EU Airs Out Intel's Dirty Laundry

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
475
0
18,810
[citation][nom]pooflinger1[/nom]So we should all support the prostitues since they have been screwed and continue to be screwed. I for one am rooting for intel. Not because I think they are right, and not because I like them, but because I don't want the EU to get a Damned cent. Lets see... How much of our recent economic downturn could be funded if those funds weren't stripped away from US companies... AND, last time I checked, the party trying to bribe was not the only guilty party. Last I checked it was also illegal to RECIEVE bribe money. So why aren't HP and Lenovo, etc included? Didn't they recieve money in order to take part? Kind of a messed up argument that you only prosecute or attempt to fine one side of the problem. Kinda like trying to play on the see-saw by yourself. just a bit unbalanced.[/citation]


Your argument is not even an argument. Of course the other intervening parties should be punished, not just Intel. But Intel should be punished. You don't actually make a point in your text.

Secondly, AMD is also a US company. In your vision, an american company can screw at will another american company, which could have funded your economic downturn in the first place had it not been screwed by Intel during the years AMD actually, objectively had the best processor.

If you like to buy other products to put in your computer case besides a CPU, you really should consider that a free market needs rules all over the world. I don't know if you can build a computer made from US made parts alone, but even if you could you would be severly restricted in your choice.

What happens in the US affects the rest of the world, and vice-versa. Remember how the current world crisis began ?

Competition is good for the consumers, and I presume that includes you. Unless you like to pay for an overpriced CPU, an overpriced GPU, etc.

Like I said elsewhere, lack of competition results in slow R&D, suboptimal products at high prices.
 

Acert93

Distinguished
May 29, 2003
230
0
18,680
[citation]well i dont support those companies receiving the funds cause i build my own pc and dont buy prebuilt ones and plus why shouldnt we support our local prostitutes.[/citation]
If you start buying millions of processors a month and market their product to millions of consumers through joint advertising then you, too, can obtain significant rebates.

I have built every desktop I have owned since the 80s, but I find your point laughable. "Me, Me, Me."
 
@presidenteody
are you a fucking retard, AMD had the performance crown before the core2duo lineup hit in o6, so quite a bit of the time that AMD was getting screwed they were on top

and over priced GPU's, wow, you realize that the Radeon 4k series is one of the best price/performance, and since AMD acquired ATI the drivers have gotten much better, both NV and ATI now have about the same number of bugs

as for on chip GPU, yeah, enthusiasts will care about that, its pretty much their same crappy IGP, which loses to both AMD's and NV's IGp (though the stability of NV could be much better)
 

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
475
0
18,810
[citation][nom]seemsabitoff[/nom]Ultimately I don't see how Intel should be fined for offering rebates to OEMs for preferring Intel's products. Businesses do that all the time. Heck, cell phone companies are allowed to do it.Really the blame falls on Dell, HP, and other PC manufacturers. They didn't have to accept the deal from Intel, but they wanted the rebates. Dell and HP had just as much power as Intel seeing as how Intel wouldn't sell any products if it weren't for them. They could have said, "Screw that. We'll just sell AMD products instead."If the EU thinks that the exclusive deals are wrong, then they should be fining the OEMs as well. However, is it wrong for an OEM to use one brand exclusively over another? I wouldn't think so.[/citation]


You only have half a point there. The problem with your argument is that AMD didn't and still doesn't have the facilities to meet demand should HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo, etc, start going away from Intel and moving towards AMD overnight. That kind of growth takes time, and AMD would surely be much more competitive, becasue they would have grown at a sustained rate, if for year after year Intel and the OEM hadn't done this kind of deal to prevent that from happening.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Inclined to go with AMD from now for all my customer builds, except the high end users that need the power of i7. Cant beat intel for pure performance though, irrelevant of business practices!
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
[citation][nom]nekatreven[/nom]Multiple sources or correlated testimony could probably suffice as proof of a non-verbal.Your mention of luck is not needed however. The ruling has been made and the evidence did include the agreements. I'm pretty sure this was just the EU telling Intel where to shove their appeal paperwork.[/citation]

It could, in Europe, and it appears that it has. Oh well, good for the EU? Another billion or so to fund a new railway or something.
 

Kaiser_25

Distinguished
Jul 9, 2009
170
0
18,680
[citation][nom]presidenteody[/nom]everyone knows that AMD doesn't have the market share due to slow processors and overpriced GPUs whose drivers are buggy and flawed. Once intel comes out with on chip GPUs it will wipe AMD off the map while they are still using 45nm processes for the next two years, intel is already launching 32nm and plans to go 28nm in two years by the time....citation]

/agree all be it a little crude i agree. I think that Intel does have superior product, and AMD doesn’t have the infrastructure to make it in a long drawn out battle (which it will be) but they did well, they beat Intel to the 1ghz race, but again 32nm...and 28nm soon...ya AMD i think is going to be in a world of hurt.
 

