So AMD is suing Intel. First, I'd suggest reading through the 48-page complaint filed by AMD. Given that Vinney is in law school, I've seen a few of these things, but this one is surprisingly legible even for us non-legal types :)

I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:

I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:

1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard

Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.

The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.

The list goes on and on.

What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.

Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.

What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.

One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.

Your thoughts?


View All Comments

  • smn198 - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link

    #98 Ha ha! Reply
  • Anonymous - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link

    time for new Blog? Reply
  • viditor - Monday, July 11, 2005 - link

    Prakash patel - "Can i run my A8N-SLI motherboard without a graphics card? What will be the result on my display?"

    There is no onboard graphics on the the result would be a black screen as there would be no place to plug the screen into. :-)

    As to dealers in Mumubai, I have no idea...
    Try going to and search around for the best prices...
  • Prakash patel - Monday, July 11, 2005 - link


    this is completely offtrack. but i couldnt think of any other place where i could get an assured reply.

    1) What would be best dealer(in Mumbai / Pune) to get a bargain on a nvidia 6600 GT graphics card?

    2)Can i run my A8N-SLI motherboard without a graphics card? What will be the result on my display?

    thanx in advance and extremely sorry if i have been a bother.
  • Anonymous - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link

    Anand, donde esta? Reply
  • Stan - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link

    It is indisputable fact that Intel has forced companies to use only their products in a distinct effort to squeeze AMD out of the desktop microprocessor business. It is the definition of anti-trust and is clearly against the law. Though I'm sure there are legal loopholes to get around it. But it is undeniably unfair business practice and has been happening for many many years.

    In fact, if pressured, I’d be willing to present Intel memos that prove they have been performing unfair business tactics for years.
  • viditor - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    Steve Husted - "All I see here is a lot of hearsay. "Intel strongarms OEMs." Okay, where's the proof? You trust AMD saying it?"

    1. Just like Anand has, I have witnessed these strongarm tactics firsthand myself (though not as much as Anand has...)
    2. Please note that Intel HAS NOT DENIED them...their only response was that they haven't done anything illegal.

    "AMD stands to gain 50% stock price if they win"

    Winning or losing won't happen for years...and unless AMD was very confident of winning, that's a hell of a long time to wait and a lot of money to spend!

    "Maybe AMD should focus on their business instead of trying to gain market share in court."

    Without being allowed to fairly compete, they can only expect the same incremental gains they have been experiencing for their this point, a judicial remedy is a requirement, not a luxury.

    "I know at least 5 people that "will never buy AMD again" because of thermal issues"

    I guees that means that Intel's future is pretty dismal (at least if your logic is descriptive of the majority...).

    "Their marketing machine was successful even though some technologies were not. I said Intel is "smarter at how they go about selling processors" - and I stand by that"

    Due respect, but attributing Intel's success in tough times to their marketing team alone is fairly naive...
    To be clear, using their current control of the x86 market in order to force exclusive deals isn't marketing at all...nor is it legal.

    "64 bit on the desktop is not currently a smart move, anyway. When's the last time you needed >4GB threads?"

    Today...I was editing a large uncompressed movie in one chunk.

    "On PriceWatch, I see an AthlonXP 3000 = $98. An Athlon64 3000 = $132. The way I see it, that's a 35% price jump for 10% perf jump. Why would you do that? Please don't make rash claims that are easily dismissed"

    OK...AthlonXPs have been discontinued for awhile now, so you were looking at old stock being dumped. That might help you see it differently? (trying not to be rash...) :-)

    "P4 has had 36bit extensions that allow up to 64GB of RAM, anyway, in 4GB chunks in the same fake way that "AMD64" does. I feel sorry for those chumps that bought AMD64 processors back in 2002"

    Mate, you really need to go back and read that "don't make rash statements" comment you made!
    Let me help...I believe you are speaking of PAE
    This let's you use up to 64GB of system memory, that's true...but you are unable to address more than 4GB (i.e. you cannot open a file larger than 2.5 GB, because Windows reserves 1.5GB for system use).
    Of course this has NOTHING to do with AMD64, which does not need PAE at all for the first 128GB, and with PAE can address up to 256 TeraBytes.

    "Define "a lot slower," please. A lot hotter? Until recently, you had to use a third-party fan/heatsink for AMD where the one that comes with the Intel processor was fine. More expensive? Yes, on the outset. You're paying for a name in the same way that you pay for a Rolex or Lexus. Intel charges what people are willing to pay. YOU might not be willing, but 80% of the market is"

    1. Intel isn't really a LOT slower...on average it's close to 10-30% slower at an equivalent cost basis...
    2. Intel's processors (except the P-M) are about twice as hot as the equivalent AMD. This is by far the highest temperature differential in the history of the x86!
    3. The expensive part is really the whole crux of the suit and why it's important for the average guy that AMD win...
    80% of the market presently choose Intel because they have no choice! With OEMs having (as the former head of Compaq put it) a gun to their heads to supress AMDs presence, the largest customers (business) don't have an AMD system available for purchase that has the requisite service that only OEMs can provide.
  • cristick - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    Well, I think this debate is just at it's beginnings, but one thing it's clear: it will be "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING". From my point of view, even if AMD wins and INTEL will be forced to stop or at least diminish their unfair way to face the competition, after a little while INTEL will continue those strategies to impose their products and control the market. That's so bad, because in the last 2 years INTEL didn't bring anything really new from technologically point of view, just a little bit of an evolution. And by the way, why consumers must buy an entirely new platform when INTEL decises to make even small changes on their line-up and pay a big deal of money for that, even if performances are not justified? Examples: SDR--->RDRAM--->DDR--->DDR2 Reply
  • Phaxmohdem - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    People have been compaining about the timing of this suit throughout the thread. "Why didn't they do it ealier when they had more problems.... blah blah blah" Here is my reasoning for why this is a great time to go forward:

    1. AMD has been making money for a change with their processors. Their limiting factor right now (besides Intel) is prodcution capability. They have built up capital to sustain a long legal battle they will most likely win.
    2. Even if they do not win this will get the company more recognition, and more mredia exposure throughout the whole process.
    3. Nearing the end or perhaps during the legal proceedings, their brand new Fab will be coming online dramatically increasing their production capabilities. (If the ruling is in AMD's favor, their will most likely be increased demand for their products, they will then be able to meet)
    4. Even with better desktop/server processors if AMD does not act now, their situation will only continue to deteriorate.
    5. Japan's antitrust ruling gives them some leverage.

    Just my .02
  • shockerweb - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link

    intel is a miserable company which should crumble to amds massively better empire. intel sucks and they even admit it. amd pwns Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now