RSSAMD Japan Gets Evidence Against Intel
By Nate Mook | Published December 16, 2005, 2:35 PM
A Tokyo court on Friday granted AMD Japan access to evidence compiled by Japan's Fair Trade Commission on rival Intel, which the chipmaker plans to use as part of a lawsuit it filed against the company in June.
The JFTC had found that Intel violated antitrust laws by forcing quotas and coercing customers not to buy AMD processors. Specifically, one OEM was coerced into agreeing to purchase all of its CPUs from Intel, while another was mandated with an Intel-imposed quota of 10 percent non-Intel purchases.
Other findings concluded that Intel began to use its "Intel Inside" program and market development funds to limit computers to exclusively carry its processors after rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) began to grow its market share in 2000 to 2002. Transmeta was also said to be a target of Intel's.
"We believe the JFTC's evidence will show what people inside our industry already know well -- that Intel abuses its monopoly position to threaten and intimidate OEMs not to do business with AMD," AMD executive vice president Thomas McCoy said in a statement.
"What's at stake is the future of computing in a world economy that grows more dependent on microprocessors daily. Consumers across the globe are being harmed by Intel's abusive monopoly- preservation tactics through higher prices, stifled innovation and reduced choice," he continued.
The Japanese case is separate from a lawsuit AMD filed against Intel in the United States in July, alleging similar anticompetitive practices.
Last April, the European Commission also began looking at Intel with a watchful eye after it was discovered that the procurement practices of several of its member states calling for Intel-based machines violated EU statutes.
In the U.S., AMD claims that Intel sabotaged the performance of its CPUs by crafting a routine for its compiler to build programs along un-optimized -- and perhaps even dangerous -- code paths for AMD processors, all while optimizing performance for its own "Genuine Intel" chips.
AMD and Intel are great companies
Intel makes low-cost high-preformance processors without alot of anti-virus protection
AMD makes high-cost mid-preformance processors with alot of anti-virus software
and example: AMD has enhanced virus protection Intel uses "Executional Disable-Bit" technology
to be honest they both need work...
here is an example of prices and speeds from both (on my supercomputer)
I use 4 Intel Pentium 4 XE10000 PROTOTYPE -class processors, delivering 20GHz each at a price of $6,423.43
I could go with 4 AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 X3 PROTOTYPE - class processors, delivering 20GHzeach at a price of $7,500
Intel has lower prices
so whom do i think is better?
INTEL RULES IN SPEED
AMD RULES IN ANTI-VIRUS
I think they should merge to form AMDINTEL (or sumthin like that)
Score: 0
|Fool. Ghz != Speed. AMD processors apparently(I'm not an engineer) perform 9 ops per clock, while Intel ones perform 6. Your Intel supercomputer should perform around 120,000,000,000ops/sec, and your AMD one should perform 173,700,000,000ops/sec.
Intel ones are better at multiple tasks though, making that 120 extremely efficient for doing lots of different things. AMD ones are better at single non-switching tasks, since without Hyper-Threading switching tasks always loses you a few cycles.
Price for AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.1ghz): $70CND
Price for Intel Pentium 4 (3.4ghz): $399CND
Performance for common tasks: Nearly Equal*
-Equal with a minor overclock.
Performance for games: Athlon XP 2800+ wins.
*excludes videorending and crap 0.5% of the population does
Edit: Also, it was proven AMD has fair prices across the board. Intel on the other hand gives "kickbacks" or discounts to larger companies that reduce costs quite vastly and make it economical to get their processors, while at the same time charging the average person an insane amount for what they get.
Edit2: All in all, everyone should be supporting AMD just so they can survive. Like many said, competition is good. It promotes advancement.
Edit3: I don't see how a processor can have anti-virus "software". A mobo could have a hardware chip to enforce security settings, but having the processor do so would lower performance.
Score: 0
|1 question:
Do you have *any* clue at all, or is it just in relation to procesors that you are totally and completely without one?
Score: 0
|PLEASE GIVE THE MAN A PILL!!!
Score: 0
|AMD is winning on everything.
