Intel makes a bomb

All I've seen about this so far is a lot of commentary in the technical "news". I've seen absolutely nothing todate from AMD about Intel's compiler degrading their products performance.

If Intel's compiler didn't give AMD's processors decent code, you'd think they'd be all over this. But ... nothing.

Why has AMD never mentioned it in all the years of competing with Intel ? Believe me, they would have if they thought it true. They have engineers at AMD that eat & breathe this kind of stuff daily as part of their job. If this was really happening, don't you think they would have noticed in the last 10 (or 20, or 30) years ?

You really are a tool. AMD very obviously does not make the best-performing processors, but the fact they are still in the marketplace means that there is someone to keep Intel honest (well, sort of).

Without AMD as a competitor the pace of technology change would be glacial and prices sky-high. So to say AMD has no value in the eye of the consumer is bilge of the highest order. It provides COMPETITION, stupid.

Yup. Intel is closing fab20 and it sucks for all of those out here in oregon. The post record profits only to pull the rug out from under quite a bit of decent, hardworking people.

What the hell, Intel is Intel. If AMD did not have money in developing their processors, it was not caused by Intel.

As I have repeatedly said. Just go die AMD. You did not have any value in the eye of consumer. You employed incompetent engineers and fabbed your chips in crappy process. Don't blame anything to Intel if you have some stupid CEOs. Apparently, Hector Ruiz the ruiner has wasted too many times in AMD and what he has done only sucking more money from YOUR CASH and failed to get benefit from painfully too pricey of ATI acquisition.

who the hell uses benchmarking software to gauge cpu performance? that's like taking manufacturers marketing slides as gospel.
anyway, as some people have sort of said on here, the old adage is true - business is business. which means that people can act like cunts as long as they make a profit. what a crying shame.

@ Requin "Since when is intel obliged to provide a compiler for its competitor? Nobody is forcing you to use intel's."

The second Intel sells it as a software service. Their compiler is not free. Dev's pay a lot to use it, and Intel is selling it under false pretenses. No matter how small or large the market percentage is, it still cripple software compiled under it harming both devs and the consumers who buy their products.

AMD also bought licenses for Intel's tech. By not allowing AMD processors to use that tech in products compiled with Intel's compiler, they are also breaking their licensing agreement.

Many of the benchmarks that prove Intel's superiority in processing power provide false results due to this. We don't really know how powerful AMDs chips are, because we aren't getting a real result from most of the benchmarking apps.

That's why Devs are complaining. This isn't AMD - this is people who would have to go back and recompile their products in order for them to not have the limitations when run on AMD chips. If you can't see why that's wrong, you aren't looking.

Some of you AMD FanBoys are rediculous, after all these years... When AMD was winning benchmarks and power efficiency races, their business was growing its profits (or lowering its losses). That is not happening anymore so now they are losing, huge. Why blame it on monopoly business practices? I remember when Dell dumped its exclusivity with Intel because its customers wanted AMD. That's what happens when AMD steps up its game.

But that aint the case anymore. Intel has the better chips by far, no matter what compiler you choose...That's plain truth. In fact, whether you want a server, laptop, desktop, or even an entire new class computer: netbook, and soon cell phones and consumer electronics, Intel is your choice of choices. That's what I kind of admire about Intel. They seem to be genuinely better at what they do. And thats the way it has been for quite some time now...

