Intel Claims Flawed Evidence in $1.3 billion EU Antitrust Case

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]This isn't about patents....it's about Intel's unfair and illegal business practices from 1999 until 2006.[/citation]
I believe the parasites he refers to are the Lawyers, Lawmakers, and Investigators in theis case...
hey did nothingto produce anything and yet they will reap vast monetary compensation...
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]If someone illegally gives me their money because I asked them to, I get caught, they don't get that money back. That would be rewarding accomplices in the crime. That shouldn't happen unless they were paramount in stopping Intel from doing illegal activity and that they did so willingly more or less from the start. That didn't happen, so they don't get rewarded.[/citation]
I wonder how nervous Dell were during this whole process.
 
You don't seize to impress me blaz. I didn't know you were that much into philosophy as well. As I was going through the forums, I was thinking of responding to that person's posts about the world being cut-throat and stuff, but you've already done so. I share the exact same sentiments pretty much.

Just because some stupid business men don't know how to do business properly, wisely, and effectively, that doesn't give them the right to play dirty.
Ah... If only people would play fair and just be competitive, that would be nice. Heck, we could even be happy with a monopoly if that were the case. Reap its advantages and not have its disadvantages.
Utopia would really be nice, but alas, a lot of countries (more specifically, people who lack values) don't even seem to be ready for even a Socialism/Communism.

I just hope that justice, in it's purest sense, will be done in Intel's case.
 
The rumour was that they were intending to use AMD at some point, however demand couldn't be met so they dumped the idea for the time being. Whether that's true or not, I can't say.
 
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]The rumour was that they were intending to use AMD at some point, however demand couldn't be met so they dumped the idea for the time being. Whether that's true or not, I can't say.[/citation]

I've read that the demand problem is why AMD's Llano APUs weren't used. Whether or not it is why AMD's previous and some of their more powerful mobile CPUs aren't used, I don't know. I'd say that the heat problems and maybe power consumption play a big part of that.
 
Apple have changed from being a year to 18 months behind on CPU tech to being rather current. Had they not done so, and AMD had been able to stockpile enough Llanos... well, makes you think, doesn't it?

Still, their margins are bad enough as it is without Apple driving them down further.
 
why they talk about cometitors. intel have no competitors. unless you count amd, which is only 1 anyway.
 
[citation][nom]icanttiemylaces[/nom]why they talk about cometitors. intel have no competitors. unless you count amd, which is only 1 anyway.[/citation]

Intel has competitors in different markets. For the majority of the CPU markets, AMD is a competitor for Intel (I don't know why you wouldn't count them), AMD and Nvidia are competitors for Intel in the professional and enterprise GPGPU markets, VIA is a competitor for Intel and AMD in some very low end x86 CPU markets, and there are far more such examples. Heck, we could even go into history and there have been several other competitors for Intel and AMD in the CPU arena, even recently there was Transmeta just a few years ago.
 
probably although he has a point, amd havent been competitive for a long time now, whatever went on between them and intel i thought had been sorted out between them. This just sounds like the eu see intel as a cash pinata and who knows they need the money. has anyone got any links to any of the evidence in the dealings between amd/intel that spawned this? I've heard people say they did something bad with there compiler, but you have to think, its called the "intel" compiler lol, surely its as much other manufacturers responsibility to make there cpu's work properly with that compiler as it is intels if not more so.
 
[citation][nom]tonytonytonytony[/nom]probably although he has a point, amd havent been competitive for a long time now, whatever went on between them and intel i thought had been sorted out between them. This just sounds like the eu see intel as a cash pinata and who knows they need the money. has anyone got any links to any of the evidence in the dealings between amd/intel that spawned this? I've heard people say they did something bad with there compiler, but you have to think, its called the "intel" compiler lol, surely its as much other manufacturers responsibility to make there cpu's work properly with that compiler as it is intels if not more so.[/citation]

The fine is four years old. The EU is simply not letting Intel get away with not paying it after all these years. This is an old antitrust lawsuit over Intel's anti-competitive tactics with the P4 versus Athlon 64 generations and I don't think that a compiler has anything to do with it. AMD and Intel have settled, but Intel was also fined for their actions by the EU and it seems that Intel has yet to pay the fine. Beyond that, AMD is being quite competitive with Intel. Not in every CPU market, but in several. AMD is doing excellently in the server/enterprise markets and the low/mid-ranged notebook markets.

Furthermore, if you take say an FX-8120, disable one core per module, overclock it significantly, and it will then be able to compete with the non K edition i5s in integer performance per thread, such as gaming performance, even if you overclock the non K edition i5s by up to 25% (about the limits that non K edition LGA 1155 i5s can go, granted a very good motherboard just might be able to bring that up to 30%). This comes from the module not needing to share resources between two integer cores and is an about 25% increase in performance per Hz. Cutting core count in half also reduces power consumption by about 30-40% even though it significantly improves lightly threaded performance, granted at the sacrifice of highly threaded performance, so it also increases overclocking headroom significantly as well.