AMD Athlon 64 kicks ass, and Turion 64 also kicks ass.
Intel has nothing to offer now.
The performance, temperature, and features. AMD has more to offer than Intel.
Score: 0
|In the States maybe, but here in Japan, not many people really likes AMD processors. It might be because Intel's limiting and all the sorts, but only some computer nerds like AMD, and most of the people still prefer p4 because there's not much necessity for performance ...
Score: 0
|Except that P4's cost a ton more...?
Score: 0
|And in Japan you also seem to suffer from a bit of "mob-mentality". Conformity is the word in Japan, from what I understand: probably why AMD hasn't made a real dent in markets like yours.
Score: 0
|It seems like AMD and Intel have switched places. Now AMD is selling the more expensive higher performance CPU's while Intel is being forced to sell cheaper value CPU's.
At the high end of the market AMD's dual core Opterons and Athlon 64 CPU's beat the pants off of Intel's dual core CPU's. It's the same story with AMD's socket 754 Sempron CPU's and Intel's NetBurst architecture Celeron CPU's.
Score: 0
|Two Words: Intel Sucks
Three words: AMD is better
One Phrase: I hope Intel goes out of business because their processors suck, and I am tired of working on Intel Based Dell machines every day and just showing me how bad they suck. You can look at World Benchmarks of The x2 3800+ Blowing away Intels "Most powerful" processor, the Pentium EE 3.6Ghz. Let alone the x2 4800+ killing it even Harder!
Score: 0
|...competition is good...FAIR and OPEN competition anyway.
Intel going under would not be a good thing--there needs to be competition otherwise AMD will charge high cpu prices too.
Score: 0
|agreed.
Score: 0
|That was 3 phrases.
:P
just sayin'
Score: 0
|I highly doubt that. I don't think AMD would charge more per processor, but I do think AMD would market higher end processors and cut production of lower end ones, forcing most people to upgrade to more top-of-the-line stuff.
I got my AMD Athlon XP 2800+ for $70 about a year ago, and it benches like a 3.4ghz P4 without overclocking. That's probably only $300 in savings.
Score: 0
|It would be just like Windows going from $45 to $199.
It would happen just like it did happen. ;-)
Score: 0
|Well...not quite. I can still pick up $240 Win2k CD's from stores and $199 Win98 SE CD's. Ofcourse, I'd be crazy to buy it for that much when XP is so much cheaper...but that's not quite the same as hardware prices. :P
Score: 0
|Okay...
I don't like Intel's marketing practices. That's easy...
But claiming intel wrote a compiler for *its own cpu* that wasn't optimized for AMDs? Sounds like they're just whining, to me.
Document the flaws of the compiler, submit it to Intel and the major development houses. offer a reasonable alternative, or fix and be done with it. That alone is no reason for a suit and bringing it up in this one makes them sound childish.
Score: 0
|It's true and provable. Intel will probably use the "we're not AMD engineers" excuse though...but they do have access to processor specs and designs.
The main issue was that 100% compatible processors crashed and burned on some programs, while they supported all the same features as supported Intel processors.
Also, some programs run slower for AMD processors even at equal ghz frequencies, while until recently a 2ghz AMD == 3ghz Intel.
Score: 0
|The intel C compiler is the one that's used when dealing with real world speed tests. If it's been written to do dodgy things on other chips then it has an effect on how fast those chips are perceived to be when preforming benchmarks
Score: 0
|Then perhaps another compiler should be used. My point is that it is the decision of the person/company doing the compiling, not Intel or AMD.
If the standard is screwy, drop it.
Score: 0
|"Intel will probably use the "we're not AMD engineers" excuse though...but they do have access to processor specs and designs."
So? Doesn't mean they have to write their programs for them.
You'd think...if it was *that* bad, people would start using something else. Programmers, as a rule, aren't generally stupid...
Score: 0
|True, but most programs that would be compiled with an Intel compiler would be ones utilizing Hyper Threading. Usually video rendering and such.
Everyone knows there's a large performance gap in that area(was it 40% I heard a while ago?), which *is* quite bad.
Score: 0
|Well said.
Score: 0
|