[BarracksSi]

Holy cow....

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050712/eu_intel.html?.v=4
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...leID=165701507
http://news.com.com/EU+antitrust+off...3-5784428.html

[Franz Josef]

It's heating up. AMD collected some good "evidence" from clients - Dell and Sony among them. Now I wonder if Intel will be as good as MS at defefending their monopoly ......

[ghoti]

Apparently, the Intel compiler also did some nasty things on AMD CPUs (PDF).

I hate monopolies, and I am very unhappy about Teh Switch simply because it means that Intel has the absolute monopoly on the desktop market. So I hope that this will result in more serious punishment than with Microsoft ...

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by ghoti Apparently, the Intel compiler also did some nasty things on AMD CPUs (PDF). I hate monopolies, and I am very unhappy about Teh Switch simply because it means that Intel has the absolute monopoly on the desktop market. So I hope that this will result in more serious punishment than with Microsoft ...

No, they don't have an absolute monopoly, as AMD is there and drives Intel to improve. An absolute monopoly is one with NO competitors! Even Microsoft is not a true monopoly! They have just enough competitors to keep them from being one. Stong-arming is another issue altogether.

ALL large corporations use "strong-arm" tactics to improve their position while lessening that of their competitors. That applies to Intel, Apple, AMD, Ford, you-name-it! Intel is most likely guilty, But I wonder what tactics AMD uses to gain any possible advantage. What does Apple do? What about McDonalds?

Too much hypocrasy, here! I'll side with one or the other when they can prove that they, themselves, aren't involved in their own set of nasty practices!

[sCreeD]

Mwahahah... Oh wait, we're on their side now...

Actually the legal definition of monopoly does not mean =>99% market share. In the US, 60% was the traditional tipping point and only if the company used their dominance coercively.

We've been seeing the Wintel empire take several hits. Microsoft's decision to use IBM's wares for the Xbox 360 is quite notable.

Regardless, the fact that Apple is switching and announced it with Intel on site does no preclude using AMD in the future. If Apple had announced "We're switching to x86" and mentioned AMD and Intel in passing (because no representatives would want to show up together) then would've been more trepidation. The announcement had to be done loudly and clearly with Intel on scene.

But, like I said, once it's done Apple buying Intel or AMD is a non-issue.

AMD is feeling the competitive pressure and anti-trust whining is part of that. Having said all that, Athlons are still my PC CPU of choice.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by sCreeD Actually the legal definition of monopoly does not mean =>99% market share. In the US, 60% was the traditional tipping point and only if the company used their dominance coercively.

My dictionary says "Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." How some well-paid judge/attorney defines it does NOT change its actual definition! (definition taken from that cute little dictionary widget - so y'all can look it up! ) Any time there is a "legal definition" you can rest assured that money is changing hands!

Originally Posted by sCreeD AMD is feeling the competitive pressure and anti-trust whining is part of that. Having said all that, Athlons are still my PC CPU of choice.

Now THAT I agree with. I could not tell you whether or not AMD makes a better chip, but I would definitely choose their stuff, just for spite's sake! And yes, AMD is just whining. Their lawyers have found a nice cache of dough and want in on it!

[sCreeD]

Any time there is a "legal definition" you can rest assured that money is changing hands!

Agreed, particularly since even the 60% mark has been thrown out. Count the number of markets Microsoft dominates. Which one did the US government take them to court for? The browser "market".

AMD needs to answer the 64-bit, low power laptop CPU challenge and Apple just might buy their wares. I believe the fact that they don't have an x86 solution for the mythical PowerBook G5 is the key reason I believe Apple dropped IBM and chose Intel.

Well that and Intel's volume of production.

[Luca]

Actually, AMD's weakest area is mobile stuff. Intel's Pentium M is just better, mainly because it's very low power. Now, in other areas, especially the enthusiast market, AMD beats Intel by a ton. I recently read a review of the Athlon FX-57 (their newest 2.8 GHz, 64-bit CPU) and they only compared it to the previous high end FX-55, the dual-core X2 4800+, and the Athlon 64 3200+. They didn't even bother including the Pentium 4 EE or Pentium D in the benchmarks because it would have been embarrassing.

The one area where Intel's ahead in the desktop market is content creation. Pentium 4s do better at multimedia editing than Athlon 64s. The other thing is that AMD's dual core CPUs are much more expensive than Intel's. But that's a wash because the Athlon 64 X2 has a much better inter-CPU connection than the Pentium D (better multitasking performance), and because the Pentium D requires a new motherboard and power supply while the X2 does not. Overall, AMD has better desktop CPUs than Intel, and most of their chips cost less and perform better than Intel's offerings. The only reason Intel's doing so well is because of all these exclusive deals they have with various PC manufacturers. AMD has to go after small companies and people who build their own machines.

A little overview of how Intel and AMD compare:

- Intel has the amazing Pentium M, while AMD has the slightly slower Mobile Sempron and faster but power-hungry Mobile Athlon 64.

- Intel's budget chip is the anemic Celeron D, which despite being better than older Celeron chips, gets absolutely spanked by the desktop version of the AMD Sempron. We're talking a 1.8 GHz Sempron outperforming a 3.2 GHz Celeron by 20-30% in several benchmarks.

- Intel's mainstream desktop chip, the Pentium 4, tends to cost just a little more than AMD's equivalent, the Athlon 64. It also doesn't perform as well except for things like video editing and MP3 encoding. It's also stuck at 3.8 GHz permanently (Intel is not even trying to break that barrier anymore), while the Athlon 64 has room to move.

- Intel's dual-core processor, the Pentium D, doesn't have a great interconnect between the CPUs. It's pretty inexpensive considering you're getting two Pentium 4s, but you have to buy a new motherboard to support it and a new power supply to support the new motherboard. By contrast, the Athlon 64 X2 is significantly faster and a better rounded processor that also only needs a motherboard BIOS update for compatibility, but it costs almost twice as much (over $1000 for the highest end model, and they're hardly in stock at all).

[Mugge]

Nice executive summary Luca

Well, I can't say this strongarm attitude or EU raids surprise me, it looks a lot like the MS & EU business.

It's probably going to be a while before I learn to like Intel in a Mac.

[sCreeD]

People in the States haven't seen many big anti-trust actions since... oh... well Teddy Roosevelt.

Okay, I'm kidding. The AT&T breakup was the last one of note where something actually happened. And that is slowly undoing itself.

Imagine, government(s) applying the law... against corporations no less. Huh.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Mugge It's probably going to be a while before I learn to like Intel in a Mac.

Then you might want to read some of the preliminary speed reports coming out.

http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1175

[Mugge]

Yeah yeah yeah. I know the reasonable logic behind this all too well.

But I still don't like it