Without doing this, the FX-8xx0 CPUs are already competitive with the i7s in highly threaded performance. So, AMD is still competitive if you know how to spend a few seconds to disable unnecessary cores. This can also be done on the six core FX CPUs to similar effect, although the quad core FX CPUs wouldn't be as forgiving do to being reduced to a mere two cores and without even Hyper-Threading Technology to make up for it. Messing around with some P states can also give even more improvements, granted this is more advanced work.
 
AMD isn't doing at all well in the server/enterprise markets as far as I've heard... if you can prove otherwise, it'd make me a happy man.

I don't understand the lack of undervolting articles on FX - it'd make a lot of sense to look at this, even now we're 9 months further down the road.
 
bulldozer isnt competitive with i7's highly threaded!!, its a match for an i5, and i7 is considerably quicker, particularly the hexacores. bulldozer is not bad at x264 encoding but really thats about it on the multithreaded front otherwise for an 8 core its fail. and whats the point in hobbling a cpu disabling modules to make it match, just save the money you will spend on a cooler to overclock the bulldozer and buy the right cpu in the first place.

i'm not defending what they did, but the evidence against intel seems to be partially based on implications and what he said or she said rather than actual evidence, and i can see why they would want to put there side across to, because the way the vendors talk about it its like intel will punish them, but that could be just how they perceive it, intel may see it as i've made you a really good offer, you either take it or dont, its entirely up to you, in one sense the vendors are as guilty of damaging amd as intel is, they werent actually forced, they just accepted a very good offer because it made sense to them, if it was really evil, perhaps they could have flagged it up at the time. Its a bit like letting a hitman off the hook because the money was so good, how could he not do it.
 
intel payed apple to help them move over to x86 from powerpc and in return apple would only use amd, not really very different to this, perhaps apples would be cheaper if an amd based system was an option so why arent the eu chasing them, amd had a gurn about that too but got nowhere, this is just normal business really. as above you can look at it either way, as a company being evil and word it that way, or a company simply making a better offer than the competition and word it that way.
 
[citation][nom]graham2000[/nom]bulldozer isnt competitive with i7's highly threaded!!, its a match for an i5, and i7 is considerably quicker, particularly the hexacores. bulldozer is not bad at x264 encoding but really thats about it on the multithreaded front otherwise for an 8 core its fail. and whats the point in hobbling a cpu disabling modules to make it match, just save the money you will spend on a cooler to overclock the bulldozer and buy the right cpu in the first place. i'm not defending what they did, but the evidence against intel seems to be partially based on implications and what he said or she said rather than actual evidence, and i can see why they would want to put there side across to, because the way the vendors talk about it its like intel will punish them, but that could be just how they perceive it, intel may see it as i've made you a really good offer, you either take it or dont, its entirely up to you, in one sense the vendors are as guilty of damaging amd as intel is, they werent actually forced, they just accepted a very good offer because it made sense to them, if it was really evil, perhaps they could have flagged it up at the time. Its a bit like letting a hitman off the hook because the money was so good, how could he not do it.[/citation]

Why buy a cooler? FX's stock coolers are more than enough. Furthermore, yes, the FX-8150 is competitive with the i7s in highly threaded performance. The FX-6xx0 CPUs are competitive with the LGA 1155 i5s in highly threaded performance. Heck, the Phenom II x6s are a little ahead of the i5s, yet the FX-8xx0 CPUs are ahead of the Phenom II x6s in highly threaded performance, so even if I hadn't checked myself, I'd still be able to see that the FX-8xx0 CPUs are significantly better than the i5s. They don't quite match the i7s, but they are close enough to be competitive and are much cheaper anyway.

Disabling modules? You didn't even read what I said because I never said to disable modules. Giving an OEM a huge rebate only if they don't use your competitor at all is not simply making a good offer. That's trying to shut out the competitor completely. That the OEMs went along with it was no better than what Intel did. It was strictly anti-competitive and Intel should be punished for it.
 
you live in crazy land if you think a 8xxx is competitive with an i7, and special crazy land if you think an fx6xxx can compete with an i5, really crazy special land, take a look at more than just a few photoshop benchmarks, they often barely beat the older x6, or dont even beat it, and the fx8150 gets beaten by an i5 as many times as it wins. they are cheap for a reason, there are a few situations where fx cpu's make sense but its really only a few.
 
[citation][nom]johnty1986[/nom]you live in crazy land if you think a 8xxx is competitive with an i7, and special crazy land if you think an fx6xxx can compete with an i5, really crazy special land, take a look at more than just a few photoshop benchmarks, they often barely beat the older x6, or dont even beat it, and the fx8150 gets beaten by an i5 as many times as it wins. they are cheap for a reason, there are a few situations where fx cpu's make sense but its really only a few.[/citation]

They lose in software that isn't able to effectively use all of their cores. They don't suck in performance with software that can effectively use all of their cores.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom