all lose. My next platform, even underperforming, will be AMD / ATI.

If you are thinking AMD is underperforming - think again. AMD has always had better design than Intel, who concentrate on easy-to-build processors. Also, AMD runs cooler, while you can still fry eggs on most Intel processors. Intel uses miserable business tactics to force consumers and distributors to buy their products.
Why people continue to buy expensive dumb rusty chips from Intel is beyond me. AMD is great !!

I think that nVidia should buy AMD
because...
- they need access to CPU technology
- it would remove ATI as a threat
- they are dirt cheap now

but most importantly...
- it would really piss Charlie off!
- haha!

If AMD were dead Intel would be subject to all sorts of monopoly rules. Intel wants AMD to exist solely for the purpose of avoiding that.

AMD chips are not performance chips right now. Only a fanboi would believe that AMD chips actually compete (in performance) right now. On the other hand, AMD does provide cheaper kit. Just not high performance, cheaper kit.

When AMD was cleaning Intel's clock (with the original A64 / A64X2 vs the P4 Prescott and P4D Prescott) amazingly AMD was no longer cheaper.

I know, shocking isn't it, that the company with the highest performing kit has it's chips costing more.

If the worldwide anti-trust suits against Intel by AMD are ruled on, Intel should be paying out billions in fines and compensation for Intel's marketplace crimes. That would be good for AMD and consumers. Obviously if Intel can dispose of AMD before then, then might think they can escape accountability.

Admit it, you've never even owned a Wolfdale, let alone a Nehalem.

Better design than Intel? Why doesn't it show in the benchmarks and general performance then? All AMD could do after being crushed in performance for two years, was to release a product which barely manages to compete with a generation old Intel technology.

People buy Intel because it's BETTER.

I'm not saying AMD should die. In fact, we NEED it to survive, so that we keep getting better processors out of Intel. All I'm saying is that Intel's processors are better.

Samsung or some Chinese company could buy AMD cheap if they went belly up. With resources from someone like Samsung behind AMD, Intel would have its hands full.

@ssj4Gogeta
[quote]People buy Intel because it's BETTER.[/quote]

I buy AMD because it's not Intel.

I've bought AMD all the way back to K6-2. Before that, it was Cyrix.

I can admit that AMD had lousy chips until it rolled out the Athlon. That's when it began to trump Intel and the true arm's race began.

We've been the beneficiaries of this race for years now.

Intel's overall strategy since the Anti-trus suite has been to run AMD into the ground by any means ... because AMD broke the golde rule ... squealing on the master.

This neatly avoids the suite and removes AMD as a thorn in it's side.

Intel would then prop up another small company willing to enter the arena and keep them under effective control ... certainly not NVidia, as they would be too hard to control.

Intel tolerated AMD when they has a tiny chunk of the market and it suited Intel to be seen as having some "small" competition ... but the relationship soured a long time ago.

If Intel are found guilty of anti-trust it will cause a great deal of damage to their stock price in the short term.

The licensing agreement is just another ploy to bleed funds from AMD in the short term, diminishing their operating capital ... restricting their ability to do effective R&D and therefore improve their product.

Since the original patents for X86 are so old, and it can be argued that AMD have actually greatly improved on the designs to start with, (as they hold their own patents) I think it is time to simply declare these as public domain, and let any aspiring manufacturer / designer into the game.

We might see some real innvation then.

At present, the current CPU's are still badly hamstrung by the backward compatibility restraints of the original x86 design - simple register renaming for example.

Level the playing field and let the best design team win.

That would probably be IBM.

Intel have no business scruples and are clearly still bitter at AMD over the AMD64 cpu ... which was a great innovative design.

Intel had to wind back the clock and re-engineer the P3 to get back in front with the core2 line.

I hope David's sling eventually suffices.

This is basically what their doing.

Do the top-brand cereal sue those generic cereals? Do they want them to die?

Intel is making fail of themselves. Just like Microsoft's Legal Department.

/facepalm

Let's say that the contention is true, that the ONLY reason (cough) that intel has not destroyed AMD was to keep the government from filing anti trust lawsuits. Oh wait..... AMD has done that. So, in the scenerio of "Intel wants to prevent anti trust lawsuits", AMD has removed that reason. If intel believes that they will be found guilty of anti-trust anyway, then there is no longer any reason for them to hold off on destrying AMD completly..... is there. It's possible that all AMD will accomplish with their lawsuit, is to cut off their nose, to spite their face.