Lower power, MUCH higher performance lead that's even getting bigger, and MUCH MUCH more advanced manufacturing technology, which anyone in the industry knows is the real source of those higher profits. If you own all your own manufacturing tech and fabs and have no middle man overhead, buy factory equipment in such volume that you get great prices, and your yields are much higher and your production costs are much lower thanks to a large lead that allows you to back off your products from their technical limits (hence the overclocking capabilities), and your chips are smaller thanks to a next generation process which further reduces their cost, and your brand/platform-chipset-graphics-bundling allows you to charge much higher prices AND more volumes..... you're going to win the competition. Plain and simple. Yes, they have let go about 25000 employees, but that actually was between 2006 and 2008. So yeah, they are a lot leaner now. Something us industry folks know is that more than 97% of antitrust cases settle, not because of guilt necessarily, but because the penalty of losing is automatically something like over 3x the initial charges, which for Intel would have cost them between 6-10 billion dollars. Not worth the risk. This is a tough industry, so I give all productive competitive companies a little breathing space. And that's what they are. This isn't some monster killing off the competition and charging rediculous prices without delivering advances in tech. They are driving the industry at a pace I can barely keep up with in upgrading. Stop acting like Intel is doing something devious in cigarsmoke-filled rooms. However questionable their tactics, they are very transparent about what they do. Intel gives customers who buy larger volumes rebates. I did that when I ran my lemonade stand at 9 years old (25 cents a cup, 15 cents if you buy more than 3 cups). I guess if your competition can't charge high enough prices to be profitable because you are doing that, the government comes after you. Right or wrong, you decide... The fact is, AMD owes it existence to litigation, since in the 80's when the government forced Intel to continue licensing x86 technology to them as to have more than 1 supplier of x86 chips. While I like the fact that AMD's chips have historically been somewhat competitive to Intel's (at least in price if not performance), the fact is that their business operations have always SUCCCCCKKKKKKKKED! Even when they were doing good, they never had a solid platform business that could provide chipsets, equivalent stability, and leading manufacturing capability. Even the opterons that were once trouncing old-architecture xeons in certain server spaces, were often hard to find and had 64-bit incompatibility (No WINDOWS 64 was available for quite some time). AMD couldn't command the industry to move ahead with them like Intel does. And internally, they can't seem to get their partners in sync with supply and assembly. You see these same issues even now that AMD finally has a chip that can beat nvidia, if you can find one... They have never been a great business. And speaking of AMD graphics, the purchase of ATI was proof of how bad their timing and strategic investment decisions are. Right before a major meltdown in the world economy and dramatic drop in the stock market, AMD purchases a company for 5.6 billion dollars. I don't think the whole company is worth that now. Meanwhile, that's the same time that Intel decided to dramatically streamline its company, increase its R&D investments with simultaneous microarchitecture developments, expand into lower cost lower power platforms for super low cost computers (Atom) that could pick up market share in US but trailblaze new markets in China and India, move into friggin consumer electronics and cell phones chipsets, and expand manufacturing production capability with even more new fabs using its most advanced process technologies. But my favorite of all was the decision to move into hard drives, which immediately they took the performance crown in and totally changed the game. That's friggin awesome. There is no comparison between these two companies. US antitrust law characterizes illegitimate behavior by that which competes in a manner that harms the consumer. Intels so called monopoly practices seem to have a way of exciting me and making me upgrade. I'm not sure that qualifies as harming the consumer... AMD makes a decent chip for a low price, and that's good. But they lose way too much money doing it, and have been bailed out by everyone from the American courts to oil buddies in the mideast. Intel drives the industry. They take the most risks, and I love to watch that as a fan of technology. They are not perfect. In fact, I kinda hated reading about their flop with Larabee... Wouldve been nice to get a freaggin super graphics chip. But the X25 SSD has confirmed what I always believed about them. They really are the better design engineers with the better business. I supposed western digital should sue Intel for anti-trust behavior... Come on guys, grow up...

...the DOJ whacks InHell for $500 Billion - with a "B" for their violations of anti-trust law in the U.S. and that the EU and Asian FTC does the same. $1.5 Trillion in fines should be a clear message for InHell that crime doesn't always pay.

as the register tells for the stunning sales in chipsets, one might ask for that one who takes the bleeding.

for sure all without guaranty

As a reminder in the USA any payments whether court ordered or not becomes a business expense in the next tax year. Reason companies sue each other silly, ultimately the taxpayer pays, its a fantastic system if your a corporation. Your never held accountable.

Since when is intel obliged to provide a compiler for its competitor? Nobody is forcing you to use intel's. It is like complaining to BMW that their parts won't fit on a Mercedes. In any case, intel's marketshare in the compiler business is only minor.

With regards, to the profit... classis case of good business practises. Might not be pretty, but highly effective.

Not to say I would like to see AMD do better. Just to keep intel on the run instead of cashing in.

Intel, record profit, lays off 10,000s of thousands of workers to get it.

Fat cats getting fatter, grunts who did the work, not so much.

Thats Right, Being Prophet Means Predicting Past & Mikes Good Few Hours Into New EZine, One with Some Heady Staff, EG Mike Magee
Nick Farrell
Fernando Cassia
Tony Dennis
Tamlin Magee
Alexandra Pullin http://www.techeye.net/
Tom Foremski , Oh tHeres Link:
Mike Magee - editor

Mike Magee founded The Register and The Inquirer. He sold the Inquirer to VNU three years ago. Mike has been a journalist for many years and pioneered online journalism. He was recently listed as the 35th most influential person in IT in the UK by the Daily Telegraph. You can find him on twitter, linkedin and facebook. Ahso Two Other friends James Crowley - head geek & Allan for Ads.

James founded the software developer site, Developer Fusion back in 1999

When Its' HOT, Its' Blazing Saddles HOT.
File under REDLESS Yet Bombastic. theINQ reader Shirley Will Die If Eyes Touch Black type of Pharohs Eye. New Aurora Has Encased Earth, Tamlin wrote Here & Nick Still does. Tom Has Own Zine & BIG Name. The reader Weaps & Stutters: Will drashek Be there, HELL NO.However, Fernando Cassia Is Another INQ Writer. Basicly Its Conglomeration From FB Friends of Mikes.

This is a nasty business. You can moan all you like but really its tough shit if you cant accept the fact fair means or foul intel have beaten AMD over the head in the market, and on performance for years now. This means you, drew.

You can piss and moan about what is 'unfair' and what isnt but this is BUSINESS. It sounds like you are whining about a referee decision, not a technology company. Unsportsmanship in business unfotunately comes with the territory. So just buy AMD if you feel like your machine has to run on a moral highground. If it makes you feel better about yourself that you gave your money to one faceless corporation instead of another. Neither has angel wings. But dont moan when intel have better architecture and make more money...

Back in the day, a vidio circulated on the web where an AMD cpu was so hot you could fry an egg on it. Literally. AMD sucked compared to intel. Then AMD started to not suck, at the same time that Intel mis-calculated and thought that by breaking the stages of it's pipeline into smaller pieces, and moving to a smaller process, it could go to 4 or 5 GHz on a mainstream desktop cpu. The result was the failed Netbrst - a bad cpu teck from Intel that AMD (correctly) took advantage of. Now Intel is running strong (they have been for a few years) with a cpu that originated from their laptop (P4M) designs.

How many companies can you say have a totally seperate architecture for desktop, laptop, and server (failed itanium lol)? The fact that Intel has been able to juggle up to 3 archs at once, even if two sucked, is really impressive.

When Intel had a sucky arch they had a fallpack arch to bring forward; when AMD is behind in the game, they've got nothing.

Yeah, let's just forget the rigged compiler that Intel used to decrease AMD's performance in many benchmarks and major programs. If that turns out to be true, your comments are null and void because Intel would have been cheating this whole time because they could not compete fairly.

VP, the only stupidity I see is your comment.

"i have always found intel cpus to be sluggish, unresponsive and overpriced per mhz. "

you probably haven't tried anything Intel since Pentium 4.
Core ix destroys everything AMD and so did Core 2's in last generation. Not to mention how much AMD mobile CPU's suck.
overpriced per MHz? My super cheap E5200 (US $65) easily does 3.91 GHz on air. That's around 1.6 cents per MHz on air cooling.

I'm against using illegal tactics to gain market share, and I do think that if AMD goes out of business Intel will stop innovating and start charging a ton of money for its CPU's. But saying that Intel processors are sluggish and unresponsive is completely wrong.

Intel have engineered processors faster than AMD's for the past four years. So get over it. AMD have gone backwards, so dont blame intel for keeping prices high. The truth is its AMD's fault for not being competitive. Anythign else is stupidity. You can hardly blame Manchester United for just being better than everyone else for several years, you can only blame the teams that havent been as good.

so its official

you can happily commit corporate crime and still be better off even after youve been punished by the law! carte blanche or what?!

i have always found intel cpus to be sluggish, unresponsive and overpriced per mhz.

intel can rot - long live AMD!!

so its official

you can happily commit corporate crime and still be better off even after youve been punished by the law! carte blanche or what?!

i have always found intel cpus to be sluggish, unresponsive and overpriced per mhz.

intel can rot - long live AMD!!

the only thing that made them so profitable is their monopolistic tactics which gave them the advantage of destroying the competition and locking old products (in the pc industry time flows differently :)to high prices for a long time.

Maybe if they completely destroy amd they'll be able to keep the i7 line for the next decate unchanged and selling it at the same price..

I mean after all, it's not like you're gonna buy an other companys cpu..they've destroyed them all.