Intel Gets Start of Antitrust Backlash from OEMs

[enigma067]

Intel Gets Start of Antitrust Backlash from OEMs

By Erik Sherman | Jan 4, 2010

A recent announcement that Lenovo would use CPUs from AMD (AMD) in a couple of its ThinkPads rather than chips from Intel (INTC) is the beginning of the price the chip giant could end up paying for its alleged anticompetitive activities: OEM customers shifting their orders.

In two separate statements, Lenovo said that it would use AMD chips in the ThinkPad X1003e ultraportable as well as the 13-inch ThinkPad Edge series, which is aimed at small- to medium-sized businesses. This is the first time that the ThinkPad brand, originally owned by IBM, will have used non-Intel chips:

An ultraportable PC positioned between a notebook and a netbook, the ThinkPad X100e can be equipped with AMD’s Athlon Neo single-core and dual-core, as well as the Turion dual-core processors. The ThinkPad Edge model, the smallest of three offerings in this product family and targeted at small and midsize businesses, may be paired with dual-core AMD Turion and Athlon Neo processors. The 14-inch and 15-inch ThinkPad Edge versions will still be powered by Intel’s Core 2 Duo chips.

Before you say, “But those are the small systems,” remember that the smallest systems, like netbooks, are the ones whose sales are really growing. To put it differently, AMD may not be in the prestige machines, but they’re going into the ones that may get the greater volume sales.

Starting in mid-November, I began noting that the upshot of all the antitrust activity focused on Intel would be customer defections:

PC vendors get completely wary of being sucked into the investigatory void and start shifting a significant portion of their purchasing to AMD. Forget fines and forget legal fees. That’s going to be the real price tag for years of allegedly using money and influence to keep a competitor constrained, and it will be a number with a whole lot of zeros.

I think the Lenovo switch is the first sign of that real price tag. Who knows how large a card it will need to be to record all the potential long-term loss for short-term gain?

Image via stock.xchng user MeHere, site standard license.

http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10004584/intel-gets-start-of-antitrust-backlash-from-oems/

 

[Chad Boga]

Chad, I don't think Sandy Bridge is going to be late at least from the processor side. Intel showed off Sandy Bridge at 2009 IDF. If anything I think it is the next gen chipset that will slow the release of Sandy Bridge down. I think they used Ibex Peak as the chipset to work with Sandy Bridge.

I base my comments on the odd story I have seen on the net that suggests a slippage is quite possible, but also I wonder if Intel will want to keep Sandy Bridge as an ace up their sleeve for when Bulldozer ships.

Looking at the AMD lineup currently, if Intel raises the clock speed of all their processors by 133Mhz or a tad more, that alone would inflict a lot of hurt on AMD and I think Intel are holding back on their clockspeeds. That would seem a simpler approach than bringing forth an even more dominant implementation of the x86 architecture, before they need to.

Hell, Intel on 32nm can release Hex versions at the same clockspeed of current Quads.

That is also why I think they won't be hurrying with Sandy Bridge.

 

[pausert20]

Chad, All excellent points. It seems you are hinting that Intel is intentionally holding back. This also goes along with your express views on the Cori i5 and Core i3 cost structure as it currently is. I think that if Intel does not get the market penetration they think or want with the Core i5 and Core i3 processors the price will be coming down sooner than later. This would mean that Intel cares more for market penetration of their new 32nm processors than caring about keeping AMD at a higher market share volume even with the lawsuits that are ongoing.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

First of all, going to 55 to 40nm, there wasnt 1 full mode used, and by ATIs own claims, the differences between the 4xxx series and 5 series was greater than going from 80nm to 55nm, and the R600 to the R670, where we saw alot of changes, like dumping the ring bus, plus back end corrections, besides a huge size decrease in silicon, but not as severe a change as going from say, the xtx1900 to the 2900, according to ATI

Note: Notice the increase between 670 and 770, and adding 480 SPs wont create that much change

I was refering to others using 28nm, and no, they dont use full nodes neccesarily. If ARM uses this, itll be a tremendous boost, and even going to 22nm wont be seen as a huge advantage is what I meant.

Id add, using GDDR5 is silicon friendly as well

 

[Kewlx25]

It is far from clear that Bulldozer will be out in Q1 of 2011.

I think Q2 is their best case scenario, with Q3 being just as likely.

But Intel already has a 22nm full node updated arch for Nahalem planned for mid 2011.

I think you are off on your dates here.

If all goes to the tick tock schedule, Sandy Bridge will come out in Q1 2011 on 32nm, then in Q1 2012, 22nm is due.

However I am beginning to suspect that Sandy Bridge and 22nm will come at least 1 QTR respectively beyond what the tick tock schedule of a year or two ago was indicating.

Wikipedia: Sandy Bridge is expected to be released in early 2011
Googled Sandy Bridge: "Intel Tick Tock slows down: Sandy Bridge slips into 2011" (it got pushed from 2010 into 2011 because of a bad market)

I spent about 2 hours looking up info on Sandy Bridge and what I've read says it's suppose to be mid 2011 and lots of those postings are from mid 2009, unless there's more recent info stating Sandy is getting pushed back again. Either way, it's ready. Intel will have 22nm when AMD is still at 32nm and Intel will be far into the next die shrink once AMD finally moves to 22nm.

In early 2009 there was an engineering paper I read that said Intel was about 3-4 years ahead of EVERYONE for fab R&D. It was only one source, but from what I see, Intel seems to have the best yields and the newest tech ready to deploy.

 

[Chad Boga]

Some crazies earlier in this thread seemed to take exception to my prediction that AMD would be selling down it's stake in Global Floundries.

Now I wouldn't have thought that was any kind of brash prediction, but rather a pretty obvious one with all things considered.

Anyway, to help some people accept this eventuality, I thought I would post a comment made recently by GF's CEO:


http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE60J1TQ20100120

Chief Executive Doug Grose told Reuters last week that AMD will reduce its stake in the company over time and continue to focus on chip design.

 

[verndewd]

with GF incorporating chartered that makes their GF portfolio much larger so they can sell down. That being said I think AMD being without a penis is rediculous. i mean fab.
Now they can join the ranks of transmeta as the eunuchs of the silicon set.

Having said that, people hoping that AMD remain closely linked to fabs isnt crazy or fanatical, its very practical. Lets here it for all the dehumanizing crazies pushing the fragmentation paradigm for society .

Lets all just be like Oreilly,Hannity,Colmes , garafalo and olbermann and crap in each others faces. Good puppet youll work well in the decline of western civilization. Sit !! roll over!! Bark !! good puppet.

You always have a choice to embody the idea of being humane or to deride and subject others to inhumanity. Its a choice that reveals intent.