Court is where Intel/AMD exchange Secret data that keeps two spinning together, its gotten better & better. Its cleaver way to market company, using M.D. initials. frauds Must Loveit. Yet, Smell of Burning Carbon in Mourning is Whats it ALL About. Today its SSD Carbonization, tomorrow, well time will tell.Break Deal Face Wheel. Ancient Indian Proverb.drashek

The world needs AMD. Let's be very clear. Does anyone remember when a processor upgrade cost through the nose and was 100 to 133 MHz? Or 1.0 GHz to 1.3 GHz?

Those days really sucked and we don't want that back.

Without competition we wouldn't have x64 processors and wouldn't likely have the core race we have now.

Be very clear, Intel didn't want x64. They wanted the world to move to the atrocity known as Itanic. The only reason why they developed x64 (it being Yamhill) on the side was "paranoia/just in case" x64 was successful which it was and AMD64 cleaned P4's clock in every conceivable way. Performance, scale, reliability, power, etc.

Anyone, remember Intel claiming we'd have 10 GHz processors?

Also, more cores means fewer processors sold. Intel knows this and didn't want multi-core, but had to because AMD was cleaning their clocks on high margin server parts where the more threads the better.

Give credit to AMD and their deep server processor background they got from hiring folks from DEC. We need them badly.

Intel does want AMD. It's probably cheaper for them to deal with AT issues and no AMD rather than a competitive AMD keeping them on their toes.

if competition is healthy. This lawsuit is not about technology or technology leadership. It is simple, and plain, about money. AMD started bleeding money, and sued Intel. Any gentleman/lady here thinking otherwise is simply deluding themselves.

Both Intel and AMD are publicly traded companies, and exist to make money (thats their goal). From what I read from the AMD fanboy's I think they are an inch closer to crowning AMD the champion of customer rights.

Just to add a comment more, it does not surprise me one bit that AMD's counsel says that Intel wants AMD dead. Who gets to gain from that comment? AMD. What value does it add to the table? Zilch.

Oh wait, he is a lawyer, and we should probably expect that.

The underdog / underperformer always has to sell at better prices, and it is no coincidence that AMD is the better price to performance ratio. Most of us system builders know AMD is money better spent.

Throw in Intel's business practices throughout the years, and its a no-brainer which to use. Monopoly == Arrogance == Lack of Innovation == Screw the Customer.

HB

You willingly bought a K6-2 / K6-3? I can understand the 486DX4's, Athlons (especially the Athlon XP's) as they were at least competitive. The K6-2/3 series of chips was hot as heck, lower performing, AND fragile. Fragile how? Take a Pentium (or PII / PIII) and run it with a seized fan, just don't try it with a K6-2/3! I worked for a small (at the time) PC Maker at the time and they earned a nasty rep with us technicians for burning out in warranty if the idiot customer let the fan seize.

Oh and FYI: i286, i386DX, i486, a486, P233, PII400, PIII600, AXP1800, P4-3C A64-3200, A64X2-4800, C2D 6300, C2D 8400, C2Q 6700, C2Q 9550, i7-940

I buy whomever performs...

Funny that intel prefers the monopolies watchdogs over AMDs existence, because it means that AMD competition must be hurting intel more than what the monopolies watchdogs would do.

If I was AMD I would take this as a compliment.

Okay, well. I going to just breeze over these, till I saw a mention of a K6-2 dying when the fan failed.

I, was playing starcraft on a K6-2 500 mhz athlon processor. No I didn't buy it, it was my dad's computer at the time, that he gave to me, anyways.

I didn't know it but the fan died on my processor, and i kept playing starcraft for "weeks" I had an annoying reboot like, once every 5 or 6 hours, but that was it. Of course I had good ventalation in my case, had an X-dreamer case, at the time I thought it was really cool, and I think I had 8 fans mounted in it, or at least 6.

Anyways I just wanted to toss in my two cents.

Isn't the Intel Itanium the best CPU on the market? :-)

i don't get people who will buy into brand. "my next build going to be X to support them"... why??? why get into corporate wars on behalf of some faceless entity? why support the unworthy with money that YOU worked for?
i need systems on budget - AM2 all the way, nothing beats 50$ for 2 core CPU ,and platform itself is cheaper. wanted something above basic for main PC - i find wolf-dale C2D an awesome performer. and in 5 years i will buy "baba-buba" INC awesome CPU if that's going to be the best part then.

just buy the best part for the job, stop being little cheerleaders for faceless corps that don't give a sht about you

The AMD phenome 2 rock, so what if they cant match the top intel chip.

