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
a_ump
snakeoil said:
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.
yea idk where u come from, but your dis respectful posts are not welcome at TPU. If you have a problem then PM him, in posts get your point across in a non disrespectful way.

fullinfusion said:
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 :cool:
Only If you run benches that has been rittin for a specific not to mention chip :p
well even gaming benchies between i7 920 and Phenom II 940 show almost no difference in gaming 1280x1024+ with max eye candy. all those tests of 1024x768, 1280x1024 with lowest settings doesn't tell me shit lol. I would definitely go Phenom II and still plan to go AMD with my next build. but that's going to wait till my q6600 lets me down which i don't see happening for probly one more year. i7 i don't even know the purpose of it really...when phenom II gaming performs the same, well ok 1-5fps difference.
Posted on Reply
#2
lism
cdawall said:
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...
Try a 8 or 12 core AMD or Intel server, where AMD just performs better due the scaling-possibilitys. The older Opteron would always perform better then a equalevent Intel-setup. Why? Because of the HT. It offers way more bandwith then Intel has with their Quad-pumped FSB.

In their latest CPU, Intel uses mostly the same technology. AMD is being more innovative. And AMD should also have a chance in CPU-world. Not just 90% dominated by Intel only. AMD was the one that kicked their asses and quit netburst-technology.
Posted on Reply
#3
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
a_ump said:
yea idk where u come from, but your dis respectful posts are not welcome at TPU. If you have a problem then PM him, in posts get your point across in a non disrespectful way.



well even gaming benchies between i7 920 and Phenom II 940 show almost no difference in gaming 1280x1024+ with max eye candy. all those tests of 1024x768, 1280x1024 with lowest settings doesn't tell me shit lol. I would definitely go Phenom II and still plan to go AMD with my next build. but that's going to wait till my q6600 lets me down which i don't see happening for probly one more year. i7 i don't even know the purpose of it really...when phenom II gaming performs the same, well ok 1-5fps difference.
Well im sure your Intel chip is just as reliable as my AM chip is..... And gaming.... well its all good lol.... But All im saying is game all ya want Brother.... both are just the same!!!! but if your converting video? Amd is as good as it gets!.... well Dollar for dollar :D
Posted on Reply
#4
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
lism said:
Try a 8 or 12 core AMD or Intel server, where AMD just performs better due the scaling-possibilitys. The older Opteron would always perform better then a equalevent Intel-setup. Why? Because of the HT. It offers way more bandwith then Intel has with their Quad-pumped FSB.

In their latest CPU, Intel uses mostly the same technology. AMD is being more innovative. And AMD should also have a chance in CPU-world. Not just 90% dominated by Intel only. AMD was the one that kicked their asses and quit netburst-technology.
SKYNET USES AMD!!!! LOL
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
snakeoil said:
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.
I DID notice the difference. The Intel is faster AND smoother all the way around. The Phenom I is not smoother at all. Anyone that says otherwise either didn't compare similar systems, or just want to justify their Phenom I purchase.

fullinfusion said:
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
i7 CRUSHES PhII in encoding. It's not even funny how much faster it is. Now gaming, yes, the PhII runs with i7, as most games are gpu limited anyway.

And I'm comparing PhI because snakeoil said that the monolith design is better. If the monolith design is so important, why did Phenom I suck so bad compared to Intel? That was my point, number of DICE aren't important, only the end results.
Posted on Reply
#6
Wile E
Power User
lism said:
Try a 8 or 12 core AMD or Intel server, where AMD just performs better due the scaling-possibilitys. The older Opteron would always perform better then a equalevent Intel-setup. Why? Because of the HT. It offers way more bandwith then Intel has with their Quad-pumped FSB.

In their latest CPU, Intel uses mostly the same technology. AMD is being more innovative. And AMD should also have a chance in CPU-world. Not just 90% dominated by Intel only. AMD was the one that kicked their asses and quit netburst-technology.
Yeah, but the argument wasn't HT vs FSB, it was monolith vs multi-die package on the desktop platform. I don't think anyone would deny HT is better than FSB.
Posted on Reply
#7
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
I DID notice the difference. The Intel is faster AND smoother all the way around. The Phenom I is not smoother at all. Anyone that says otherwise either didn't compare similar systems, or just want to justify their Phenom I purchase.



i7 CRUSHES PhII in encoding. It's not even funny how much faster it is. Now gaming, yes, the PhII runs with i7, as most games are gpu limited anyway.

And I'm comparing PhI because snakeoil said that the monolith design is better. If the monolith design is so important, why did Phenom I suck so bad compared to Intel? That was my point, number of DICE aren't important, only the end results.
Encoding? you wanna go HD... I doubt it!!! My PI was close to the I7.... this PII will run numbers very close to an I7!!! If not the same!
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusion said:
Encoding? you wanna go HD... I doubt it!!! My PI was close to the I7.... this PII will run numbers very close to an I7!!! If not the same!
You better check that again. i7 stomps Phenom II in encoding. Phenom II is Yorkfields match, not i7.
Posted on Reply
#9
snakeoil
Wile E said:

i7 CRUSHES PhII in encoding. It's not even funny how much faster it is. Now gaming, yes, the PhII runs with i7, as most games are gpu limited anyway.

