Intel facing a class action lawsuit in the state of Illinois

[BD231]

AMDMB

Quakecon Coverage:
AMD was there today giving briefings for the press as well. Not a lot of brand new material was covered that I can disclose today, but look for something very soon. I did, however, come across a new campaign that AMD is running entitled: Truth is Power.

Basically, AMD is once again attempting to save the consumer by uncovering another Intel falsehood. This time it does not concern the Pentium 4 processor, but rather the new 845G/GL chipsets that offer what Intel terms ?Intel Extreme Graphics.? What the chipset offers the user is actually anything but ?extreme? graphics power. If you happen to visit the Intel website and look for information on the 845G/GL chipsets, you will notice that there is a lengthy list of games that do not run at all on the integrated graphics core. These include games like Madden 2002 and Tiger Woods Golf 2002 ? not exactly the most strenuous of video games. And when a game isn?t crashing, the performance and features you get are not up to par with even the lowest priced graphics card available.

And, AMD claims, to top it off, comparing a Dell 2.0 GHz system running 512 MB of RAM and a Compaq 1800+ system also with 512 MB of RAM (all other parts being the same), the Intel system is nearly $150 more expensive than the Athlon system. There are also complaints about the new Celeron 1.7 GHz processor being out performed by the Celeron 1.3 GHz based on the P3 core that AMD says are causing the unknowledgeable end user to get double-crossed.

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower performing processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

Yes, there was more from AMD, but you will all get that in due time.

That about does it for my first day at my first Quakecon convention. I hope you enjoyed the commentary and pictures, and be sure to check back later for even more product updates, announcements and news from the show floor. Thanks!

"Ooops, I ripped you off!" :Q

 

[dexvx]

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower performing processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

That makes no sense at all. If lower performing processors are at a higher price than the new ones, than the new ones will be superior and not inferior as the article says. How can new processors be superior to lower performing processors at higher prices "when in fact they arent"?

As for the integrated graphics, its a freaking name. They can call it whatever they want, its not like its misleading or anything (although it would perform better if it wasnt limited to 8MB of shared ram). Look on the boxes of some older graphics cards. Voodoo2 boxes still say cutting edge performance .

And, AMD claims, to top it off, comparing a Dell 2.0 GHz system running 512 MB of RAM and a Compaq 1800+ system also with 512 MB of RAM (all other parts being the same), the Intel system is nearly $150 more expensive than the Athlon system.

Theres a reason why a 2Ghz chip is worth more than a 1800+ chip. But that comparison is futile. The motherboards are different, and so is the case. And IMO, the Dell cases are a whole let better in design and quality than a Compaq case (im thinking Presario series).

 

[SexyK]

Everytime I read something like this, my respect level for AMD drops a few notches lower. If all that is true, then this is one of the biggest most pathetic cry-baby attempts at PR that i've ever seen in my life.

Kramer

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Everytime I read something like this, my respect level for AMD drops a few notches lower. If all that is true, then this is one of the biggest most pathetic cry-baby attempts at PR that i've ever seen in my life.

Kramer

Huh why? Intel "Extreme Graphics" do suck...(?)

 

[Natej]

thanks for the heads up bdog231

 

[CubicZirconia]

its not like its misleading or anything

I'd say thats pretty misleading. Not that there is anything illegal about it since I'm sure they can name it whatever they want. But still...

 

[ScottyB]

I used to like AMD, now they are acting like Apple.

 

[ElFenix]

extreme suckage, maybe

Originally posted by: dexvx

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower performing processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

That makes no sense at all. If lower performing processors are at a higher price than the new ones, than the new ones will be superior and not inferior as the article says. How can new processors be superior to lower performing processors at higher prices "when in fact they arent"?

it says the new ones are lower performing at higher prices. not the older ones.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
extreme suckage, maybe

Originally posted by: dexvx

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower performing processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

That makes no sense at all. If lower performing processors are at a higher price than the new ones, than the new ones will be superior and not inferior as the article says. How can new processors be superior to lower performing processors at higher prices "when in fact they arent"?

it says the new ones are lower performing at higher prices. not the older ones.

This probably refers to the Celerons. A P3 based Celeron costs $74 for a 1.3 GHz model and $89 for a 1.4 GHz model. The 1.7 GHz P4 based Celeron costs $83. So they are claiming that the newer 1.7 P4 Celeron costs more than the 1.3 GHz Celeron yet at times performs worse. The problem is that for every benchmark you show me that the 1.3 wins, I'll show you one where the 1.7 wins. It is very difficult to prove that Intel ever said the 1.7 is higher performing in all applications, and even more difficult to prove that the 1.3 is "superior". So basically this suit is going nowhere fast.

If Intel loses, then AMD will have to watch their back too. At times the top Duron cost more than a faster Athlon...

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Everytime I read something like this, my respect level for AMD drops a few notches lower. If all that is true, then this is one of the biggest most pathetic cry-baby attempts at PR that i've ever seen in my life.

Kramer

 

[dexvx]

I do concur that it is referring to the 1.7Ghz Celeron and the 1.4Ghz Celeron, but read the quote very carefully. The English is just botched up. It says its selling LOWER PERFORMING processors at HIGHER PRICES, by implying that new ones are SUPERIOR when in fact they ARENT.

English translation (if you're referring to the celeron 1.4 and 1.7):

The Celeron 1.4 costs more, but performs less than the implied superior 1.7 Ghz Pentium4 based Celeron when the 1.7Ghz celeron is inferior. The article assumes that speed in Mhz correlates directly with performance.

I think it the quote should've read like this:

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower speed processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

If you go look at newegg, the Thunderbird 1.4 and 1500+ costs more than the famed 1600+. Uh oh.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

I'm not buying any of this (pun intended)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I do concur that it is referring to the 1.7Ghz Celeron and the 1.4Ghz Celeron, but read the quote very carefully. The English is just botched up. It says its selling LOWER PERFORMING processors at HIGHER PRICES, by implying that new ones are SUPERIOR when in fact they ARENT.

English translation (if you're referring to the celeron 1.4 and 1.7):

The Celeron 1.4 costs more, but performs less than the implied superior 1.7 Ghz Pentium4 based Celeron when the 1.7Ghz celeron is inferior. The article assumes that speed in Mhz correlates directly with performance.

I think it the quote should've read like this:

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower speed processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

If you go look at newegg, the Thunderbird 1.4 and 1500+ costs more than the famed 1600+. Uh oh.

how new is the celeron 1.4? i think the 1.7 is newer. the fact that the 1.7 runs more MHz and intel (along with puppet michael dell) basically claim that MHz is the only thing is the only way this makes any sense. intel hasn't claimed that the tualeron 1.4 is faster than the willaron 1.7.

 

[ElFenix]

heh, i wonder if the p4 + sdram suckers... ert... customers are going to get in on the action?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dexvx
I do concur that it is referring to the 1.7Ghz Celeron and the 1.4Ghz Celeron, but read the quote very carefully. The English is just botched up. It says its selling LOWER PERFORMING processors at HIGHER PRICES, by implying that new ones are SUPERIOR when in fact they ARENT.

English translation (if you're referring to the celeron 1.4 and 1.7):

The Celeron 1.4 costs more, but performs less than the implied superior 1.7 Ghz Pentium4 based Celeron when the 1.7Ghz celeron is inferior. The article assumes that speed in Mhz correlates directly with performance.

I think it the quote should've read like this:

Interestingly, in the last month or so, a class action lawsuit is ongoing in the state of Illinois that says Intel has been selling lower speed processors at higher prices by implying that the new ones are superior when in fact they aren?t. It will be quite remarkable to see what resolves from this.

If you go look at newegg, the Thunderbird 1.4 and 1500+ costs more than the famed 1600+. Uh oh.

how new is the celeron 1.4? i think the 1.7 is newer. the fact that the 1.7 runs more MHz and intel (along with puppet michael dell) basically claim that MHz is the only thing is the only way this makes any sense. intel hasn't claimed that the tualeron 1.4 is faster than the willaron 1.7.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. The 1.4 Celeron is older, but more expensive than the 1.7 Celeron. Sometimes the 1.4 beats the 1.7, so thats where this law suite is coming from. Instead of saying the 1.4 is "lower performing", they should change it to "lower speed". No where did Intel nor Dell state that more Mhz equals more performance. The commericials are "power where you need it most", not "2Ghz is 100% faster than 1Ghz." People simply implied it being true because it held up in the past.

I think this class action lawsuit is a bunch of bullsh1t. If this were to go through, than a lot of similar lawsuits would go through too. Such as my 220W Digitheatre speakers can beat the crap out of some 500W HT systems. Or a Porsche 250HP engine is *better* than a 250HP engine from Ford. Heck, my 500 math page book has less "stuff" than a 400 page math book! It goes to show there are a lot more dimensions to things than just 1 statistic.

 

[WyteWatt]

Well if thats true about intel it sucks but i am taking this with a grain of salt because i want proof first.


I do know one thing intel stole technology from this company a long while ago for their intel processors.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: SexyK
Everytime I read something like this, my respect level for AMD drops a few notches lower. If all that is true, then this is one of the biggest most pathetic cry-baby attempts at PR that i've ever seen in my life.

Kramer

Huh why? Intel "Extreme Graphics" do suck...(?)

Sure extreme graphics suck, but it doesnt say anywhere "this will beat a Ti4600", its just a name. AMD names its chips 2200+ even though its 1800MHz... how is that any different when you get right down to it. Everyone wants their products to look better, so they name them crazy things, nothing illegal about that.

Kramer

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dexvx


I think you need to re-read what I wrote. The 1.4 Celeron is older, but more expensive than the 1.7 Celeron. Sometimes the 1.4 beats the 1.7, so thats where this law suite is coming from. Instead of saying the 1.4 is "lower performing", they should change it to "lower speed". No where did Intel nor Dell state that more Mhz equals more performance. The commericials are "power where you need it most", not "2Ghz is 100% faster than 1Ghz." People simply implied it being true because it held up in the past.

ah, but whats the price difference when a system hits retail? i'm pretty sure that, ceteris paribus, the 1.7 system will carry a higher price tag than the 1.4. like i said, the only way this lawsuit makes any sense at all is if:
1. more MHz implies more power (which had been true for pretty much all processor changes previous to the p3--->p4 one)
2. someone actually figured out that the older celeron 1.4 actually performs on par with the celeron 1.7

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Everytime I read something like this, my respect level for AMD drops a few notches lower. If all that is true, then this is one of the biggest most pathetic cry-baby attempts at PR that i've ever seen in my life.

Kramer

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dexvx


I think you need to re-read what I wrote. The 1.4 Celeron is older, but more expensive than the 1.7 Celeron. Sometimes the 1.4 beats the 1.7, so thats where this law suite is coming from. Instead of saying the 1.4 is "lower performing", they should change it to "lower speed". No where did Intel nor Dell state that more Mhz equals more performance. The commericials are "power where you need it most", not "2Ghz is 100% faster than 1Ghz." People simply implied it being true because it held up in the past.

ah, but whats the price difference when a system hits retail? i'm pretty sure that, ceteris paribus, the 1.7 system will carry a higher price tag than the 1.4. like i said, the only way this lawsuit makes any sense at all is if:
1. more MHz implies more power (which had been true for pretty much all processor changes previous to the p3--->p4 one)
2. someone actually figured out that the older celeron 1.4 actually performs on par with the celeron 1.7

And who implies more power? Since Intel hasnt explicitly stated more Mhz = more performance, its the consumer thats applying it themselves. While I do agree that Intel isnt fault free (because Mhz was targetted at consumers for this obvious reason, but one might claim that the NetBurst architecture is just superior), consumers and their basic knowledge are not free of fault either. The information that a P4 2Ghz can be beat sometimes by an XP 1800+ is everywhere.

Perhaps more goes to the 1.7 celeron than the 1.4 celeron systems than just the procs. The p3 based celerons are at the end of their road, upgradeability wise. The 1.7 mobos still have a LOT of head room. I know in the instance of Dell, the 1.7 comes with a better case and a better motherboard than the 1.4. The 1.7 celeron sometimes comes with DDR ram versus SDR. That also factors into the final price as well.

The lawsuit is basically flawed on almost all fronts, and is driving up the cost of items for the rest of us consumers by forcing Intel and major corporations to hire teams of lawyers to defend against this bullsh1t. While not all corporations are guilt free, lawsuits such as this are just frivolous, like the one where the fat guy sues fast food for hiding nutrition information when its freely available.

 

[ElFenix]

oh, yeah, i forgot the dell thing of "buy a real 2GHz," rather than AMD's fake 2GHz. dell said that.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dexvx


I think you need to re-read what I wrote. The 1.4 Celeron is older, but more expensive than the 1.7 Celeron. Sometimes the 1.4 beats the 1.7, so thats where this law suite is coming from. Instead of saying the 1.4 is "lower performing", they should change it to "lower speed". No where did Intel nor Dell state that more Mhz equals more performance. The commericials are "power where you need it most", not "2Ghz is 100% faster than 1Ghz." People simply implied it being true because it held up in the past.

ah, but whats the price difference when a system hits retail? i'm pretty sure that, ceteris paribus, the 1.7 system will carry a higher price tag than the 1.4. like i said, the only way this lawsuit makes any sense at all is if:
1. more MHz implies more power (which had been true for pretty much all processor changes previous to the p3--->p4 one)
2. someone actually figured out that the older celeron 1.4 actually performs on par with the celeron 1.7

And who implies more power? Since Intel hasnt explicitly stated more Mhz = more performance, its the consumer thats applying it themselves. While I do agree that Intel isnt fault free (because Mhz was targetted at consumers for this obvious reason, but one might claim that the NetBurst architecture is just superior), consumers and their basic knowledge are not free of fault either. The information that a P4 2Ghz can be beat sometimes by an XP 1800+ is everywhere.

Perhaps more goes to the 1.7 celeron than the 1.4 celeron systems than just the procs. The p3 based celerons are at the end of their road, upgradeability wise. The 1.7 mobos still have a LOT of head room. I know in the instance of Dell, the 1.7 comes with a better case and a better motherboard than the 1.4. The 1.7 celeron sometimes comes with DDR ram versus SDR. That also factors into the final price as well.

The lawsuit is basically flawed on almost all fronts, and is driving up the cost of items for the rest of us consumers by forcing Intel and major corporations to hire teams of lawyers to defend against this bullsh1t. While not all corporations are guilt free, lawsuits such as this are just frivolous, like the one where the fat guy sues fast food for hiding nutrition information when its freely available.

i didn't say the lawsuit isn't complete BS, i just that i think my interpretation of the paragraph is the correct one.

 

[MadRat]

<<This probably refers to the Celerons. A P3 based Celeron costs $74 for a 1.3 GHz model and $89 for a 1.4 GHz model. The 1.7 GHz P4 based Celeron costs $83. So they are claiming that the newer 1.7 P4 Celeron costs more than the 1.3 GHz Celeron yet at times performs worse. The problem is that for every benchmark you show me that the 1.3 wins, I'll show you one where the 1.7 wins. It is very difficult to prove that Intel ever said the 1.7 is higher performing in all applications, and even more difficult to prove that the 1.3 is "superior". So basically this suit is going nowhere fast.>>

Civil suits don't always have a logical outcome. Civil suits in Illinois rarely have a logical outcome...

<<heh, i wonder if the p4 + sdram suckers... ert... customers are going to get in on the action?>>

Ouch, that hurts. I know people that love P4's with SDRAM.

<<I do know one thing intel stole technology from this company a long while ago for their intel processors.>>

What company and what technology?

 

[dexvx]

Yea interpretations... stupid english

oh, yeah, i forgot the dell thing of "buy a real 2GHz," rather than AMD's fake 2GHz. dell said that.

Whats wrong with that? The fact is that the pentium4 operates at 2Ghz and the AMD operates at about 1.6Ghz. He's stating a fact. He does not make the inference that the real 2Ghz is faster than the "fake" 2Ghz. I dont see his statement as being a negative mud-slinging.

This just goes back to the PR vs no-PR wars. Next thing you know, we'll see Itanium2 1Ghz as an I2-5000+

 

[MrDudeMan]

this is so stupid. AMD is 2x more misleading than Intel. The average person is a moron when it comes to buying things, so EVERY company targets the average idiot. Who gives a flip what they call it?



So, if this is so bad, then what about the STUPID AthlonXP naming scheme? xp1700+ at 1.46gHz...? and that isnt misleading?


this is stupid. i wonder if AMD thought before they spoke...probably not