Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[sonoran]

I mean come on, it was only a few weeks ago you can't have forgotten it already surely? 😗 Intel are so confident in their legal position that they just write of $1.25 billion?

A question you would never ask - if AMD were so assured of winning a massive damages award (and then getting 3x that!), why did they settle?

Fact is roughly 98% of corporate lawsuits settle. Companies don't like fighting long legal battles, it distracts from running their businesses.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Intel has less than 10% of the x86 compiler market. Are you now arguing that they're a monopoly in that software market?

Youre liken Intel too much here, as you cant see Im downplaying this, but of course,ever saying anything against Intel makes someone suspect I guess eh?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

A question you would never ask - if AMD were so assured of winning a massive damages award (and then getting 3x that!), why did they settle?

Fact is roughly 98% of corporate lawsuits settle. Companies don't like fighting long legal battles, it distracts from running their businesses.

So, it makes sense for a company to weaken their highest, most treasured IP theyve ever had, and is the highest most treasured in all of IT, pay our almost 6 billion dollars, just cause they didnt want to be hassled with it?
This settlement makes M$' fines look like small patatoes. But meh, they couldnt be bothered with it.

 

[Guest]

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

In particular.

Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

1. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
2. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
3. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

This is why it's going to court. Intel refuse to create a fair compiler, and refuse to admit that they have cheated, even though it is clear to see and easily replicated.

Intel know that by providing a non-biased compiler, AMD will show up ahead in a lot of benchmarks they 'lost' in over the past few years. People like Chad here still won't accept it of course, because anybody who refuses to accept the mountain of evidence against intel is, frankly, completely lost to common sense.

 

[Guest]

Ever used PC Mark?

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-nano-review.ars/6

Now ask yourself if you really had a faster cpu with whatever intel you bought. What better way to 'win' when you are behind than to cripple your opponents cpus, and better still get it blamed on other software writers when in fact it was the intel compiler used that did it.

Time for some of you to wake up. In fact, it's long past time. How can you even ignore this evidence? AMD being fab constrained or not, intel are guilty as sin and they are going to be found guilty again whether you like it or not.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Also, as I said earlier, earlier on, wasnt Intels compiler used more often that today?
And thats when they didnt keep up, and things were pointed out to them, and some things didnt change til later, even after it was "fixed".
Im not saying this is a huge issue, and frankly wont take the time to investigate, but scanning the surface, it may be weak, or it may be something more, and lets let the courts decide this one.
Weve had people coming to Toms for years making these claims, weve all glanced at them, but no one here is going to get the red handed thing, except maybe the judge, if there is one

 

[Chad Boga]

This is why it's going to court. Intel refuse to create a fair compiler

This term is a misnomer.

Intel are under no obligation to help out AMD.

Intel know that by providing a non-biased compiler, AMD will show up ahead in a lot of benchmarks they 'lost' in over the past few years.

Which benchmarks? How many?

You can't even name them? Why doesn't AMD name them?

And even better, why don't AMD have their own compiler?

People like Chad here still won't accept it of course, because anybody who refuses to accept the mountain of evidence against intel is, frankly, completely lost to common sense.

Evidence against Intel for what?

You seem to have some kind of warped vision that Intel has to help AMD compete against Intel. It is that perverse view I refuse to accept.

A number of the points you raise may be factually correct, but you have failed miserably to understand that these points are of little to no consequence, so your context is just crap.

 

[Chad Boga]

Ever used PC Mark?

Nope.

AMD being fab constrained or not, intel are guilty as sin and they are going to be found guilty again whether you like it or not.

Let me play Devil's Advocate and ask, if Intel are found guilty, what will be the consequences and what will be the timelines involved in your opinion?

 

[Guest]

This term is a misnomer.

Intel are under no obligation to help out AMD.

They are under obligation not to deliberately cripple opponents cpu's however. BIG difference, clearly this kind of thing is lost on you.

Which benchmarks? How many?

You can't even name them? Why doesn't AMD name them?

You realise this was part of AMD's lawsuit? You know the one intel paid $1.25bn out on?

And even better, why don't AMD have their own compiler?

Because they don't need one? There are other compilers that do a good enough job. The thing about the intel compiler is it deliberately cripples AMD cpu's without letting anybody know about it.

What's more, intel has been deliberately hiding the fact through lies and false documentation. Just like with the Dell MOAP, they got found out. Corruption on this level will *always* get found out.

 

[Guest]

Let me play Devil's Advocate and ask, if Intel are found guilty, what will be the consequences and what will be the timelines involved in your opinion?

It really depends on how they behave. What will happen is the FTC's recommendations will be enacted, and intel forced to comply with every one of them.

What happens after that depends on whether or not intel comply well enough. If they don't? They'll be back in court within a couple of years and almost certainly split up into smaller companies.

 

[notty22]

Good explanations Chad.
Intel is a huge corporation . With almost independent sections. Intel is not one guy calling the shots. Why they would settle ? For the good of their stock holders, employees and their families. You have many different parts of the company. In each area over the course of years maybe there were aggressive workers/supervisors in any given facet of the company. Whether its sales, marketing, R+D. Salesmen make deals in whatever industry you can imagine. Some contracts may be construed as anti-competitive looking back. That all is considered. If you ask me, we have seen ZERO incriminating evidence of anything. Show me a document signed by a high level manager stating a company directive or policy to do something unscrupulous.
Something like the AMD executive admitting the company had a product he himself would not buy. ! Where are the whistle blowers ?

 

[Guest]

If you ask me, we have seen ZERO incriminating evidence of anything. Show me a document signed by a high level manager stating a company directive or policy to do something unscrupulous.

You realise why bank robbers wear masks right?

 

[Chad Boga]

They are under obligation not to deliberately cripple opponents cpu's however. BIG difference, clearly this kind of thing is lost on you.

They hadn't validated AMD's CPU's for certain instructions, and felt no obligation to incur costs doing so, thus a validated but less optimal path was chosen for non-Intel CPU's.

You realise this was part of AMD's lawsuit? You know the one intel paid $1.25bn out on?

:lol: So the lawsuit was mainly about the compiler? What a crock.

Because they don't need one? There are other compilers that do a good enough job.

Then they should be happy with that.

The thing about the intel compiler is it deliberately cripples AMD cpu's without letting anybody know about it.

As Intel hasn't incurred the cost of a validation process for every AMD instruction, they chose a less optimised path that they felt would not be in danger of producing any errors.

What's more, intel has been deliberately hiding the fact through lies and false documentation. Just like with the Dell MOAP, they got found out. Corruption on this level will *always* get found out.

With any luck Intel and the FTC will agree that Intel will state that their compiler is only for Genuine Intel CPU's and that non-Intel won't run at all.

This should provide the clarity you crave.

 

[Chad Boga]

It really depends on how they behave. What will happen is the FTC's recommendations will be enacted, and intel forced to comply with every one of them.

As I believe the FTC has made a number of ambit claims in the hope of getting Intel to agree to more than is likely to be ruled by a Court, I very much doubt that every one of the FTC's recommendations will be part of any agreement they and Intel reach.

What happens after that depends on whether or not intel comply well enough. If they don't? They'll be back in court within a couple of years and almost certainly split up into smaller companies.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah right.

Unlike Microsoft where there could easily have been some distinction between Windows and Office, what could Intel be split into, without fundamentally harming the products it produces.

Anyone predicting Intel being split up needs to wake up to themselves and stop making a fool of themselves to a wide audience.

 

[notty22]

You realise why bank robbers wear masks right?

And you realize why Intel has a section of their corporation where they hire programmers that work with their cpu engineers to create a compiler for other programmers that can achieve the best performance from their hardware. For the those(that like to rush judgment) to hear a compiler is part of this suit feed their conspiracy theories on why a Intel chip is faster. But most of the issues around this compiler is how Intel didn't disclose in advertising and claims made to customers that some benchmarks were in part created with their own software. Not that anything is being software sabotaged. Its akin to the disclaimer in tv advertising running at the bottom of the screen or in radio advertising when the official voice reads 30 seconds of disclaimers.

oops cut off: fixed
Note: Intel is such a huge, successful corporation, that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help create software to achieve the best performance with our cpu's. No such claim of compatibility or performance is made with other hardware.

 

[Guest]

They hadn't validated AMD's CPU's for certain instructions, and felt no obligation to incur costs doing so, thus a validated but less optimal path was chosen for non-Intel CPU's.

ROFL. You gotta be working for intel to be so full of complete **** Chad.

With any luck Intel and the FTC will agree that Intel will state that their compiler is only for Genuine Intel CPU's and that non-Intel won't run at all.

This should provide the clarity you crave.

With any luck you'll actually read what I posted and see that the FTC have made far more reaching demands than your simple non-fix. Being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again isn't part of the bargain. Intel have been told to undo the damage they have done.

Now I dunno a huge amount about US law, or the FTC, but I'm thinking the FTC don't lose a lot of cases. Amirite?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Good explanations Chad.
Intel is a huge corporation . With almost independent sections. Intel is not one guy calling the shots. Why they would settle ? For the good of their stock holders, employees and their families. You have many different parts of the company. In each area over the course of years maybe there were aggressive workers/supervisors in any given facet of the company. Whether its sales, marketing, R+D. Salesmen make deals in whatever industry you can imagine. Some contracts may be construed as anti-competitive looking back. That all is considered. If you ask me, we have seen ZERO incriminating evidence of anything. Show me a document signed by a high level manager stating a company directive or policy to do something unscrupulous.
Something like the AMD executive admitting the company had a product he himself would not buy. ! Where are the whistle blowers ?

You forgot, the lil sisters of the poor, the salvation army and all things good.
My my, how well Intel is thought of, even after being found guilty.
Im sure theres family of cons out there loving them also.

Then enter in the evile AMD, and thier (for the time being) great marketing heads, whos disgraced because of evile AMDs inability to perform, he wont buy their products.

