Report: AMD Says Intel is in Breach

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Jonpaul37[/nom]no it's not, these are sad times, the economy is horrible and what do people do? point fingers at one another, there is no hope left for human kind...[/citation]
Would you rather AMD just sit back and watch it happen? Then things would be even worse.
 
AMD needs to go under. The price of an entry level CPU needs to be at least $2500 for the DIY crowd but sold to Dell for $800.00. Catering to a small number of enthusiats is not economical and let's face overclocking is unethical. Everyone should own a Dell.
 
Jonpaul37 do us a favor and fall on something sharp.....

that type of thinking is what WONT lead us out of this economic downturn.....


GO AMD
 
People in the tech industry aren't exactly feeling a very bad economy. That's a strong generalization of course, but I can't remember any IT personnel complaining about not being able to buy the latest in CPU technology.
 
[citation][nom]anonymous_anonymous[/nom]I want both CEOs (AMD & INTEL) go at it in a box ring with bare-knuckles. That would be sweet!!![/citation]

I meant to say boxing ring, but it should definetely be bare-knuckle boxing match. Go AMD and the rest of you "DUDE, YOU GOT A DELL POS!!"
 
AMD is being ridiculous in that they seem to be counting on public "pro-underdog" sentiment and lawsuits, rather than faster and better processors to compete for market share with Intel. In short they haven't recently built competitive processors, so they opt to compete by dragging Intel through the PR mud, and trying to take cash from them and gain market share through the courts.

Intel on the other hand does appear to have pulled some pretty dirty and probably illegal tricks with regards to OEMs, and that is under investigation in the EU and US. What a stupid time for a company that is accused of anti-trust violations to seek to kill the license of a competitor, even if the competitor is in breach it might not be too bright of a move.

But a contract is a contract. Each side should be forced to live up to the very things they themselves agreed to in the contract, PR campaigns and public sentiment notwithstanding. If contracts can be violated because one signatory can drum up enough negative sentiment about the other, then the whole system comes crashing down and becomes PR based, not law based.
 
if both licesnes terminate intel will have to stop production of all i7/i5's and all future chips with 64bit or integrated memory controllers? Big game of chicken here. Intel is defefinetly heading down the "hubris" path, and that almost alwasy ends up with you getting smacked by the anti-monopoly stick.
 
I think we, the general public, have insufficient information to know what is the correct or legal outcome of this. We do not know the contract contents, and we do not know how AMD formed the new business.

Considering the current negative perceptions against Intel, the level of civilian distrust of large corporations due to the economic crisis, and the various anti-trust accusations against Intel, this seems like a poor move by Intel. AMD will be able to portray itself as David standing off against Goliath and possibly gain sympathy from consumers, and Intel will seem like a monopolistic corporation trying to crush competition.

I, like others, am glad to see that AMD is willing to fight against a corporation with vastly greater resources. Like others, I will be watching this closely as it will have a significant impact on the future of the CPU and PC market (even if it is a renegotiation of licensing agreement costs).
 
Also if i remember history right ibm contacted amd to produce intel chips same chips different names as to spur competition amd has since made us believe then terribly failed us in that it can be considered real competition with intel.

Either way this squabble will hopefully just end without any real recourse against either company.
 
If Intel pulls AMD the license from being allowed to produce x86 processors. There goes the whole Nehalem architecture and most of the Core 2 line of processors since they require AMD licenses to operate.

It's going to spell disaster for both companies and throw back years of innovation. It is definitely not a wise choice especially with the current economic environment.
 
[citation][nom]PrangeWay[/nom]if both licesnes terminate intel will have to stop production of all i7/i5's and all future chips with 64bit or integrated memory controllers? Big game of chicken here. Intel is defefinetly heading down the "hubris" path, and that almost alwasy ends up with you getting smacked by the anti-monopoly stick.[/citation]

AMD loses any x86 rights, and Intel loses x86-64 and integrated memory controller rights.

Everyone should be on AMD's side right now, since a win by Intel would create one helluva monopoly. And class, who loses when a monopoly is formed? That's right, it's us, the consumer.
 
[citation][nom]seboj[/nom]AMD loses any x86 rights, and Intel loses x86-64 and integrated memory controller rights. Everyone should be on AMD's side right now, since a win by Intel would create one helluva monopoly. And class, who loses when a monopoly is formed? That's right, it's us, the consumer.[/citation]

Agreed. Most of my system are now AMD since I support competition. Their processors aren't bad at all. My Phenom II roars and suit all my needs.

Only my portable machines are Intel based including my Macbook.

I back AMD fully on this one and will not help those who want to remove competition.
 
[citation][nom]mindless728[/nom]I say go AMD.Though, what would actually happen to the core i7/i5 with AMD's integrated memory controller and 64bit extensions[/citation]

They get dumped in that desert landfill with all those E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial Atari 2600 cartridges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom