Intel, AMD Settle Antitrust Disputes, Intel to Pay AMD $1.25 Billion

[Trotter]

Well if they was such a great company they would be doing fine no matter what :|

i mean there current stuff is basically on the level of socket 775 intel chips :\

Ah, the voice of youth and inexperience.

You may not remember the socket A Athlons, or the Athlon 64s... but Intel sure does. Both of these processors lines kicked the dog stuff out of Intel and scared the rest right out of them. Why? Because they destroyed everything Intel had out there or could bring out. Those fast chips that Intel now has are a direct result of what AMD did as Intel had to get to work and actually innovate. Oh, wait... they only did some of that as the rest they just copied what AMD had done.

So, why didn't AMD catch up to Intel? Well, when the big boy (Intel) has the vast majority of the computer manufacturers by the 'nads (with their unveiled threats and compensation monies to just use Intel's heaters/chips), it is hard to garner any kind of widespread public knowledge for your company. If no one has ever heard of you then no one will buy from you. Those funny lists of how to tell if your kid is a hacker was actually a reflection of public sentiment regarding AMD.

The very fact that AMD has survived all these years is a testament to them and their ability to innovate without the billions Intel uses for R&D. The server market was where AMD got a lot of attention because their server chips were not only fast and dependable, but they were cheaper than Intel's chips. Maybe the name "Opteron" might ring a bell? The Opty chips AMD released for mainstream sockets were simply amazing and performed much better than the actual mainstream enthusiast chips.

Intel's billions has paid off for them with the C2D, C2Q, and iX lines. These chips are truly great, but everyone would still be pushing P4s had AMD not seriously rocked Intel's boat. AMD is now focusing on the mid to lower end of the market because they cannot match Intel's R&D budget to be able to catch up. i still find it hilarious that most of the things Intel is baking into their chips came either directly or indirectly from AMD's Athlon lines.

 

[Apokalipse]

Well if they were such a great company they would be doing fine no matter what :|

No, even the best can only take so much.

I really don't think Intel would have bothered with their illegal tactics unless they really felt threatened by AMD. Obviously they were - especially against AMD's K8 chips, when Intel was trying to push Netburst. That was probably when AMD were at their strongest; and yet, they still found themselves unable to gain market share.

Despite AMD having clearly superior products and pricing, big OEM's such as Dell, HP/Compaq, Toshiba, etc were all selling Intel stuff exclusively or almost exclusively, and in a fair market it doesn't make sense to run a business like that.
The only conclusion is that the market definitely wasn't fair; And it crippled AMD.

Certainly 1.25 billion dollars can't replace their lost market share, and it can't magically give AMD the technology they might have developed with the extra resources they would have had.

But I'd say that considering their circumstances, AMD has done an amazing job to stay alive and remain as competitive as they are.

i mean their current stuff is basically on the level of socket 775 intel chips :\

i7's aren't such a big leap from Core 2. But you're missing the point.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Intel's billions has paid off for them with the C2D, C2Q, and iX lines. These chips are truly great, but everyone would still be pushing P4s had AMD not seriously rocked Intel's boat. AMD is now focusing on the mid to lower end of the market because they cannot match Intel's R&D budget to be able to catch up. i still find it hilarious that most of the things Intel is baking into their chips came either directly or indirectly from AMD's Athlon lines.

I'll agree that QPI could be considered a reaction to hypertransport but AMD wasn't the first company to come up with a IMC. Also Intel has already implemented an on die pcie controller which AMD doesn't have and will soon have integrated graphics on the cpu which AMD won't have until significantly later.

 

[Apokalipse]

I'll agree that QPI could be considered a reaction to hypertransport but AMD wasn't the first company to come up with a IMC. Also Intel has already implemented an on die pcie controller which AMD doesn't have and will soon have integrated graphics on the cpu which AMD won't have until significantly later.

Intel didn't think of putting a GPU on the CPU before AMD did. It's just taken AMD longer to develop.

 

[KSoD]

The simple fact is this. It doesnt matter what tactics were used by Intel. Sorry but it is true.

So you can sit here and claim all you want that Intel did this or that blah blah blah. AMD was still selling CPU's despite the rumors/facts/what ever. Despite the "scare tactics" Intel used AMD was still selling. AMD was still a known name and still was better. AMD created their own problems with the Phenom Line or whatever line it was that had a major setback for them. When that happened is when AMD fell by the way side and Intel started to thrive more. They came out with the Q line and then the i line and have really become a good CPU again.

AMD fell back cause they had to go correct the issues they had before they could start up again. So make all the rightous claims that Intel is such a bad guy and blah blah. AMD created this themselves. Buying out ATi and the fallout from the bad drivers 1 after another has hurt them more than anything Intel could ever do. People are so fed up with the lack of drivers that they are switching back.

That has been their biggest problem. They should have left ATi alone and they would be so much better off. That was their biggest blunder. AMD was still up and coming despite what Intel was doing and only after they bought ATi did things start to move more backward than forward for them. It was a internal created issue. It had nothing at all to do with anything Intel had done.

 

[Apokalipse]

The simple fact is this. It doesnt matter what tactics were used by Intel. Sorry but it is true.

Why?

So you can sit here and claim all you want that Intel did this or that blah blah blah. AMD was still selling CPU's despite the rumors/facts/what ever. Despite the "scare tactics" Intel used AMD was still selling.

Yes, they were selling. But how much were they selling? And how much would they have sold without Intel's illegal tactics?

AMD was still a known name and still was better. AMD created their own problems with the Phenom Line or whatever line it was

The biggest problem with the Phenom was that it didn't work too well on their 65nm manufacturing process.
If they had the resources to make 45nm happen sooner, I am certain the Phenom processors would have done far better.
Look how much of a leap the Phenom II was. And yet, architecturally speaking, it's hardly different from Phenom I. Just a few minor tweaks to improve IPC a bit. It was pretty much a matter of having the resources to put into manufacturing.

Yes, it is a pretty big deal when large companies are being forced to sell Intel 95% or 100% exclusively. It means you literally can't sell to more than about 5% of the market via those channels, which comprise of an extremely large chunk of computer sales worldwide.

These companies are responsible for designing and producing working technologies that don't exist yet. And if your competitor has many orders of magnitude more resources to do it with, how do you compete?

If there was a science competition between two equally abled people, but you limited the resources of one person to about the extent of a few pieces of paper and some glue, while the other person had pretty much everything you could find in a high school science lab; how would you expect the former person to compete?

That has been their biggest problem. They should have left ATi alone and they would be so much better off. That was their biggest blunder.

If AMD didn't acquire ATI, AMD wouldn't have their own chipsets, and there wouldn't be nearly the same level of quality in IGP's as we have.

Plus, now AMD are able to compete in multiple markets. The Radeon 3000 series was just the start of how AMD helped to improved the GPU technology.
Okay, RV670 wasn't particularly competitive against G92, but it was a step in the right direction. A step which followed on to the success of the RV770, and now the Cypress GPU's. I think that AMD really played a big part in the execution of their success, by providing new innovation, R&D resources, and tactics.
For example, the tactic of making a small die that's cheap to make, but which also has high performance was basically AMD's idea. And it was AMD that worked together to get GDDR5 finished; part of the reason why they could make the RV770's die so small.

AMD and ATi are stronger together, and there has been definite improvements to computing technology as a result, not to mention the benifits we've all had from having very cheap products accessible to more people. Remember how much Nvidia wanted to charge for their G200 cards, for instance?

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

One thing mak, AMD is still best bang for the buck on the lower end IMO. Used to be all ends, back in the 754/939 days till the C2D was released.

But, with out AMD, VIA would be the only competitor to Intel, and they don't really do performance chips, they are more in the micro pc market, or industrial market. Most ITX boards I have seen are VIA... Which would never have been a cause for Intel to push into C2D.

But yea, good for AMD, it will help them for now, but I do like the new 5xxx cards they have with the displayport, even though I haven't seen a single screen for that port yet... Still, ATI/AMD attempts to stay at there best, and push newer technology with some of the lowest amounts of funds ever compared to Nvidia/Intel...

But, I will agree, the ATI/AMD merger/buyout w,e you wanna call it, was in the long run, good for both of them.

I find it funny though how mak (i think) states that the drivers are trash... I haven't had a single issue with ATI drivers since 9.1, and to this day, I have more issues with Nvidia drivers on chipsets and GPUS than anything.

 

[Wildside]

AMD buying out ATI is a tough risk but they managed to pull it off, even though it took a while for things to settle down. I mean, because of ATI, AMD is getting a great head start NOW in the GPU business instead of Nvidia. Price vs peformance, best bang for buck. AMD stock went from $3 back in 2006 to over $6 now after buying ATI. If i had the money back then, i would of invested.

 

[zmatt]

The simple fact is this. It doesnt matter what tactics were used by Intel. Sorry but it is true.

So you can sit here and claim all you want that Intel did this or that blah blah blah. AMD was still selling CPU's despite the rumors/facts/what ever. Despite the "scare tactics" Intel used AMD was still selling. AMD was still a known name and still was better. AMD created their own problems with the Phenom Line or whatever line it was that had a major setback for them. When that happened is when AMD fell by the way side and Intel started to thrive more. They came out with the Q line and then the i line and have really become a good CPU again.

AMD fell back cause they had to go correct the issues they had before they could start up again. So make all the rightous claims that Intel is such a bad guy and blah blah. AMD created this themselves. Buying out ATi and the fallout from the bad drivers 1 after another has hurt them more than anything Intel could ever do. People are so fed up with the lack of drivers that they are switching back.

That has been their biggest problem. They should have left ATi alone and they would be so much better off. That was their biggest blunder. AMD was still up and coming despite what Intel was doing and only after they bought ATi did things start to move more backward than forward for them. It was a internal created issue. It had nothing at all to do with anything Intel had done.

You just said what I was afraid to say for the longest time.

I realize more and more everyday that the success of K8 wasn't because K8 was so great, it was because netburst was so bad. But before I explain I need to give some background info.

CPU design is a very costly and risky business. You make a gamble on what technologies you think you should implement in your cpu to make it the best. Intel gambled on deep pipelines and high clock speeds and lost out. AMD made a better choice with K8's design. It was because of this that Athlon in general was so successful. With ti first came out P3 was at the end of where it could really go and P4 was a bit of a fiasco. Not to say that Athlon was all powerful. At the end of the life of Athlon XP, Northwood P4s actually caught up to it and beat it. K8 put the balance back on AMDs side, but as soon as Intel dropped netburst and moved to core AMD was in a world of hurt. I don't know if AMD could have beaten core to be honest. Even if they were smarter about their designs. Intel just has so many more resources. they would have spent AMD into oblivion.

It's easy for the old guys to forget, and the young guys not to even know that for most of AMDs life they operated on the fringes. Instead of competing in the performance sector they would make decent performing chips and undercut Intel. AMD always ahd the bang for buck angle. K6 was never faster than P6, but it was much cheaper and got you playing Quake for much less. In that sense Athlon was a fluke. Intel tripped up and because of this AMD could play on the performance market. They could only succeed at this because intel was making a terrible architecture. In top form AMD couldn't and can't compete with Intel on R&D. They spent more on developing nehalem than AMD is worth.

If AMD wants to survive they need to come back to reality and realize they can't beat Intel at it's own game. instead they need to go back to making cost effective mid range cpus that undercut nehalem. There they can have a chance. If I can get close to i5 750 performance at $110 per chip then I would be hard pressed to stay Intel. but I'm not seeing that right now. Instead of doing that AMD is wasting time, money and production capacity on making high end chips that don't have a hope of competing on even terms with i7. They are hardly a match for 45nm Core 2 Quads as it is.

If I were AMD I would end all Phenom production today. Any chip that can't be sold for $150 would be killed. All chips would be moved to 45nm and i would hire out the 65nm fabs to 3rd parties for much needed cash. i would work on making a next generation low cost chip that can compete with midrnage and low end Intel offerings for at least 3/4 the MSRP, 1/2 if possible. The idea is to do what K6 did in the 90's. use a cheaper platform with almost as good performance at a fraction of the cost. Sure you can't max all of your games but the difference between high and ultra high settings will be such a large monetary investment the large majority of people will opt for AMD chips. I would also work on a real Atom competitor. Atom isn't a purpose built netbook chip. it's meant for smart phones. Oh snap! If AMD designed a purpose built netbook chip and accompanying platform using ATI integrated graphics (which beats Intel gma silly) they could eaily sweep the large netbook market. Bank!

 

[Apokalipse]

I realize more and more everyday that the success of K8 wasn't because K8 was so great, it was because netburst was so bad.

CPU design is a very costly and risky business. You make a gamble on what technologies you think you should implement in your cpu to make it the best. Intel gambled on deep pipelines and high clock speeds and lost out. AMD made a better choice with K8's design. It was because of this that Athlon in general was so successful. With ti first came out P3 was at the end of where it could really go and P4 was a bit of a fiasco. Not to say that Athlon was all powerful. At the end of the life of Athlon XP, Northwood P4s actually caught up to it and beat it. K8 put the balance back on AMDs side, but as soon as Intel dropped netburst and moved to core AMD was in a world of hurt. I don't know if AMD could have beaten core to be honest. Even if they were smarter about their designs. Intel just has so many more resources. they would have spent AMD into oblivion.

The first Athlon was a lot better than the Pentium 3.
If Intel had have upgraded the Pentium 3's architecture instead of using Netburst, they still would have been behind AMD for some time.

Despite what it might appear to the consumers, Core 2 wasn't this sudden leap after a revival of the Pentium 3. The general Core architecture is the result of years and years of research and development, and billions and billions of dollars - which was happening all the time even when Netburst was their main architecture.

And Intel could afford to do all that research and development at the same time that they were using Netburst as their main architecture because they held a monopoly on the market.

As I said, the damage done to AMD is in large part their inability to put nearly as much resources into R&D - which shouldn't have been the case in a fair market.
Had AMD been able to spend even half as much as Intel, I am certain they would be far more competitive.

I mean, the original Phenom processors didn't do as well as they should have. We all know that.
Was it because AMD are not very good at designing processors? I don't think so.
At the time that Phenom processors were being developed, AMD were having an extremely difficult time staying alive financially. And that wouldn't have been the case in a fair market.
The Phenom II is pretty much what the original Phenom processors should have been. And it came onto the market fairly late to compete against Intel.

If AMD had the proper resources, I am sure the original Phenom processors would have basically been what the Phenom II's are now. And Bulldozer could have started development a full 1-2 years earlier. From what I've seen, Bulldozer might give the i7's a run for their money, IPC wise.