AMD welcomes EU fine on Intel

Serves them right!

I have been telling people this all along, intel does not innovation because it simply copies whatever AMD does. I'll run with an Am386DX40 before I touch an i7. Intel is pure evil and those who buy intel are weak and have no backbone or moral values.

Stuff whatever runs fastest at the moment. If it says intel you lose.

Hey, ever wondered what happened to the days of "AuthenticAMD", "CentaurHauls", "CyrixInstead", "SiS SiS SiS " and "UMC UMC UMC " sharing the same platform ? Intel killed those days because for them monopoly is the best business model ever. They just keep AMD around to say "its not monopoly" and also to steal ideas from.

Do you remember what intel did to VIA when they made the P4X266, the first non-intel chipset motherboard for the pentium 4?

intel is nothing more than a dirty playing bully and they need to be hurt.
A lot.
 
Rouxenator said:
It is, has, and always will be a piece of crap CPU for piece of crap people with too much piece of crap money and a piece of crap sense of what to buy.

Thats all intel is.
Click to expand...

lol thats going to offend lots of Intel users.

The only reason why I only buy AMD is bacause of its 3DNOW+ instruction sets, which Intel will never have.
 
blaaislaai said:
lol thats going to offend lots of Intel users.
Click to expand...
Just like the lawsuit offends intel, their users also needs to be offended and reminded that they are supporting a corrupt corporation that does not care ziltch about innovating the x86 line of CPUs, all they care about the the money they can make with shady deals.

blaaislaai said:
The only reason why I only buy AMD is bacause of its 3DNOW+ instruction sets, which Intel will never have.
Click to expand...
I buy AMD because it is the fastest alternative to evil. In the past I have used Cyrix, VIA and UMC. Anything not intel is good.
 
I think it's a disgrace. AMD has built its entire business leeching off Intel's instruction sets, using questionable laws to push, dodge, duck and dive. Tall poppy syndrome strikes again.
 
Arthur said:
I think it's a disgrace. AMD has built its entire business leeching off Intel's instruction sets, using questionable laws to push, dodge, duck and dive. Tall poppy syndrome strikes again.
Click to expand...

No - AMD was called upon to help intel secure the 8086 deal with IBM for the original PC. They were vital to intel's success.

Then a few years down the line AMD started making better and cheaper chips than intel, like the Am386DX40. So intel tried to kill them off, forgetting what AMD has done for them. Well it backfired and now anyone can make x86.

So since the start intel had no desire to improve x86 - in fact they tried to kill it with IA-64 and that failed bigtime. The industry standard for 64bit now is the AMD made x64 which intel also copied.
 
Rouxenator said:
No - AMD was called upon to help intel secure the 8086 deal with IBM for the original PC. They were vital to intel's success.

Then a few years down the line AMD started making better and cheaper chips than intel, like the Am386DX40. So intel tried to kill them off, forgetting what AMD has done for them. Well it backfired and now anyone can make x86.

So since the start intel had no desire to improve x86 - in fact they tried to kill it with IA-64 and that failed bigtime. The industry standard for 64bit now is the AMD made x64 which intel also copied.
Click to expand...

No offence Arthur, but for once I agree with Rouxenator.

Having said that though, just buy whichever CPUs work best for you. Fast CPUs are less important these days. What matters more is RAM and graphics capability.

I mean AMD is clearly dominating in terms of laptop performance now with the monster ATI chips going into those things (you can run Crysis on the HD3200, granted not well, but it starts!). Intel's graphics chipsets are really hurting them. In that case buy an AMD laptop because they are a better deal at this point.

There is also no denying that the fastest Intel chips are faster than the fastest AMD chips. Then again AMD chips are not nearly as expensive as Intel chips, motherboards for AMD chips are cheaper then Intel boards and ATI graphics cards are cheaper than Nvidia cards (this is assuming you want to run crossfire or SLi, if you don't then this is not a factor). Therefore Intel desktop systems are generally going to be faster and will run cooler, but will be very expensive, while AMD desktop systems will generally be slower than Intel systems, I still think you get more performance for your rand with AMD.

This is of course just my opinion, I will buy a CPU based on my needs and the price : performance ratio of the system.

Having said all of that though I don't like Intel as a company as I honestly believe that they are not as innovative as AMD and their way of doing business is akin to Microsoft's. This would still not stop me buying an Intel system if it were the best fit, and the best deal, for my needs though.
 
Last edited:
Intel is a better CPU...

Its competition, it's business... I have no problem with AMD, I currently have a Q6600 and for the price I got it at, there wasnt a AMD to compete with it... I do agree though that AMD is a good buy, seeing as their mobos are cheaper with better feature sets...

You guys are taking this to personally, Intel has been fined... Thats that, its part of business... This is good for the consumer in the long run though...

But the fact of the matter is that INtel is a better CPU atm, maybe not the better choice in some cases, but they have better chips.
 
SlyFly said:
But the fact of the matter is that INtel is a better CPU atm, maybe not the better choice in some cases, but they have better chips.
Click to expand...

I agree, but these days a CPU does not a computer make. One definitely needs to consider the entire package and when you look at that, you can get a whole lot of AMD for your Intel money.
 
One thing I think we should watch is the integrated Intel graphics chips. I suspect they may use this to lock in games etc.
 
Sackboy said:
One thing I think we should watch is the integrated Intel graphics chips. I suspect they may use this to lock in games etc.
Click to expand...

That would be a seriously bad move, the last thing Intel needs is to further alienate Nvidia. Lets face it Intel integrated graphics has a long way to go to catch up to ATI and Nvidia.

That would put games back into the stone-age, it would not be allowed.
 
porchrat said:
No offence Arthur, but for once I agree with Rouxenator.

Having said that though, just buy whichever CPUs work best for you. Fast CPUs are less important these days. What matters more is RAM and graphics capability.... etc
Click to expand...
Which is better than what is quite beside the point. Get what you prefer, or RYO, or do without.

But going with the This Is Better Than That argument for a moment: I much prefer the kind of society where people are allowed to produce products, even inferior ones, without police interference.

I'm totaly agnostic about brands or companies or technology. This is always changing, thank-goodness.

But what I do care intensely about is whether we punish the successful simply because they are successful. This is what is happening with Intel, I believe. Ultimately this action by the EC is motivated by politics and greed, and justified by immoral laws.

Maybe it's time Atlas Shrugged.
 
Arthur said:
Which is better than what is quite beside the point. Get what you prefer, or RYO, or do without.
Click to expand...
Actually Intel are acting in a manner that deprives the consumer of access to AMD products this denies the consumer the right to choose which product they prefer.

But going with the This Is Better Than That argument for a moment: I much prefer the kind of society where people are allowed to produce products, even inferior ones, without police interference.
Click to expand...

How about a society in which companies are allowed to use their position of market dominance to retard the growth of a competitor?

In your world monopolies would crush competitors and as a result would have no reason to innovate. Technological stagnation.

But what I do care intensely about is whether we punish the successful simply because they are successful. This is what is happening with Intel, I believe. Ultimately this action by the EC is motivated by politics and greed, and justified by immoral laws.
Click to expand...

Intel is not being punished because it is successful, read the findings. Intel telling a manufacturer that they can have a rebate if they don't buy a competitors product is a practice that in the end removes the choice of which system to use from the hands of the consumer. They are essentially paying manufacturers to boycott AMD.
 
porchrat said:
Actually Intel are acting in a manner that deprives the consumer of access to AMD products this denies the consumer the right to choose which product they prefer.

How about a society in which companies are allowed to use their position of market dominance to retard the growth of a competitor?

In your world monopolies would crush competitors and as a result would have no reason to innovate. Technological stagnation.

Intel is not being punished because it is successful, read the findings. Intel telling a manufacturer that they can have a rebate if they don't buy a competitors product is a practice that in the end removes the choice of which system to use from the hands of the consumer. They are essentially paying manufacturers to boycott AMD.
Click to expand...
When it comes to economics and business, I'm more darwinian than socialist. Libertarian, more accurately.

Offering rebates to choose your products is good business practice! There is nothing wrong with that! If it puts your competitors out of business because they can't offer or match rebates (essentially an agterskot discount) to match yours, tough luck! Adapt or die -- come up with a better widgit, market or distribute it better, or cheaper, or whatever. But to define that as wrong or illegal is insanity. It is also immoral, in my view.

Your right to choose does not bind another party to provide you with that choice. How dare these barbarians fine Intel for being smarter businessmen - there is nothing immoral or unethical about rebates, even if they're paid for exclusivity. I mean, If I made deck chairs for a business, I'd be quite happy to give Makro an extra discount (by way of rebate) if they agreed to carry only my products and not my competitors'. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that per se - they will of course decide if it's good for their business ... and if enough people actually want that choice, then Makro will have to provide it or lose out. It's the way gravity works. It's fine. It's moral. And it's the way freedom works.

By the way, I am NOT making a case for a no-rules free-for-all. I am saying our rules should be grounded in justice and the natural law, which always bans force or fraud.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Offering rebates to choose your products is good business practice! There is nothing wrong with that! If it puts your competitors out of business because they can't offer or match rebates (essentially an agterskot discount) to match yours, tough luck! Adapt or die -- come up with a better widgit, market or distribute it better, or cheaper, or whatever. But to define that as wrong or illegal is insanity. It is also immoral, in my view.
Click to expand...

They weren't offering rebates for choosing their products, they were offering rebates for not using ANY competitors product, or for only using certain amoutns of a competitors product. That is the part that the EU has a problem with. I agree that there is nothing wrong with offering rebates or discounts for using a large amount of Intel chips, but telling manufacturers to delay the launch of AMD products, prevent the launch of AMD products, or not use AMD products completely? That is the opposite of libertarian I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter what you say, monopolies cannot be allowed to abuse their position, Intel are not competing on an even footing here. At that point something needs to be done to prevent technological stagnation.

Intel is going out of it's way, not only to maintain it's own market dominance (there is nothing wrong with this), but to undermine the growth of other companies. By all means beat them to a deal, reduce prices to score the deal, but don't purposefully sign deals designed to undermine the growth of a competitor. In a sense denying that competitor the right to equal and fair competition, how libertarian of you Intel.
 
Last edited:
AMD - The future is fusion.

Basically that means they are going to add some GPU cores to the CPU. So for example you'll get a 10 core CPU of which 8 are x86-64 cores and 2 will be GPU cores. They can do this because of the massive plunge they took to buy ATI.

Based on intels track record they will copy AMD and their current GPUs, despite is global domination in terms of marketshare, are no match for AMD.

This is going to be interesting, even if CPU integrated GPU concept dies again as they did with the Cyrix Gx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X