Intel Admits No Wrongdoing After FTC Settlement

[NuclearShadow]

I find it hard to believe that Intel would drop the PCI-E or planned to. In fact this is news to me does anyone have any official announcements that they actually planned to do such? It would seem to be a very strange move on their part mainly because this would make them far less attractive to consumers. I know that their aim is to make the CPU handle all graphical functions as well eventually and while that may someday become a reality at this time they would just be shooting themselves in the foot because they are far from giving a dedicated video-card performance.

 

[jsc]

As much as I like Intel CPU's ...

"We didn't do anything wrong, but we will stop doing it."

 

[hixbot]

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]I don't see how Intel cannot be accused of monopolistic behavior w.r.t. their Nehalem chipsets. Refusing to license other companies to create Nehalem-compatible chipsets is certainly no better than embedding your browser in your O/S.Somehow, I'm not sure that Liebowitz understands the significance of that particular item.[/citation]
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]In that case...nVidia should be forced to ensure the same level of performance for PhysX regardless of the processor, whether it be an Intel processor, AMD processor, nVidia GPU or ATI GPU. nVidia purposely uses x87 instructions to prevent PhysX from performing at the same level on CPU's as it does on their GPU. If PhysX were properly coded using x86/SSE....Core i7 would have no trouble at all handling PhysX.[/citation]
Those aren't around the same lines at all. Intel is refusing to let other companies design chipsets that can work with its nehalem CPUs. They are deliberately cornering that market for themselves. In the case of Nvidia and Physx, they coded the software the way they want to. No one can tell them they have to code their software a certain way. Obviously you're right, its coded to run poorly on CPUs, but why should a GPU company be concerned about how their software runs on a CPU?

In my mind you can't correlate intel's cornering of the chipset market (monopoly) to nvidia's decision on how to compile it's software. They are drastically different issues, and I believe the FTC should of pushed for Intel to open the chipset doors to Nehalem.

After all, these are PCs we're talking about, an open platform. Hardware vendors are supposed to be able to offer alternative components. If you buy an Intel CPU, you shoudln't be forced to use an Intel chipset. From the looks of the FTC settlement, Intel wanted you to be forced to also use a Intel GPU with an Intel CPU. Basically they want every component to be Intel, or it won't work with an Intel CPU.

This is not even close to comparable to how Nvidia codes their software, they could of made it so PhysX does not run at all on CPUs. If Nvidia wrote PhysX for x86 (owned by intel), they would need to pay license to Intel for their GPU running x86. Do you also expect Nvidia to write CUDA to work on CPUs?
Intel doesn't write its software to run on GPUs, and why should they?

 

[fazers_on_stun]

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]I don't see how Intel cannot be accused of monopolistic behavior w.r.t. their Nehalem chipsets. Refusing to license other companies to create Nehalem-compatible chipsets is certainly no better than embedding your browser in your O/S.Somehow, I'm not sure that Liebowitz understands the significance of that particular item.[/citation]

IIRC Intel retaliated for nVidia refusing to license their SLI to Intel, so that nVidia could continue their chipset monopoly. IMO nVidia got what they deserved in that one instance..

 

[dragunover]

[citation][nom]M-ManLA[/nom]Not sure if all of this was fair to Intel, considering it was only price fixing that they did and they got all this stuff regulated against them. But Intel doesn't mind. I do believe Intel might start to think about suing companies now though. And If I was Intel, I would throw a shock to everyone's face and try to acquire NVidia. I know this most likely won't happen, but it will catch people's pants down.PS Isn't Intel one of the forerunners for PCIe? Why would they try to get away from it unless they developed something better? Intel's tech is Intel's tech, and just like AMD begged the courts to get some of Intel's tech back in the day, everyone just needs to become innovative like they were. AMD can do it, but they just don't have to best staff that is smart enough.[/citation]
It's not that AMD doesn't have smart people, it's that they don't have enough of them to work on all the projects and further not enough money to provide money to projects...

 

[dragunover]

[citation][nom]fazers_on_stun[/nom]IIRC Intel retaliated for nVidia refusing to license their SLI to Intel, so that nVidia could continue their chipset monopoly. IMO nVidia got what they deserved in that one instance..[/citation]
By not letting customers an extra choice? If I was in a store and couldn't buy something because the owner says "we don't allow those anymore" I would just walk out of the store and buy it from someone else..

 

[Computerrock1]

wohoo, a win for the little guy!

 

[fans 6]

Oh, belive me, my father worked at Intel, went to AMD, and then came back to Intel.

