How true is this? intel sabotaging amd around 2005.

[boozzer]

https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac..._sabotaging_performance_for_no_visual/cwukpuc

vendors were paid to be exclusive. and compilers were built to perform like crap on amd hardware. that is crazy imo. 1 billion bribe and the fine is only 65 million. any company that doesn't repeat it in the future is stupid.

 

[Phynaz]

Please, not this again.

 

[TechGod123]

Yes its true. At the same time, the new CEO hasn't done any of this. No, that doesn't mean I'll support Intel now. I won't support a company with shady practices.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Absolutely, don't let anyone think otherwise ...

 

[dark zero]

At that didn't got repeated again, proof? The massive failure of Atom on phones. The only exception is the Asus Zenfone 2.

 

[Vortex6700]

That is true and well documented. Intel's continuing shady tactics are extremely detrimental to the market and innovation as a whole. It doesn't matter if somone else gets better performance with more advanced tech, they will always win, even if they have to threaten thier customers to do so.

 

[boozzer]

damn. well I hope the zen cpu is comparable. it just need to be on par or close with intel performance and I am buying.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Please, not this again.

Its called "beating a dead horse".

 

[boozzer]

can the snarky posters hold their horses? it may be old news to you, but I am just finding out about it.

the bridge is that way ---->>>

 

[RussianSensation]

can the snarky posters hold their horses? it may be old news to you, but I am just finding out about it.

the bridge is that way ---->>>

-Intel rewarded OEMs to not use AMD’s processors through various means, such as volume discounts, withholding advertising & R&D money, and threatening OEMs with a low-priority during CPU shortages.

-Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel’s compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs

-False advertising. This includes hiding the compiler changes from developers, misrepresenting benchmark results (such as BAPCo Sysmark) that changed due to those compiler changes, and general misrepresentation of benchmarks as being “real world” when they are not.

All of these are 100% true.

Luckily, AMD offered the superior CPUs when this was happening and owned Intel in IPC and gaming price/performance during Athlon XP+, A64/Opteron eras.

The problem is what happened in 2006 and onward - Core 2 Duo crushed anything AMD had and this was true for every year ever since. So the irony is that Intel bribed vendors and engaged in the anti-competitive business practices when AMD had the superior product. After 2006, these tactics weren't of much benefit since my C2D E6400 @ 3.4Ghz, and subsequent summer 2007 Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz smashed anything AMD had.

Of course for all objective PC gamers who owned PCs many years ago, we do want for Zen to be competitive. If Zen is very competitive, Intel might offer 6-cores on the mainstream or move down the 8-core offering to a more affordable $499-549 price level. There are lots of reasons why Zen being a good CPU is the best possible outcome for objective CPU owners.

However, you have to be realistic that 1 new AMD architecture cannot suddenly overcome Sandy, Ivy, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake and Cannonlake in 1 shot. Even Lisa Su has already commented that Zen is never going to be a 1 hit wonder that puts AMD back on the map. It's a start to a new CPU road-map that will have continuous improvements.

 

[boozzer]

I don't need zen to beat skylake or even haswell. it just needs ivy or close to haswell performance and amd would have my money when I upgrade next.

 

[cvance10]

I really hope AMD gets more competitive again. We have hardly seen anything interesting from the CPU sector since the release of Sandy Bridge. It hurts Intel too because people are holding on to their CPUs longer and not upgrading as much.

 

[boozzer]

I really hope AMD gets more competitive again. We have hardly seen anything interesting from the CPU sector since the release of Sandy Bridge. It hurts Intel too because people are holding on to their CPUs longer and not upgrading as much.

intel stagnating performance is by choice. it is why we need amd cpu to compete so badly.

 

[TechGod123]

I don't need zen to beat skylake or even haswell. it just needs ivy or close to haswell performance and amd would have my money when I upgrade next.

It'll be Haswell level performance. The patch showed a lot of interesting things.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Boozzer it is very true

second poster don't bother posting here, it clearly messes with your emotions

 

[Denithor]

Intel used shady business practices when their chips (P4 era) couldn't compete in performance. Then Core 2 launched and they no longer needed to play the games, they simply crushed AMD with superior performance.

Intel had to pay the price ($1.4B according to this site: http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5...billion-fine-upheld-anticompetitive-practices ) for their underhanded activity. But it cost AMD dearly. In the couple of years when they should have been selling massive numbers of chips and stocking their war chest, they couldn't get the time of day from OEMs due to Intel's anticompetitive practices. And since Core 2 dropped, AMD hasn't been competitive in performance or power consumption or anything.

 

[CHADBOGA]

But it cost AMD dearly. In the couple of years when they should have been selling massive numbers of chips and stocking their war chest, they couldn't get the time of day from OEMs due to Intel's anticompetitive practices.

AMD were capacity constrained at the time, so they couldn't have sold any more chips than they sold.

With the benefit of hindsight, Intel wasted money on those rebates, but I guess they were doing the ol' "Only the Paranoid Survive".

 

[TeknoBug]

There were a handful of games that intentionally ran poorly on AMD (or AMD GPU over Nvidia).

 

[BigDaveX]

AMD were capacity constrained at the time, so they couldn't have sold any more chips than they sold.

They could definitely have sold more to OEMs, even with their capacity constraints, but they'd never have earned enough money to pay for the major fab upgrades they needed before Core 2 arrived on the scene.

Plus, when you consider that in this time period AMD vastly overpaid for ATI, wasted a fair bit of money on Quad FX, and then had the whole Phenom TLB bug fiasco to deal with, you do have to wonder whether or not they'd have actually made wise use of any additional money they might have earned from 2003-2006 had Intel not been playing so dirty.

There were a handful of games that intentionally ran poorly on AMD (or AMD GPU over Nvidia).

Really? I thought gaming tended to be where the Athlon 64 clobbered Intel's pre-Core 2 line-up harder than anywhere else. And AMD's GPUs in general for the first few years after the buy-out were a lot slower than nVidia's, it wasn't until the Radeon 5870 arrived that they really started outpacing them.

 

[Phynaz]

second poster don't bother posting here, it clearly messes with your emotions

I'll post wherever I like, especially when it sets fanboys on edge.

We don't need to go over for the 1,000th time something that happened a decade ago.

We end up getting false crap like this posted.

The last time Intel committed 12 federal crimes with damages exceeding 20 billion and they were fined 65 million. The scheme cost them 1 billion to begin with.

How about I start a thread about the Opteron recall just because somebody hasn't heard of it? I'm betting you wouldn't too pleased about that.

 

[Sweepr]

How about I start a thread about the Opteron recall just because somebody hasn't heard of it? I'm betting you wouldn't too pleased about that.

Well mods are fine with this thread, so I guess you could do it.

 

[adamantine.me]

-Intel rewarded OEMs to not use AMD’s processors through various means, such as volume discounts, withholding advertising & R&D money, and threatening OEMs with a low-priority during CPU shortages.

-Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel’s compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs

-False advertising. This includes hiding the compiler changes from developers, misrepresenting benchmark results (such as BAPCo Sysmark) that changed due to those compiler changes, and general misrepresentation of benchmarks as being “real world” when they are not.

All of these are 100% true.

Luckily, AMD offered the superior CPUs when this was happening and owned Intel in IPC and gaming price/performance during Athlon XP+, A64/Opteron eras.

The problem is what happened in 2006 and onward - Core 2 Duo crushed anything AMD had and this was true for every year ever since. So the irony is that Intel bribed vendors and engaged in the anti-competitive business practices when AMD had the superior product. After 2006, these tactics weren't of much benefit since my C2D E6400 @ 3.4Ghz, and subsequent summer 2007 Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz smashed anything AMD had.

Of course for all objective PC gamers who owned PCs many years ago, we do want for Zen to be competitive. If Zen is very competitive, Intel might offer 6-cores on the mainstream or move down the 8-core offering to a more affordable $499-549 price level. There are lots of reasons why Zen being a good CPU is the best possible outcome for objective CPU owners.

However, you have to be realistic that 1 new AMD architecture cannot suddenly overcome Sandy, Ivy, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake and Cannonlake in 1 shot. Even Lisa Su has already commented that Zen is never going to be a 1 hit wonder that puts AMD back on the map. It's a start to a new CPU road-map that will have continuous improvements.

Thanks for the post, I wasn't aware of all this. Though I do own several Intel CPUs, it saddens me to hear of such deceptive practices. I wonder what the extent of the damage was to AMD. Probably more than 65m, also probably more than 1b.

 

[PPB]

-Intel rewarded OEMs to not use AMD’s processors through various means, such as volume discounts, withholding advertising & R&D money, and threatening OEMs with a low-priority during CPU shortages.

-Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel’s compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs

-False advertising. This includes hiding the compiler changes from developers, misrepresenting benchmark results (such as BAPCo Sysmark) that changed due to those compiler changes, and general misrepresentation of benchmarks as being “real world” when they are not.

All of these are 100% true.

Luckily, AMD offered the superior CPUs when this was happening and owned Intel in IPC and gaming price/performance during Athlon XP+, A64/Opteron eras.

The problem is what happened in 2006 and onward - Core 2 Duo crushed anything AMD had and this was true for every year ever since. So the irony is that Intel bribed vendors and engaged in the anti-competitive business practices when AMD had the superior product. After 2006, these tactics weren't of much benefit since my C2D E6400 @ 3.4Ghz, and subsequent summer 2007 Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz smashed anything AMD had.

Of course for all objective PC gamers who owned PCs many years ago, we do want for Zen to be competitive. If Zen is very competitive, Intel might offer 6-cores on the mainstream or move down the 8-core offering to a more affordable $499-549 price level. There are lots of reasons why Zen being a good CPU is the best possible outcome for objective CPU owners.

However, you have to be realistic that 1 new AMD architecture cannot suddenly overcome Sandy, Ivy, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake and Cannonlake in 1 shot. Even Lisa Su has already commented that Zen is never going to be a 1 hit wonder that puts AMD back on the map. It's a start to a new CPU road-map that will have continuous improvements.

Part of Conroe smashing AMD also had to do with the compiler thingy going on. It was obviously a hit for Intel and the foundation for their Core architecture, but we cant predict what would have happened if there would be compiler parity post 2006-pre litigation timeframe.

 

[alcoholbob]

We can because plenty of people fleeing AMD around that time frame said the company wasn't spending enough on R&D and wasting money on hookers and blow. The company didn't have a viable new architecture after Athlon. If Intel had literally done nothing shady from 2000-2006 AMD would've ended up in the same position as they are today, just a few years later than they did. AMD's mismanagement is a far bigger story than anything Intel did.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I'll post wherever I like, especially when it sets fanboys on edge

See, this subject clearly bothers you to the point of you thinking that posting something AMD negative vindicates your cruzade.

How about I start a thread about the Opteron recall

Sad and childish post