Kl2amer

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2008
66
0
18,630
Punish intel, that's laughable at best. Every company does these types of contracts if competition is evident or as a need to grow market share. AMD has similar agreements with some small companies I am sure. This is business. If AMD could present a competitive product, market the product, and assure availability of the product then they would have their cut of the pie. Like it or not (and I don't) this is how it is. When was the last time you saw an Intel commercial, last night you say. Well, when was the last time you saw an AMD commercial? If they choose not to compete why should intel be punished for aggressive tactics. It's not like HP/Dell or anyone else couldn't say no, but since they know that the general consumer has no idea what AMD is or even recognizes the letters, they need intel in their computers. So shoot intel for gaining success, marketing success, and creating brand recognition. Or isn't that the point of business?

Finally, for all the people that scream it's unfair for the little guy. Life isn't fair and if you want to compete with intel you better produce a product that can, market it, and eventually you will pick up market share. No marketing means no increase in market share = AMD. AMD has the budget product now, it's a recession, and they are not marketing said product? Stop defending poor business decisions by executives that are entirely overpaid.
 

scw1988

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2009
2
0
18,510
[citation][nom]mindless728[/nom]@presidenteodyare you a fucking retard, AMD had the performance crown before the core2duo lineup hit in o6, so quite a bit of the time that AMD was getting screwed they were on topand over priced GPU's, wow, you realize that the Radeon 4k series is one of the best price/performance, and since AMD acquired ATI the drivers have gotten much better, both NV and ATI now have about the same number of bugsas for on chip GPU, yeah, enthusiasts will care about that, its pretty much their same crappy IGP, which loses to both AMD's and NV's IGp (though the stability of NV could be much better)[/citation]

.... rage much?
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
That's pretty dirty. Microsoft-esque practices. Still, AMD should have marketed better in 2002-2006... They would be in a much better position regardless of Intel shady business practices...
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
If Intel loses this one then. . .

Coka-Cola should be penalized for exclusivity deals with Regal Cinema, Burger King, McDonald's, and many other places. It's really hurting the comsumer. I wanted Mt. Dew to go with my screening of District 9.

AT&T needs penalized for kickbacks to Apple for exclusivity of the iPhone.
 

Gin Fushicho

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2009
1,777
0
19,790
Wow... That's pretty horrible. Almost a crime it sounds like. Shady bastards. I wanted to buy a Core i7 in 6 months when the prices drop. But I dunno now. Intel needs to get they're act straight and compete like everyone else. Fairly.
 

pooflinger1

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2006
120
3
18,695
[citation][nom]tpi2007[/nom]Your argument is not even an argument. Of course the other intervening parties should be punished, not just Intel. But Intel should be punished. You don't actually make a point in your text.Secondly, AMD is also a US company. In your vision, an american company can screw at will another american company, which could have funded your economic downturn in the first place had it not been screwed by Intel during the years AMD actually, objectively had the best processor.If you like to buy other products to put in your computer case besides a CPU, you really should consider that a free market needs rules all over the world. I don't know if you can build a computer made from US made parts alone, but even if you could you would be severly restricted in your choice.What happens in the US affects the rest of the world, and vice-versa. Remember how the current world crisis began ? Competition is good for the consumers, and I presume that includes you. Unless you like to pay for an overpriced CPU, an overpriced GPU, etc.Like I said elsewhere, lack of competition results in slow R&D, suboptimal products at high prices.[/citation]

First, I wasn't arguing that Intel is or was correct. Nor was I stating that it is alright for any company to screw another. And as far as the argument goes, the only one really in there, if there even was one, was that the EU is only looking at 1/2 of the equation by not investigating the system resellers. But that was more of an observation than an argument.

And as far as the computer goes, you could actually very easily build a computer with all, or almost all US parts. I'm not talking about where the parts were assembled, or manufactured, but where they were designed. Intel/AMD - US. Kingston - US, Western Digital - US. OCZ - US. nVidia - US. With the exception of motherboards which are mostly Taiwan/East Aisa, a bulk majority of the other components inside a PC are from US based vendors. But that has nothing to do with my argument or lack therof.
 

jmedero999

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
1
0
18,510
The computer industry roadway is paved with the crushed "bodies" of underdogs beaten by monopolies.
Who still remembers WordPerfect, Netscape, Cyrix?
Each got crushed by bigger and more powerful companies even when they were better products.
 

Major7up

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
446
0
18,780
I generally prefer AMD systems but we must stop and realize that, even in the face of all this dirty laundry and anti-Intel sentiment, that AMD has not always had the best product and has made a number of critical mistakes in the past. Having said that I am still a champion of innovation and competition and my last 2 systems have been AMD based as well as those built for family. But lets not AMD get away completely free here, we need to hold them to the same standard that we place on Intel to keep them in line as well. I do think that the EU fine was more than justified and it will hopefully put some pressure on the manufacturers to offer more AMD based systems.
 

deltatux

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
335
0
18,780
Ever since the EC started investigating Intel, I knew something was up. Heck, it's even more questionable that my brother's AMD Athlon 64 was faster than my Pentium 4. Ever since that last Pentium 4 build, I moved every single desktop in my house to AMD. I knew that Intel had done something really fishy to gain such a big market share with such crappy products.

I bet, if it wasn't for these practices, Intel wouldn't have had the extra capital to R&D for the Core and Nehalem microarchitectures and AMD would have had something like Bulldozer out by now instead of having to only update the K8 with the K10.

I support competition, so I support AMD.
 

godnodog

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2009
233
0
18,690
[citation][nom]ethanolson[/nom]America is so much better than Europe. Nuff said.[/citation]

Have you ever been to Europe to say that?
If you ever loose your job, come and take a visit here in Europe and see 4 youself, maybe you´ll see social wellfare at work (not saying that wellfare works grat, cause it doesn´t, but at least it tries) and see sick people getting medical help from the state because the ensurance guys made a market decision to let someone die by taking too long to make decisions.
Unlike the US (let´s see how it goes with Barack), the EU tries to creat rules in order to prevent excess from big business, most of the time the EU fails but nevertheless they try, we believe in capitalism, but with rules that tries (or at least the appear to try) to keep the market "clean" or under relative control from bad companies. We believe in capitalism with responsability, we believe in social services because we believe in a sense of community, we believe in free market side by side with responsability. We call it social democracy (do not say it is comunist because it is not, comunism sucks). The EU system is not better than the US, nor is the US system better than ours, we just have different perspectives of capitalism, I like to call our system social capitalism, and I sometimes I have to consider yours (mainly because of the news) savage capitalism.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
[citation][nom]presidenteody[/nom]everyone knows that AMD doesn't have the market share due to slow processors and overpriced GPUs whose drivers are buggy and flawed. Once intel comes out with on chip GPUs it will wipe AMD off the map while they are still using 45nm processes for the next two years, intel is already launching 32nm and plans to go 28nm in two years by the time AMD has filed for Ch.11 right on time, like a clock: TICK, TOCK, TICK, TOCK STOMP!!! I don't mean to be mean, but it is fact AMD is 5 bil in the hole and #6 on who is most likely to file for ch.11 by Forbes, so i wouldn't waste my money on a chip whose socket will be dead when the company dies?? it doesn't make sence! Does anyone remember VOODOO? they died in 1996 or so and tried to compete but didn't have the balls to backup their shat. Thats what happens to companies that fall behind![/citation]

I guess you don't check pricing guides. AMD/ATI graphics cards are cheaper than nVidias in every market segment they compete in. Also, not sure what bugs you're referring to, as my HD4850 has had no drivers issues to date. In fact, it's preparing to be installed in an HTPC because I need a card that doesn't sound like a vaccuum cleaner, doesn't generate enough heat to increase the temperature of the planet, and actually supports the FULL HDMI 1.3 standard without requiring additional hardware. Also, since you missed the benchmarks done over the last 10 years....AMD held the "performance crown" from the release of the SlotA Athlon in 1998, until Intel released the Core 2 processors...beating out the Pentium2, Pentium3, Pentium4 and PentiumD in actual non-biased 3rd party benchmarks. Intel tried to buy benchmark results to hide that fact, which most sites refused. Intel also lost to AMD during the 486 run back in the early 90's when they released a slower 486 than AMD did.. Intel had the 486DX2-66, while AMD had a faster 486DX4-100. The "classic" Pentium was on par with the AMD K6 series for performance, only actually beating the Cryix 6x86 and beyond processors. In fact, Intel has only held the "performance crown" since the Core 2 was released.
 

soo-nah-mee

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2009
564
0
18,990
[citation][nom]ethanolson[/nom]America is so much better than Europe. Nuff said.[/citation]
Yeah, how DO you figure? I'm an American and proud of it, but that statement is pompous, vague, and in my and many other American's opinions, not true. Not to mention it has basically nothing to do with the topic.
 

Montezuma

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2008
252
0
18,780
It is not the responsibility of one company to worry about another company, that is what competition is about. I know there are probably a lot of Obama fan boys and his work to introduce equality of result in this country. Intel did what was in Intel's best interest, and there is not one goddamn person here that would not do what is in their best interest as well. Now, that does not mean that everyone here would completely run over their competitors to achieve their result, but a vast majority of you would.

If Intel has the best product, then they should achieve better results. If AMD has a better product, then they should excel. Just because some of you are so hostile to Intel and such big fans of AMD, it does not mean that you can wish AMD into making a superior product. I know your mother probably told you that you could be anything you want to be, but deal with the fact that you cannot. AMD is in that same boat, but it looks like they have cried to the right people.

I will laugh my fucking ass off when emails from AMD are leaked, showing that they were engaging, or attempting to engage in, similar business practices or the exact same practices. That is a point none of you get; if AMD were in Intel's boat, it would be because they got their shady business practices to work first. Intel just had a better game and some of you are sore over it. Get over yourselves.

Give me 100 thumbs down, but it will only be because none of you are capable of realizing that AMD is just as "evil" as Intel. This is the real world, if you mother never told you.
 

geminireaper

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
168
0
18,680
I dont have brand loyalty. Im gonna go with the best chip. Right now thats intel. When AMD can top them Ill go with AMD. Until then boo hoo. Isnt that the goal of a company is to take the largest market share as possible and crush the competition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.