Intel hires Baghdad Bob

[13Gigatons]

Who are they kidding ?

Specifically, Intel points to AMD's "playing it safe ... with anemic investment in manufacturing capacity, leaving Intel to shoulder the burden of investment to enhance the usefulness of computers and enhance the market." In addition, Intel claims AMD has been "dogged" by a reputation of being unreliable as a supplier, has traditionally lagged in innovation, and has seen products delayed well beyond original launch dates.

http://informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102804


Let's see:

1. Hypertransport
2. On chip Memory Controller
3. Cool and Quiet
4. Enhanced Virus Protection
5. AMD64
6. dual core CPU { That doesn't run hotter then the sun }

I would say Innovation is not AMD's problem.

PS: Is this the right forum, old locked thread: Old thread


Alright, that's enough trolling.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[CheesePoofs]

What do you expect them to say? It's not like they're not going to admit to having the worse processor.

 

[Markfw]

Yea, typical. I am sick of Intel defending its strong-arm tactics. AMD specificaly said it brought the suit now, since it couldn't be accused of having the inferior product. Intel has spun this every way they can....

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Who are they kidding ?

Specifically, Intel points to AMD's "playing it safe ... with anemic investment in manufacturing capacity, leaving Intel to shoulder the burden of investment to enhance the usefulness of computers and enhance the market." In addition, Intel claims AMD has been "dogged" by a reputation of being unreliable as a supplier, has traditionally lagged in innovation, and has seen products delayed well beyond original launch dates.

http://informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102804


Let's see:

1. Hypertransport
2. On chip Memory Controller
3. Cool and Quiet
4. Enhanced Virus Protection
5. AMD64
6. dual core CPU { That doesn't run hotter then the sun }

I would say Innovation is not AMD's problem. [/b]

You make a good point... Except that you are being very short-sighted.

Those innovations you listed are very impressive... However, they are also only over the very short recent past. Prior to the Hammers, there wasn't a whole lot of innovation from AMD. And it is definitely true that they had all sorts of problems delivering quantities of new products on time. And it is true that they haven't increased their manufacturing capacity in several years.

AMD's lack of capacity, and thus the inability to guarantee quantities to the OEMs, does hinder the confidence from Dell, Gateway, and the others.

Now I'm certainly not saying that Intel hasn't had their moments of shame regarding quality issues or product release schedules. But the gist is that the OEM's are more confident with Intel, and that confidence has been held up over the years.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
and that confidence has been held up over the years.

It's been held up by a lot of "rebates" & "If you sell AMD, the prices for our CPUs will go up"

Hence why we have Sony, Gateway, & Toshiba all selling only Intel.
I'd like to look at this in an unbiased way, but even if half the things AMD has mentioned are true...i'll let you finish the sentence.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Wingznut
and that confidence has been held up over the years.

It's been held up by a lot of "rebates" & "If you sell AMD, the prices for our CPUs will go up"

Hence why we have Sony, Gateway, & Toshiba all selling only Intel.
I'd like to look at this in an unbiased way, but even if half the things AMD has mentioned are true...i'll let you finish the sentence.

I, nor you, haven't the slightest idea what is and what isn't true regarding AMD's allegations...

However, that really has nothing to do with the validity of the statement that 13Gigatons chose to quote.

 

[Markfw]

Wingz, don't get into this (imo). Until its over you could be very wrong or a little right. Right now after the previous wins for AMD in the east, it doesn't look good for Intel(Japan, China, Korea, etc..).

 

[fatty4ksu]

AMD has had a nice 2 year strech...I expect the tides to turn the next few years...if not months.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Wingz, don't get into this (imo). Until its over you could be very wrong or a little right. Right now after the previous wins for AMD in the east, it doesn't look good for Intel(Japan, China, Korea, etc..).

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying one way or another if the allegations have merit. I honestly have no idea.

I'm commenting solely on the quote that 13Gigatons chose to post.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
AMD has had a nice 2 year strech...I expect the tides to turn the next few years...if not months.

Actually, the problem as I see it is that AMD can't seem to get a foothold based on the Intel tactics. Thus the lawsuit.

 

[Shenkoa]

Intel says " 31 Stages is better then 12, we run 4 Ghz so its faster! its your fault that we threaten to pull support for company's who even think of using AMD"

AMD says "we are better, we are cheaper and we do not monopolize, 12 stages is better then your crap 31 Stages HUNK OF CRAP P4, your dual die is a POS with no innation and your tactics are evil and deceitfull"


I am waiting for AMD to rule and become the basterd company, but asa of now thats Intel.

F!@# YOU INTEL!!!! I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR HYPED POS PROCESSORS AGAIN!

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Intel says " 31 Stages is better then 12, we run 4 Ghz so its faster! its your fault that we threaten to pull support for company's who even think of using AMD"

Heh, that just reminded me of when Intel was touting its "Hyper-pipelined" P4s as the next big thing, I used to laugh so hard at that. The consumers swallowed it whole, though.

AMD's lawsuit is also timed to coincide with the beginning of production at its fab36. In a few months, AMD should be able to supply anyone who turns on Intel so it wont be able to retaliate in the same way as before.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
AMD has had a nice 2 year strech...I expect the tides to turn the next few years...if not months.

Actually, the problem as I see it is that AMD can't seem to get a foothold based on the Intel tactics. Thus the lawsuit.

Can't be heavyweight champion of the world if they won't allow you to step into the ring.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Intel says " 31 Stages is better then 12, we run 4 Ghz so its faster! its your fault that we threaten to pull support for company's who even think of using AMD"

AMD says "we are better, we are cheaper and we do not monopolize, 12 stages is better then your crap 31 Stages HUNK OF CRAP P4, your dual die is a POS with no innation and your tactics are evil and deceitfull"


I am waiting for AMD to rule and become the basterd company, but asa of now thats Intel.

F!@# YOU INTEL!!!! I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR HYPED POS PROCESSORS AGAIN!

Wingz you better send this guy some free cpus. He seems angry and possibly dangerous. Hook me up to, while you are at it.

 

[Banzai042]

i can't wait to see how this turns out, Intel is not in a strong position on this one. In other threads related to this i even saw that AMD had in one case offered some huge amount of processors to HP (i believe) for pretty much nothing at all, and Intel wouldn't let HP take them. That alone should prove that intel is doing plenty of illegal things to strong arm AMD out of business. I really hope AMD gets some publicity, particularly when they begin with the evidence that their procs are at the moment more powerful than intel's hyper pipelined pieces of junk. As soon as the general public sees that Intel has been trying to keep a better cheaper processor out of the market i believe that there will be a moderate backlash against Intel which will help AMD keep their current lead in technology.

 

[Sixtyfour]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
[
You make a good point... Except that you are being very short-sighted.

Those innovations you listed are very impressive... However, they are also only over the very short recent past. Prior to the Hammers, there wasn't a whole lot of innovation from AMD.

Flash from the past (.mov video)

Also you do understand that, AMD or Intel has never had superior product without one or the other topping it occasionally.

So during last 10 years, AMD has had more years with a superior/faster product, or more bang for the buck.
But now with AMD64 and Opterons, AMD has everything (power/watt, power/price and overall performance with superior scalability), and Intels products can't compete, except in mobile market (but not in 64 bit or FPU intensive mobile).

(Sorry about my grammar/spelling.)

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Who are they kidding ?

Specifically, Intel points to AMD's "playing it safe ... with anemic investment in manufacturing capacity, leaving Intel to shoulder the burden of investment to enhance the usefulness of computers and enhance the market." In addition, Intel claims AMD has been "dogged" by a reputation of being unreliable as a supplier, has traditionally lagged in innovation, and has seen products delayed well beyond original launch dates.

http://informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102804


Let's see:

1. Hypertransport
2. On chip Memory Controller
3. Cool and Quiet
4. Enhanced Virus Protection
5. AMD64
6. dual core CPU { That doesn't run hotter then the sun }

I would say Innovation is not AMD's problem. [/b]

You make a good point... Except that you are being very short-sighted.

Those innovations you listed are very impressive... However, they are also only over the very short recent past. Prior to the Hammers, there wasn't a whole lot of innovation from AMD. And it is definitely true that they had all sorts of problems delivering quantities of new products on time. And it is true that they haven't increased their manufacturing capacity in several years.

AMD's lack of capacity, and thus the inability to guarantee quantities to the OEMs, does hinder the confidence from Dell, Gateway, and the others.

Now I'm certainly not saying that Intel hasn't had their moments of shame regarding quality issues or product release schedules. But the gist is that the OEM's are more confident with Intel, and that confidence has been held up over the years.

Wingznut is dead on regarding the original poster's comment. As unbiased as I can see it being called at this point. IMO neither company has played it right up till now but I guess that is business. We really can't know for sure what of AMD's claims are true or not. Hopefully the courts will get to the bottom of it. I for one am interested in who comes out on top, but I am mostly hoping that in the end, the consumer comes out on top...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Intel says " 31 Stages is better then 12, we run 4 Ghz so its faster! its your fault that we threaten to pull support for company's who even think of using AMD"

Heh, that just reminded me of when Intel was touting its "Hyper-pipelined" P4s as the next big thing, I used to laugh so hard at that. The consumers swallowed it whole, though.

AMD's lawsuit is also timed to coincide with the beginning of production at its fab36. In a few months, AMD should be able to supply anyone who turns on Intel so it wont be able to retaliate in the same way as before.

You do understand that Fab36 will not get their capacity anywhere near Intels levels right?

Edit: and what does your title have to do with anything?

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
You do understand that Fab36 will not get their capacity anywhere near Intels levels right?

No, of course AMD's fab capacity will not even be close to Intel's, but Intel will not be able to punish OEMs as severely as before, since AMD will have the ability to supply an additional 15-20% of the market.

I do wonder about the title, as well...

 

[Sixtyfour]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Edit: and what does your title have to do with anything?

It has this to do with Intel

 

[DarkKnight69]

I agree that AMD has the technology now, but if you look at pre-K8, Intel was the processor to have. My 2.4 absolutly pwned the ass of any 2500+ barton oced or stock. However, AMD came a long way with their K8 and dual core systems.

now if you look at the trend, Intel is essentially scrapping the neturst archetecture for the lower pipe archetecture (which they should have stayed with in the first place). It is time for Intels 'K8 revolution'.

The problem with this is that AMD is making huge market gains and may have a better chance to take some OEM market with it.

The upside is that Intel's manufacturing capabilities are far supurior to AMD and the lawsuit (even if it hits hard in the near future will not really dent them.

The last thing that I want to stress is that since they are dropping netburst, there is a possibility (I know the AMD fanboys dont want to hear it) that intel could come out with a decent chip. Contrary to some peoples beliefs, AMD is not the only one who can design nice chips. Intel just got too narrow sighted with the netburst archetecture.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I agree that AMD has the technology now, but if you look at pre-K8, Intel was the processor to have. My 2.4 absolutly pwned the ass of any 2500+ barton oced or stock. However, AMD came a long way with their K8 and dual core systems.

now if you look at the trend, Intel is essentially scrapping the neturst archetecture for the lower pipe archetecture (which they should have stayed with in the first place). It is time for Intels 'K8 revolution'.

The problem with this is that AMD is making huge market gains and may have a better chance to take some OEM market with it.

The upside is that Intel's manufacturing capabilities are far supurior to AMD and the lawsuit (even if it hits hard in the near future will not really dent them.

The last thing that I want to stress is that since they are dropping netburst, there is a possibility (I know the AMD fanboys dont want to hear it) that intel could come out with a decent chip. Contrary to some peoples beliefs, AMD is not the only one who can design nice chips. Intel just got too narrow sighted with the netburst archetecture.

That is true...P4c was great...p4b and p4a was not as great and the willamette was a disaster initially.....

the travesty of it was that during those 1-2 years before the p4c AMD due to closed doors was not able to gain marketshare even though their product was superior...i would say in the last 5-6 years AMD has had the superioir chips more times then not. If you look at it in trms of budget systems the AMD chips have been the bang for the buck for all 6 of those years...yet they couldn't gain marketshare??? Cmon..use commonsense. If the half the doors were open AMD would have beeen able to gain marketshare and perhaps fill the coffers to pay for things all you INtel fans think are so easy to build...FABS!!!


Intel will likely have a beter chip then netburst architecture chip, but by no means is the performance leader. AMD doesn't need to be the best to sell chips. They just need a fair and open marketplace to do it.

I respect Wingz and PM but they have stock in this fight so I apologise but I htink they are too biased to argue this.

That many ceos with stories?? That many different stories??? That many accounts of different type of activbites??? You are going to say with all that smoke there is no fire???....We may see too much into it, but most of you dont see enough. Pull down the intel blinders long enough to think about this as if you owned the company that was trying to compete in the cpu market. How would you feel about some of the tactics???

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I agree that AMD has the technology now, but if you look at pre-K8, Intel was the processor to have. My 2.4 absolutly pwned the ass of any 2500+ barton oced or stock. However, AMD came a long way with their K8 and dual core systems.

now if you look at the trend, Intel is essentially scrapping the neturst archetecture for the lower pipe archetecture (which they should have stayed with in the first place). It is time for Intels 'K8 revolution'.