He left AMD why? He said the atmosphere i snot innovative at all. He says there is a lot of work politics which I don't get what he means by. He says that they get enough funding if you are in the right project, but many don't. And, he said there are way to many contractor employees there.
I am an Intel fanboy & always will be one because Intel chips are faster, period, I don't care about cost. And it is AMD's fault they are in the situation they are in. Why? It is their fault they were not aggressive in marketing, that they did not innovate. They have been using the same CPU architecture for how long now? They need a tick tock cycle, I hope Intel copyrighted that too lol. Plus,I just want to say, AMD fab yields are HORRIBLE, why don't they start using 21rst century technology to make CPU's now also eh?

 

[waffle911]

[citation][nom]fans 6[/nom]He says that they get enough funding if you are in the right project, but many don't. And, he said there are way to many contractor employees there…They have been using the same CPU architecture for how long now? They need a tick tock cycle, I hope Intel copyrighted that too lol. Plus,I just want to say, AMD fab yields are HORRIBLE, why don't they start using 21rst century technology to make CPU's now also eh?[/citation]
You think maybe it would have something to do with not having enough money to give everyone what they need and instead picking and choosing projects they think will be more lucrative in the long run? Intel's exclusionary incentives in the early Noughts were to blame for AMD running out of money. You would have been hard pressed to find a consumer PC with an AMD CPU in them at the time because most manufacturers didn't even offer them…because of Intel's exclusivity deals. If you wanted to use AMD processors, Intel would raise the volume prices for their CPUs on you. So it was cheaper for makers not to use AMD CPUs, to no fault of AMD. Intel deprives AMD of mainstream consumer marketshare, AMD doesn't get enough money for R&D. AMD doesn't get enough money for R&D, AMD hires specialized outside contractors who have already done some of the R&D, reducing effective costs to fit their budget. Intel really left a scar on AMD and as a result, AMD has been left to the bottom end of the market. As for chip yields, that has a lot to do with lack of R&D funding. They seem to be turning out decent processors at low enough cost, though. As for CPU architecture, you do realize that Intel couldn't get 64-bit processing to work properly on their own, I hope. They use AMD's 64-bit machine code (albeit rebranded, but still identical) to get their Core 2 and Nehalem processors to work as well as they do. The least Intel could do is return the favor, which this settlement will now force them to do.

 

[brianfulcher15]

I agree with some points but i dont agree withthe bundeling clause. Why shouldent i be able to get a discount becuase i cose to buy all one manaufactureers parts?

 

[brianfulcher15]

just becuase amds cpus have sucked compaired to intels, we get this... Maybe AMD should finally release its bulldozer and we'll see how it compaires to intels. My gut tells me intel will still win again..

 

[wawa sxm]

we customers are loosers...we intel dont have competition they sleep...just like the p4...nvidia not making chipset for nehalem will mean a stagnation of performance in that segment

 

[eddieroolz]

All of us enthusiasts knew that Intel did some shady deals with OEMs to keep AMD out when AMD ruled. We all knew that Intel compilers ran fastest on its own processor. Now that FTC made it public, Intel starts crying foul.

Admit it like a honest company, Intel. You engaged in anticompetitive acts - its not a secret. Don't try to buy sympathy.

 

[fans 6]

About the person who said that Intel should return the favor for AMD letting them use 64 bit....

Well, AMD should return the favor because Intel is the one who got AMD started in business, AMD lived of of Intel's design for the first 10 years o fits existence. the 8xxx series chip's? Remember?

I sincerely don't know why people complain about Intel's prices so much? Seriously, if you don't like the prices, get lost and buy AMD. I am happy that even though they have a slightly monopolistic position, they continue to innovate and improve our lives with technology. They are not the sluggish fat cats who we usually call monopolies after. Anti-competitive? Sure, they did, but should it be illegal? No, I am sure, if AMD was teh head honcho, they would do the same, just as Microsoft, IBM, Exxon, Oracle, and Arcelor-Mittal do. I am sure if you people suddenly made a huge company, you would do the same, and so would I. Except I would have a moral code to just keep on the R&D money coming and keep innovating to be a good monopoly like Intel.

And, AMD should return the favor for Intel letting them use PCI-E, USB 1, 2, 3, and soon light peak.

The only thing Intel hasn't innovated, their cubicles and if you go into the Santa Clara HQ, the elevators have these cheesy posters on them that say "Conventional Thinking Stops Here", "No Green Badges Allowed", " The Future Is With You".

 

[Travis Beane]

This should have been added to the article (any of Nvidia's comics from intelsinsides.com would do, they're all quite humorous).