Right now you can buy a phen2 940 that comes in at less than 5% under the i7-940 benchmarks on most tests, only in tasks such as raring files do the i7's really out perform. So if you rar all day long then get an i7, if you game or do regular joe stuff the best deal is amd, at bang for the buck.
at less than half the price, never mind the fact that its an amazing overclocker getting up to 3.8 on stock voltage if your lucky otherwise a very good 3.6 stock, and easily achieves scores of 4.5 on air with upped voltage.

YAY intel leads in the very high end, sorry but thats what 1% of cpu sales?, the biggest market share is for the average joe, and AMD is kicking intel's ass.

I work for a large computer vendor and right now, phenome 2 are going like hotcakes while the i7 gather dust.

Just before the release of the phenome 2, you wouldnt get 1 salesmen recommending amd, they just werent in the game, now all the sales guys are pushing the phen2's like mad, whats more weve almost all purchased a phen2-940, because techies or not were all average joes over here. Avg joes that have the luxury of running both systems side by side for the last 2 months :P

Under the x86 licencing deal, AMD can not be bought (by Nvidia for example) or they loose their licence, so what's the point. IBM set this up when they developed the PC because they didn't want to be at Intel's mercy, but Intel didn't want to let AMD get too powerful. Intel and AMD have to share tech with each other according to the licence. I'm not sure how VIA did it though - perhaps by reverse engineering like Transmeta did. To speculate I might say Nvidia could buy out Novafora, the company that owns Transmeta, or VIA, and use them, but it seems they're developing their own reverse engineered x86 flavour.

Later this year ARM is going to release its 3-4GHz ARM chip for netBooks. Now the nice thing about these RISC chips is that their cheap - really cheap to make.

Plus with ARM already showing off netBooks weighting half the current Intel Atom models, 10 hour+ battery life and with 1080 HD video playback they could be onto a winner.

Now this is where it gets really interesting. Microsoft will be pressurised to release Windows XP for these netBooks. It may not want to. But it's what the customer wants and in this credit crunch time. How can it refuse?

Once it does, expect to see ARM based multicore CPUs for the laptop and Desktop and let's not forget the Blade market very soon afterwards.

Wake up Intel, there is new competition coming to Town. :-)

Now that's interesting... I've always been quite fond of ARM architecture (waves Union Jack), and have several bits of kits running on them ranging from the N95 (ARM11) to the Nintendo DS (ARM7 and 9) not to mention some that I'm sure are hiding in some switches, routers and probably the washing machine too! So I appreciate their fantastic bang per watt performance. I'd love to see an ARM based netbook, although unless they make it x86 instruction compatible it's going to be Linux only.
As for AMD, I've had several. Unfortunately at this moment in time, all my day to day machines are Intel Based. I used to switch between them purely on who could give me better value. Unfortunately I kind of lost the entire plot when AMD introduced their performance based model numbers, followed by even more product ranges. So now I have no idea which one of their processors is which!
Yes I know Intel then followed with crazy model numbers too, but as I was using a 3Ghz P4 machine at the time, I was more in touch with their numbers. So when it came to upgrade time I went with an core2duo, and then a core2quad.

I used to love AMD,I thought they were brilliant at one time,but then they seemed to fall into a hole & started digging.
I had a socket 939 Athlon 64 4400x2, which was pretty decent,it's still goes well now,but it's on a AGP mobo,but I thought the sckt 754 3700+ was better,with a x12 multipier, it was a good o\clocker.

I got tired of waiting for a decent new cpu & gpu from AMD, so I self- built an intel based rig.
It's a QX9650,P5E3 Deluxe,9800GTX+,4gb OCZ, GT1000 case& I topped it with an Eizo 24"HD2441W that set me back £1000.
But,I am pretty chuffed with it all,I have never clocked it & it plays Crysis on top settings.
What's more,touch wood,never had any probs,it's cool as a cucumber as well & I'm sure it will last for years.
So,would I go back to AMD..er NO.
AMD is too SLOW,both in development & in terms of performance.
I am sorry to say that,because I always thought they had great potential to be the best,they just don't push themselves to be the best.