The problem with this is that AMD is making huge market gains and may have a better chance to take some OEM market with it.

The upside is that Intel's manufacturing capabilities are far supurior to AMD and the lawsuit (even if it hits hard in the near future will not really dent them.

The last thing that I want to stress is that since they are dropping netburst, there is a possibility (I know the AMD fanboys dont want to hear it) that intel could come out with a decent chip. Contrary to some peoples beliefs, AMD is not the only one who can design nice chips. Intel just got too narrow sighted with the netburst archetecture.

That is true...P4c was great...p4b and p4a was not as great and the willamette was a disaster initially.....

the travesty of it was that during those 1-2 years before the p4c AMD due to closed doors was not able to gain marketshare even though their product was superior...i would say in the last 5-6 years AMD has had the superioir chips more times then not. If you look at it in trms of budget systems the AMD chips have been the bang for the buck for all 6 of those years...yet they couldn't gain marketshare??? Cmon..use commonsense. If the half the doors were open AMD would have beeen able to gain marketshare and perhaps fill the coffers to pay for things all you INtel fans think are so easy to build...FABS!!!


Intel will likely have a beter chip then netburst architecture chip, but by no means is the performance leader. AMD doesn't need to be the best to sell chips. They just need a fair and open marketplace to do it.

I respect Wingz and PM but they have stock in this fight so I apologise but I htink they are too biased to argue this.

That many ceos with stories?? That many different stories??? That many accounts of different type of activbites??? You are going to say with all that smoke their is no fire....We may see too much into it but most of you dont see enough. Pul down the intel blinders enough to think about this as if you owned the company that was trying to compete in the cpu market. how would you feel about some of the tactics???

I agree with you on this Duvie (Holy crap) Before the first gen of C's and after the K8's, amd did have better chips. I will even say they have better chips now, but I think too many people are ruling them out for the past. they have some nice equip on the horizon. Even you have to admit that Duvie!!

To be honest, i have owned many amd's (still own a 3000+ and a sempy) but I have recently seemed to go back to intel) . I thank AMD all the time for helping to keep chip prices lower (relatively speaking).

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I respect Wingz and PM but they have stock in this fight so I apologise but I htink they are too biased to argue this.

Please do take note that I am not arguing the merits of the lawsuit. (As I've said, I have no idea how truly accurate any of the accusations are.) All I've commented on is the quote in question.

the travesty of it was that during those 1-2 years before the p4c AMD due to closed doors was not able to gain marketshare even though their product was superior...i would say in the last 5-6 years AMD has had the superioir chips more times then not. If you look at it in trms of budget systems the AMD chips have been the bang for the buck for all 6 of those years...yet they couldn't gain marketshare??? Cmon..use commonsense.

But I will comment on this.


First, AMD has gained marketshare. That's even pointed out in the article the OP linked.

Second, it takes more than "1-2 years" of success to change the business climate. These OEM's have been very successful in what they have been doing. Think of it from Dell's point of view... What's in it for them? Aside from any monopolistic allegations, are they going to make any more money by changing what has worked so well for them?

Third, there is so much more to the business than just the performance of the processor. I'm not going to list them all, but some of the other things the OEM's need to take into consideration are: Ability to get enough supply consistantly, more components (i.e. motherboards) to contend with, software/driver variations, consumer demand, etc...

It's just not as simple as what it appears.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I agree that AMD has the technology now, but if you look at pre-K8, Intel was the processor to have. My 2.4 absolutly pwned the ass of any 2500+ barton oced or stock. However, AMD came a long way with their K8 and dual core systems.

now if you look at the trend, Intel is essentially scrapping the neturst archetecture for the lower pipe archetecture (which they should have stayed with in the first place). It is time for Intels 'K8 revolution'.

The problem with this is that AMD is making huge market gains and may have a better chance to take some OEM market with it.

The upside is that Intel's manufacturing capabilities are far supurior to AMD and the lawsuit (even if it hits hard in the near future will not really dent them.

The last thing that I want to stress is that since they are dropping netburst, there is a possibility (I know the AMD fanboys dont want to hear it) that intel could come out with a decent chip. Contrary to some peoples beliefs, AMD is not the only one who can design nice chips. Intel just got too narrow sighted with the netburst archetecture.

Exactly the point of the lawsuit that despite the K8 being so improved and equal in every way to the P4 AMD is losing market share due to Intel's strong arm tactics and punitive measures agianst 38 PC makers and retail outlets that entertain the notion of using AMD cpu's.

We the consumer get to decide NOT Intel.