This a soap opera here? Or an old western, where Intels the ones with the white hats?
Yes, we spent 6 billion for our poor employees, for whatever reasons, this whole thing bothered them, and we couldnt let it go on any further, so we complied with evile AMD.
Now, after Intels done such noble things, those other evile monsters, the FTC is coming and making those poor employees worry even more.

Its such a good thing those evile employees were laid off from AMD, it probably saved them, as people here know, as many laughed when it happened, cause we here at Toms understands Intels plight against such monsters as Korea or the treachery of Japan, or those greedy liars the EU, and the new comers, acting like they care, the FTC.
And NY ? Well, theyre led by that monster AG, whos only doing this to poor Intel because he wants to be elected.
Its funny, all these people and entities, all with their seperate agendas, coming out after lil ol Intel.
Im sure some Intel employees fely empathy for those laid off evile AMD employees, theyre such saints, and deserving of the billions given to inept, back streets of Beijeng dealing, inferior evile AMD.
Even Michael Dell, after all those billions Intel gave hin, where is he now? He too should incur the wrath of the FTC or someone

 

[verndewd]

boy does he have an axe to grind. I figured he left from being disgusted but this may point to him being pushed out. Its not cool or even a commonly accepted practice to talk smack after you have moved on.

The less reliable comment has me puzzled, I wonder if AMD failure rates are higher than average in warranty lifecycles.

 

[Kewlx25]

The TLB bug was really not that much of an issue. Many were able to work their way around it with a bios update or TLB patch. The people that did get annoyed were the ones that did not do proper reaserch.

Not that much of an issue? When patched, your computer ran about 10-15% slower.. still better than any P4 ever made.

I'm happy with my i7 though

 

[Kewlx25]

[Bunch of Images]

I could just keep on posting images but I'll let you read the article instead :-

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

Now, middle of 2004. What was this joker saying - a person looking at the situation “with an objective set of eyes” would never buy AMD chips. ? Oh yeah? Could have fooled me - that looks a lot like intel being beaten soundly by a bunch of AMD cpu's.


If intel think they have any hope of this being used as 'evidence' they are once again, sorely mistaken. Fact is, in 2004 AMD had intel beaten in every department.

Yeah, but the Athlon64 couldn't warm your feet like a P4. Think of all the money saved by not buying space heaters.

Intel has spent quite a bit of time with better products and AMD, but the P4 era was not one of them. Mmmm... Bulldozer. I hope it makes the Nahalem work for it's title or even steals it.

 

[Chad Boga]

boy does he have an axe to grind. I figured he left from being disgusted but this may point to him being pushed out. Its not cool or even a commonly accepted practice to talk smack after you have moved on.

All those comments were made well before he moved on, by approx 3 years.

He moved on just before Barfelona was released.

Obviously he knew that trying to promote that turkey would be a blow to his credibility he would not be able to recover from.

Anyone know what Randy "Mr 40%" Allen is doing these days? :lol:

 

[verndewd]

All those comments were made well before he moved on, by approx 3 years.

He moved on just before Barfelona was released.

Obviously he knew that trying to promote that turkey would be a blow to his credibility he would not be able to recover from.

Anyone know what Randy "Mr 40%" Allen is doing these days? :lol:

That being said Henri is a dumbass. geeze , talk about crapping in your own bed.

 

[Chad Boga]

ROFL. You gotta be working for intel to be so full of complete **** Chad.

I'm just addicted to TRUTH, baby.

Intel will I suspect also raise the issue of AMD not sharing errata detail with Intel, thus necessitating the less optimised code path.

With any luck you'll actually read what I posted and see that the FTC have made far more reaching demands than your simple non-fix. Being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again isn't part of the bargain. Intel have been told to undo the damage they have done.

And you seem unable to grasp that the FTC has been making ambit claims here.

How are they going to quantify "damage" done, if Intel's argument of not being under an obligation to help AMD falls through?

Now I dunno a huge amount about US law, or the FTC, but I'm thinking the FTC don't lose a lot of cases. Amirite?

Do a google search on "FTC loses" and you will find some interesting articles, including the FTC losing against RAMBUS.

Here is a snippet to consider

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=abu7sMuPGhEw

The FTC case will be heard before an administrative law judge next year, possibly in September, the FTC said. Whichever party loses can take the case before the full commission for review. If Intel loses before the commission, it can ask for a review by the U.S. Court of Appeals in any state where the company does business. If that fails, Intel could then take the case to the Supreme Court, the FTC said. The commission can’t take the case to outside courts.

 

[Guest]

Yes I'm well aware of how long appeals and other nonsense can take. I dunno, are you in a hurry or something? Or would you rather intel lost and appealed, just so they can lie and cheat through benchmarks for longer?

Even if they win this one, they'll lose in the end. Intel have made so many enemies that their fate is sealed one way or the other.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Lets be serious here, this isnt one thing, its many, and whether the FTC "wins" all of them isnt the point, nor the problem.
Often times, things are cited individually as it pertains to the entirety of the case, as it pertains to other portions of the case, and some carry their pwn merit, tho are lessor things, and negotiable, and placed there for those reasons as well.
Im up in the air with the compiler issue, and guess well have to wait n see