And I'm comparing PhI because snakeoil said that the monolith design is better. If the monolith design is so important, why did Phenom I suck so bad compared to Intel? That was my point, number of DICE aren't important, only the end results.
core i7 was introduced in 2008 and today is only the 1% of intel sales which means that people is not buying it. why? because is expensive. power hungry and hot as a blast furnace.
the amd dragon platform is much better value.
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusion said:
Encoding? you wanna go HD... I doubt it!!! My PI was close to the I7.... this PII will run numbers very close to an I7!!! If not the same!
Real quick find on Google: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=28

snakeoil said:
core i7 was introduced in 2008 and today is only the 1% of intel sales which means that people is not buying it. why? because is expensive. power hungry and hot as a blast furnace.
the amd dragon platform is much better value.
What if I have the money to spend on i7? What if I want maximum performance, and am not concerned with price? And last, why are you changing the subject to value? We were talking monolith vs multi die a second ago.
Posted on Reply
#11
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
You better check that again. i7 stomps Phenom II in encoding. Phenom II is Yorkfields match, not i7.
Well i ran a HD encode against an I7... I7 4.0GHz... my 9840 @ 3.1GHz... very very close... The 9850 beat the I7 in the 1st test than thats where the I7 took off... i havent took the 940 for a spin in the same game but im sure as i sit here is it will Stomp the I7 in the 1st test and trail not by far in the ending 2nd test.... all im saying is $ for $ go AMD!!!!
Posted on Reply
#12
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
Real quick find on Google: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=28

What if I have the money to spend on i7? What if I want maximum performance, and am not concerned with price? And last, why are you changing the subject to value? We were talking monolith vs multi die a second ago.
And you believe what you read? :nutkick:
Thats just what they use for testing ...... It really doesn't test what the rest of the world is using...
Posted on Reply
#13
snakeoil
Wile E said:


What if I have the money to spend on i7? What if I want maximum performance, and am not concerned with price? And last, why are you changing the subject to value? We were talking monolith vs multi die a second ago.
i hope you enjoy the heat because you are going to have tons of it with core i7.
99.93% of the people cares about value.
Posted on Reply
#14
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusion said:
Well i ran a HD encode against an I7... I7 4.0GHz... my 9840 @ 3.1GHz... very very close... The 9850 beat the I7 in the 1st test than thats where the I7 took off... i havent took the 940 for a spin in the same game but im sure as i sit here is it will Stomp the I7 in the 1st test and trail not by far in the ending 2nd test.... all im saying is $ for $ go AMD!!!!
i7 beats PhII in the first pass as well. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=27

And if budget is a concern, AMD may be the right choice, but it still is no match for i7 in power.

At any rate, this all stemmed from the comment that a monolith is better, but my point is that isn't always the case. PhI certainly wasn't better.
Posted on Reply
#15
mlee49
snakeoil said:
core i7 was introduced in 2008 and today is only the 1% of intel sales which means that people is not buying it. why? because is expensive. power hungry and hot as a blast furnace.
the amd dragon platform is much better value.
Um I dont think so. I know AMD has always been the budget route, but what about the Q6600, its the best aged Quad on the market and sub PI price point yet the pricing is $10 difference. Better examples of the Phenom rival are the Q8200 and Q9300, moot on price but preformance favors the intel.

Plus the reason Intel has smaller percentage sales is cause they back fill the chips periodically. IE the Q8200 and Q9300 aforementioned.
Posted on Reply
#16
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
i7 beats PhII in the first pass as well. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=27

And if budget is a concern, AMD may be the right choice, but it still is no match for i7 in power.

At any rate, this all stemmed from the comment that a monolith is better, but my point is that isn't always the case. PhI certainly wasn't better.
I hear ya but i know the PII is faster in MY OWN HD encode TEST #1 than I7... Heck the PI still ran numbers by the hair to I7... but anyways your right.... lets not hy Jack this thread over numbers :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusion said:
And you believe what you read? :nutkick:
Thats just what they use for testing ...... It really doesn't test what the rest of the world is using...
You seriously need to do some research. PhII can match or beat Yorkfield and older. It cannot come close to i7 in encoding. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's completely false. It's already been proven time and time again.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-7.html

EDIT: Sorry, cross posted.
Posted on Reply
#18
mlee49
This argument has been well established, since day one of the PII it has been on par with the Kentsfiled's.
Posted on Reply
#19
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
mlee49 said:
This argument has been well established, since day one of the PII it has been on par with the Kentsfiled's.
Thank you!!!
Posted on Reply
#20
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusion said:
Thank you!!!
Kentsfield is Q6600, not i7.
Posted on Reply
#21
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
You seriously need to do some research. PhII can match or beat Yorkfield and older. It cannot come close to i7 in encoding. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's completely false. It's already been proven time and time again.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-7.html

EDIT: Sorry, cross posted.
Oh for Christ sakes!!!! shall we run benches again or what?
I proved it in another thread with ya W!!!!
Im talking real PEOPLE results..... not a net site you read
Posted on Reply
#22
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
Kentsfield is Q6600, not i7.
Really? haha I know Bro... im just sayin
Posted on Reply
#23
snakeoil
Wile E said:
You seriously need to do some research. PhII can match or beat Yorkfield and older. It cannot come close to i7 in encoding. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's completely false. It's already been proven time and time again.
you are really like wilee coyote, you dont learn from your errors
Posted on Reply
#24
Wile E
Power User
fullinfusion said:
Oh for Christ sakes!!!! shall we run benches again or what?
I proved it in another thread with ya W!!!!
Im talking real PEOPLE results..... not a net site you read
I don't have i7, so it wasn't me. I already know PhII is a match for Yorkfield, but I want to see it match i7.

Start a thread with a video file, a program to use, and have people post results with cpuz screens and the whole shebang.

I guarantee i7 takes the thread.
Posted on Reply
#25
Wile E
Power User
snakeoil said:
you are really like wilee coyote, you dont learn from your errors
I haven't made any errors in this thread yet.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment