Thursday, May 14th 2009

AMD Comments on EC Ruling that Intel Violated EU Law, Harmed Consumers

The European Commission today found Intel guilty of abusing its dominant position in the global x86 microprocessor market, saying that “Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years. Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU’s antitrust rules cannot be tolerated.” The Commission also stated that “there is evidence that Intel had sought to conceal the conditions associated with its payments.” The EC decision requires Intel to change its business practices immediately and fines Intel a record EUR 1.06 billion (US $1.45 billion).

“Today’s ruling is an important step toward establishing a truly competitive market,” said Dirk Meyer, AMD president and CEO. “AMD has consistently been a technology innovation leader and we are looking forward to the move from a world in which Intel ruled, to one which is ruled by customers.”

“After an exhaustive investigation, the EU came to one conclusion – Intel broke the law and consumers were hurt,” said Tom McCoy, AMD executive vice president for legal affairs. “With this ruling, the industry will benefit from an end to Intel’s monopoly-inflated pricing and European consumers will enjoy greater choice, value and innovation.”

The EC decision stated specifically that:
  • “Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel”.
  • “Intel made payments to major retailer Media Saturn Holding from October 2002 to December 2007 on condition that it exclusively sold Intel-based PCs in all countries in which Media Saturn Holding is active.“
  • Intel “interfered directly in the relations between computer manufacturers and AMD. Intel awarded computer manufacturers payments - unrelated to any particular purchases from Intel - on condition that these computer manufacturers postponed or cancelled the launch of specific AMD-based products.”
Intel has so far failed to convince any antitrust enforcement agency that its business practices are lawful and pro-consumer.
In 2008, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) issued a 26 billion won fine (approximately $25.4 million USD) saying that Intel’s abuse of its dominant position included coercing and paying customers millions of dollars on the condition that they use only Intel chips, delay launches of AMD products, and/or not develop any new products with AMD chips. The KFTC also found that, “South Korean consumers had to buy PCs at higher prices as domestic PC makers were forced to buy Intel’s pricier CPU.” In addition to a fine, the KFTC ordered Intel to stop the practice of offering payments to PC makers conditioned upon them not doing business with AMD. Intel is in the process of appealing the ruling.

In 2005, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) ruled that Intel had violated the country’s anti-monopoly laws by illegally forcing full or partial exclusivity with five Japanese PC makers. Intel did not appeal the ruling.

In the United States, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General’s office are investigating Intel for abuse of its monopoly position. In 2005, AMD filed private litigation in the US District Court of Delaware, which is scheduled for trial in spring 2010.Source: AMD
Add your own comment

104 Comments on AMD Comments on EC Ruling that Intel Violated EU Law, Harmed Consumers

#1
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Nice comment. One thing AMD has forced intel to do, since they were late to offer anything new in the athlon/phenom line up, is make them sell the cpus at a lower price. Not much of a leg to stand on. I hope Intel realizes they couldn't do what they wanted. Nothing said can make what they did seem positive or good.
Posted on Reply
#2
snakeoil
amd calls intel thieves

AMD CALLS INTEL THIEVES.



''AMD's Pat Moorhead, though, believes that Intel is now permanently marked. Like an ex-convict, it now has to check in with EU authorities periodically to have its behavior monitored. And that stain may extend to its business deals in the US and elsewhere, he said: "If someone steals from his neighbor, it still makes that person a thief, even though he didn't steal from your house."

http://www.betanews.com/article/Intel-CEO-The-exclusivity-and-loyalty-of-OEMs-are-up-for-bids/1242246384/2
Posted on Reply
#3
tkpenalty
newtekie1 said:
If AMD wants a competitive market, they should really work on actually making competitive products. I know they can, I've seen them do it...
You do realise that AMD's recent heartache is directly caused by Intel's deprivation of their market share?... With less market share = less R&D funds = stuff like TLB bug.

Though, they've really picked themselves up in the past few months. Wouldn't mind a phenom or two for a mid ranged system-Intels overpriced.
Posted on Reply
#4
suraswami
cdawall said:
so i work at bestbuy and if you look at machines that come into GS to be fixed (poor people) intel to amd is 10:1 there are so many P4 530 and P4 640 etc that come in an a64 is rare so rare in an OEM PC
2 reasons:
1. may be a64 based pcs never got sold so they didn't come in for repairs
2. Intel inside Idiots outside rule (AMD inside smarties outside so they fix it by themselves:laugh:).

Hope this ruling gives some fresh breath into AMD and they can crawl back up.
Posted on Reply
#5
mtosev
Intel has dominated the market since 1991 and this fine wont change Intel's position as a market leader.

AMD hasnt produced a good product since the bought out ATI. from their on the relase sockets AM2, AM2+, AM3, made poor Phenom cpus, also they didnt keep their promises like the one how AM2+ cpus will work on all previous AM2 mobos. AMD has FAILED and i dont think they can produce poor Cpus and stay in the market forever. Fanboys wont help much.
Posted on Reply
#6
Assimilator
newtekie1
If AMD wants a competitive market, they should really work on actually making competitive products. I know they can, I've seen them do it...
HAHAHAHA, truer words were never spoken.

While I do not deny that Intel were in the wrong, and that the disgraceful NetBurst architecture should have been taken out and shot far earlier (and probably would have been, if AMD had sold more chips), the fact of the matter is that funding is not AMD's biggest problem; producing mediocre CPUs is.

You may argue that's a result of decreased funding caused by Intel's dominance in the market, but throwing money at a problem rarely solves it (look at the recent bailout loans for automakers). AMD scored a home run with K8 which they were never able to capitalise on; to suggest their woes are purely the result of money, as opposed to management, problems is naive at best.
Posted on Reply
#7
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
mtosev said:
Intel has dominated the market since 1991 and this fine wont change Intel's position as a market leader.

AMD hasnt produced a good product since the bought out ATI. from their on the relase sockets AM2, AM2+, AM3, made poor Phenom cpus, also they didnt keep their promises like the one how AM2+ cpus will work on all previous AM2 mobos. AMD has FAILED and i dont think they can produce poor Cpus and stay in the market forever. Fanboys wont help much.
actually most boards will run a phenom even if the BIOS support is not there. thats how well designed the sockets are.

they have not failed, failed companies file bankruptcy. ATI has been flourishing pushing out NEW cards constantly pushing nvidia to drop prices and bin the hell out of that damn G92 die :laugh:

the CPU's are performing just fine for joe mainstream how many cores do you need to run powerpoint and internet exploder? most people who buy computers today would be impressed with a phenom X3. price for performance intel does not really have a competitor to those chips. the new athlon II X2 and phenom II X2 chips will fill the gap that the athlon 64's have left and there will not be a competitive Core 2 based cpu that does not have a lower priced amd chip right next to it. this is starting to spread in the US to manufacturers they aren't stupid people buy numbers for the same price of a dual core they can shove an extra core and better video into the same price point. as of right now you can walk into bestbuy and find ~20 AMD based desktops and ~35 intel based ones 10 of those intel's are apples so i wouldn't count them myself. that leaves AMD 20 to intel 25 that sounds like a close market share in desktops. bad market share my ass, inferior product my ass for the money AMD still holds to be a better buy for mainstream.
Posted on Reply
#8
mtosev
here only a few ppl own Phenom based systems. 75% LGA775 C2D/C2Q, i7 10%, AM2+ Athlon 64X2 10%, Phenom II 5%. that would be the market currently in Slovenia.

I dont know anyone with a Phenom/Phenom II system.
Posted on Reply
#9
snakeoil
mtosev said:
here only a few ppl own Phenom based systems. 75% LGA775 C2D/C2Q, i7 10%, AM2+ Athlon 64X2 10%, Phenom II 5%. that would be the market currently in Slovenia.

I dont know anyone with a Phenom/Phenom II system.
after this sanction intel cannot bribe or threat manufacturers in Europe, this is a tremendous blow against intel because intel doesn't know how to compete in a market without using extortion and threat, so is going to be interesting to see what happens with a handcuffed mobster.

:cool:
Posted on Reply
#10
Snipermonkey2
mtosev said:
Intel has dominated the market since 1991 and this fine wont change Intel's position as a market leader.

AMD hasnt produced a good product since the bought out ATI. from their on the relase sockets AM2, AM2+, AM3, made poor Phenom cpus, also they didnt keep their promises like the one how AM2+ cpus will work on all previous AM2 mobos. AMD has FAILED and i dont think they can produce poor Cpus and stay in the market forever. Fanboys wont help much.
Too bad AMD owns the rights to x64 chips which they license the rights to Intel. With out AMD's technology Intel would be hurting hardcore. Most to all new pc's ship with 64 bit OS's so if Intel wants to start a real fight AMD could ruin them. Also AMD's are true monolith procs which makes a giant difference in real time audio and video production.
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
Snipermonkey2 said:
Too bad AMD owns the rights to x64 chips which they license the rights to Intel. With out AMD's technology Intel would be hurting hardcore. Most to all new pc's ship with 64 bit OS's so if Intel wants to start a real fight AMD could ruin them. Also AMD's are true monolith procs which makes a giant difference in real time audio and video production.
i7 is a true monolith as well. But Phenom I didn't beat Intel's quads at the time, despite Intel's quads being 2 dice on one package.
Posted on Reply
#12
Snipermonkey2
Wile E said:
i7 is a true monolith as well. But Phenom I didn't beat Intel's quads at the time, despite Intel's quads being 2 dice on one package.
Good for Intel only a few chips late on the monolith design, now the price just needs to come down enough to make them worth it. Intels Quads lag out in audio production causing random spikes and pops in audio levels screwing stuff up. Also since AMD's were monolith when rendering objects it took alot less time.

Edit: http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml

Use that program to see your systems latency and you will be able to see the difference.
Posted on Reply
#13
lism
Woud'nt that just be a regular buffer instead of the CPU?

Both make wonderfull CPU's. Even tho AMD is more innovativer then Intel is with their 2-cores-on-a-die-sticked-together, this fine does not hurt Intel at all. It's like 30% fine of what they made in total back then when this was going on.
Id'like to see AMD coming back with their chip with a much better price/performance schedule then Intel is right now. Something competetive with Icore 7. AMD Can do it.
Posted on Reply
#14
Snipermonkey2
lism said:
Woud'nt that just be a regular buffer instead of the CPU?

Both make wonderfull CPU's. Even tho AMD is more innovativer then Intel is with their 2-cores-on-a-die-sticked-together, this fine does not hurt Intel at all. It's like 30% fine of what they made in total back then when this was going on.
Id'like to see AMD coming back with their chip with a much better price/performance schedule then Intel is right now. Something competetive with Icore 7. AMD Can do it.
I would say AMD has always had the upper hand is price to performance ratio. People just buy Intel cause its a larger name. Its kinda like Microsoft vs Linux. Don't get me wrong Intel offers and has offered alot of higher performance chips but sometimes I just can't see the justification of paying more for that little gain.
Posted on Reply
#15
Wile E
Power User
Snipermonkey2 said:
Good for Intel only a few chips late on the monolith design, now the price just needs to come down enough to make them worth it. Intels Quads lag out in audio production causing random spikes and pops in audio levels screwing stuff up. Also since AMD's were monolith when rendering objects it took alot less time.

Edit: http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml

Use that program to see your systems latency and you will be able to see the difference.
Never had a single latency issue while recording or mixing for albums on an Intel quad core. No pops, no anomalies whatsoever. I'd look at supporting hardware before looking at the cpu.

I'd also like to see where AMD renders faster than Intel. Not saying it isn't true, but I haven't seen it.
Posted on Reply
#16
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Wile E said:
Never had a single latency issue while recording or mixing for albums on an Intel quad core. No pops, no anomalies whatsoever. I'd look at supporting hardware before looking at the cpu.

I'd also like to see where AMD renders faster than Intel. Not saying it isn't true, but I haven't seen it.
nor have i and i have an AMD in fact intel's old netburst architecture rendered better than K8 did so it would make me believe it continues to render better...
Posted on Reply
#17
snakeoil
Wile E said:
Never had a single latency issue while recording or mixing for albums on an Intel quad core. No pops, no anomalies whatsoever. I'd look at supporting hardware before looking at the cpu.

seen it.
the problem is that you don't understand the old architecture you are using, core 2 uses front bus, which has always being a botleneck thats why when the system is heavily taxed your sistem is not as responsive as an amd system with hypertrasport.
an amd system is smoother because is more advanced. and that's why intel copied the amd architecture.
Posted on Reply
#18
mlee49
mtosev said:
here only a few ppl own Phenom based systems. 75% LGA775 C2D/C2Q, i7 10%, AM2+ Athlon 64X2 10%, Phenom II 5%. that would be the market currently in Slovenia.

I dont know anyone with a Phenom/Phenom II system.
I bet thats a fairly accurate description of TPU users. Probably 80% 775, 10% i7, 9% PII, 1%939/478. Gross estimates



I'm laughing at AMD's response that Intel's permanently labeled as thieves. Everyone know's M$ is the biggest snake and money sucker and 99% of the people here love the latest offering Windows 7(all beit it is a free beta, and not $120 retail). I compare it to the I'm a Mac, I'm a bloated Hog(PC) argument from Apple, Lame.
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
snakeoil said:
the problem is that you understand the old architecture you are using, core 2 uses front bus, which has always being a botleneck thats why when the system is heavily taxed your sistem is not as responsive as an amd system with hypertrasport.
an amd system is smoother because is more advanced. and that's why intel copied the amd architecture.
Except that my system completely outperforms Phenom I in everything. Design doesn't matter, only the end results matter, and the end results were that Intel was faster.

AMD only caught up to Kentsfield/Yorkfield with the release of Phenom II, but that isn't because it's a single die. If single die mattered, Phenom I would've been faster, but it isn't.
Posted on Reply
#20
snakeoil
Wile E said:
Except that my system completely outperforms Phenom I in everything. Design doesn't matter, only the end results matter, and the end results were that Intel was faster.

AMD only caught up to Kentsfield/Yorkfield with the release of Phenom II, but that isn't because it's a single die. If single die mattered, Phenom I would've been faster, but it isn't.
is not a problem because you know nothing about cpu architecture, thats why you only judge by looking at benchmaks , but the whole experience is much better in a computer that is snappy and responsive and doesnt have bottlenecks.
ignorance is a blessing sometimes but most of the time is a curse.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
snakeoil said:
is not a problem because you know nothing about cpu architecture, thats why you only judge by looking at benchmaks , but the whole experience is much better in a computer that is snappy and responsive and doesnt have bottlenecks.
ignorance is a blessing sometimes but most of the time is a curse.
I've tried both Phenom I and my Intel setup, and my system is faster, PERIOD. Even in day to day use, like surfing the web, doing some light photo editing, maybe watching a few movies or listening to music. The Phenom I was slower at everything, and was not "smoother" at all. It had absolutely zero benefits over my Intel. A single die did absolutely NOTHING to help it. It was slow at everything in comparison.

Haven't tried Phenom II yet to comment.
Posted on Reply
#22
Assassin48
since i upgraded from my 9950 to a 940 it felt better and faster now from a 940 to a 955 it feels almost the same
Posted on Reply
#23
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
Wile E said:
I've tried both Phenom I and my Intel setup, and my system is faster, PERIOD. Even in day to day use, like surfing the web, doing some light photo editing, maybe watching a few movies or listening to music. The Phenom I was slower at everything, and was not "smoother" at all. It had absolutely zero benefits over my Intel. A single die did absolutely NOTHING to help it. It was slow at everything in comparison.

Haven't tried Phenom II yet to comment.
God Wile your talking the olden days mate! :nutkick:
PI vs PII... :laugh: Well there is no comparison! all i do is Game... and batch convert video.... I tell ya PI vs PII is a joke!!
You upgrade and than you'll know what im talking about....

Intel's I7 @ 4+ GHz to a PII under similar clocks is so freakin close when Converting and Gaming it isn't even funny.... Hmmm $ for $ id say go PII.... you wont notice a difference between the two:cool:
Only If you run benches that has been rittin for a specific not to mention chip :p
Posted on Reply
#24
snakeoil
Wile E said:
I've tried both Phenom I and my Intel setup, and my system is faster, PERIOD. Even in day to day use, like surfing the web, doing some light photo editing, maybe watching a few movies or listening to music. The Phenom I was slower at everything, and was not "smoother" at all. It had absolutely zero benefits over my Intel. A single die did absolutely NOTHING to help it. It was slow at everything in comparison.

Haven't tried Phenom II yet to comment.
you could have a chimpanzee riding a bike insted of a cpu and you would not notice the difference , is like a car with a fine and advanced engine versus a souped up up old engine. there is a difference in the experience of driving both even though you deny it.
Posted on Reply
#25
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
Assassin48 said:
since i upgraded from my 9950 to a 940 it felt better and faster now from a 940 to a 955 it feels almost the same
go Higher than 4GHz on the cpu and you'll a huge jump in marks than a DDR2 940 gives ya..... But not till the 4.+++GHz barrier :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment