The FTC Sues Intel Over CPU & GPU Competition

by Ryan Smith on 12/16/2009 12:00 AM EST
Comments Locked

114 Comments

Back to Article

  • Alouette Radeon - Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - link

    How could anyone still support Intel? You realize that their anti-competitive practices haven't just hurt AMD and nVidia, they've hurt US, the consumers! Intel has shown that they don't give a damn about the industry, they just want dominance. They don't care about the technology, they just want money. nVidia is dishonest, sure, that's why I'll only be buying ATi for a good long while. However, Intel is so corrupt that I'd choose a VIA nano before I'd take an Intel CPU. Does it hurt me to do so? I don't think so. I have a brilliant gaming rig based on the Phenom II X4 940, the AMD 790FX northbridge and the ATi Radeon HD 4870! Considering the savings I realized over purchasing an Intel/nVidia combo I'd say that instead of hindering me, my choice of platform actually was to my benefit! Intel can go pound salt.
  • chizow - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link

    Great write-up Ryan, very thorough yet easy to digest and well worth the read, however, you missed two extremely important points from the FTC's complaint, discussed in this NY Times article:

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/has-the-f...">http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/1...for-the-...

    quote:

    No. 17 - Requiring Intel to make available technology (including whatever is necessary to interoperate with Intel’s CPUs or chipsets) to others, via licensing or other means, upon such terms and conditions as the Commission may order, including but not limited to extensions of terms of current licenses.


    and

    quote:

    No. 18 - Prohibiting Intel from including or enforcing terms in its x86 licensing agreements that restrict the ability of licensees to change ownership, to obtain investments or financing, to outsource production of x86 microprocessors, or to otherwise partner with third parties to expand output.


    While these are certainly long-shots that may extend beyond the scope of realistically enforceable actions, they do address some of the more popular "what-ifs" regarding Intel's stranglehold on x86 and their ability to stifle competition by voiding existing x86 licenses if their licensees are acquired by another company.

  • Aim64C - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link

    Well, this certainly has some implications for the integrated graphics. I know many gamer-types scoff at the integrated graphics solutions, but when you go to schools, libraries, many corporate workstations, and military computers (all of which are ordered by the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands) - you see integrated graphics solutions. The overwhelming majority are Dell computers running an Intel processor with integrated graphics. Can't tell you how many Dells there are with Top-Secret classification stickers on them (don't need anything too heavy duty to handle message traffic) - but there are quite a few.

    Of course, what I'm far more concerned about is the implications this will have for the whole market. The computer industry has enjoyed a rather free and unregulated environment. Because of that, we have seen unprecedented growth and continual price-drops relative to GDP that have not been seen in any other industry since the industrial revolution.

    The rulings made in this case can end up shaping into computer market regulations for the whole of the computer industry. This would mean that certain practices that have given us low-cost computer-electronics will go by the wayside.

    Take, for instance, volume-discounts. If I am only going to build OEM PCs with Intel CPUs (or AMD CPUs, whichever), I can anticipate the relative demand along one dimension - cost. Higher-cost components are going to be in lower demand than the middle-road and cheaper components aimed at the average internet browsing consumer who might get a wild hair up their anus and start playing WoW. Thus, I can anticipate demand for the whole season and order in huge quantity with bulk savings (which is a common industry practice - I could get into why this is done from the manufacturer's perspective, but you can google that if you really don't know and care to know).

    Now, if I am forced to vary my market and cannot choose to support only a single CPU by market restrictions - I now have two dimensions to the demands I will experience. Not only will I be seeing changes in the relative spending trends (high dollar components being less/more popular with consumers) but also changes between brands. I could still purchase from both companies for the whole season, but I run the risk of misinterpreting the market, and having to order more AMD or Intel while having surplus of the other brand. This means I'm going to go from seasonal purchases to quarterly or even monthly purchases from the manufacturer. This will drive costs up at least 10-20% for the OEM builder, while the suicide rate of upper-managers at Intel and AMD would go up exponentially due to the logistical nightmare all of this would create.

    While Intel has been behaving in a manner not becoming of a respectable business as of late - I have even less respect for government-run agencies/committees that tend to be used to bring businesses under state ownership. Their suit against Intel can be used to a much broader effect later on if they win, and will use it to bring over-regulation into the computer industry, which will have the same effect it's had on every other industry that has become so tied up in government regulations that it has more bureaucrats than actual floor workers.
  • Donkey2008 - Saturday, December 19, 2009 - link

    Concerning Intel IGP, I disagree with all of the overly opinionated tech users on this board. Claiming Intel graphics are "abysimal" is a ridiculous comment and made by someone who apparantly has no experience rolling out hundreds of desktops in a corporate setting. They are perfectly stable (let me correct that - entirely MORE stable than ANY aftermarket card). If you need better 3D performance, buy an after market card. If you need multi-monitor support, buy an aftermarket card. It's pretty simply math.

    "OMGZ!! I can't play Fallout 3 with my G31 graphics!"

    No shit. Get a clue or possibly a new job, because you obviously don't have the common sense to work in IT.
  • Aries1470 - Saturday, December 19, 2009 - link

    Wow, at last. Someone with some sense. IGP are PERFECT for WORK COMPUTERS. Examples are: Call centres, Banks & Financial instutions and other areas. Excluding some small pockets in those industries that need stronger graphics. People should NOT be playing games on their work computers when they need to be productive. That is why at some companies there are special areas to play during their breaks/ smoko's (people might know them as tea or coffee breaks).

    IGP are Great, for industry computers, not CONSUMERS, unless they are used mostly for web browsing etc or (HD)DVD / BD playback.

    And I would like to correct some people. IT IS NOT A DUOPOLY, even if it seems like it is. There is VIA for CPU & Chipsets with S3 for Graphics & SiS for Chipsets & Graphics. Granted they are not that great, except for very low power consumption or great image quality, with low power and not really for Gaming, SiS are still on DX9, but S3 are with DX10.1 and with BD playback and some other things...
  • MengNa - Sunday, December 20, 2009 - link

    A duopoly doesn't mean there are no other competitors on the market, it mean that the competitors market share is relatively insignificant.
    Intel vs AMD and Nvidia vs ATI are textbook duopolies.
  • Wirmish - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    "For Intel to do a few different things about the versions of their compiler that put AMD at a disadvantage (which the FTC is calling the Defective Compiler): offer a substitute compiler to customers for free that is not a Defective Compiler, or to compensate customers in switching to another compiler, to provide notice to software buyers of products compiled using the Defective Compiler that they may need to replace their software."

    Like this ? -> http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/at...">http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/at...
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Sadly it's not always that simple.
    I've written optimized MMX routines for Pentium MMX that turned out to run like a dog on Pentium II or Athlon (which I couldn't have known at the time I wrote them, because those CPUs weren't on the market yet).
    When CPUs are significantly different in architecture, then just checking for a certain featureset isn't going to guarantee the best performance. There could be severe performance penalties for certain code constructs. I think people just don't really understand that. They think x86 is x86, SSE is SSE, and all that. It doesn't always work that way (even with different CPUs from the same vendor, like Pentium vs PII, or Pentium 4 vs Core2).
    You just can't win em all.

    However, using multiple code paths in a benchmark... that's a bit dubious imho. That is, selecting one of various code paths. I think the proper way would be to run ALL codepaths on ALL CPUs. That way you avoid the problem that not all CPUs run the most optimal codepath for them.
  • mountain2k - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Although I agree with hanging intel out to dry for anti-competitive behaviour, I don't agree with the way they try to do it. When it comes to the rebates, prioritising clients, ok. It might be a thin line, but Intel is the big dog, so they need to be more careful. There weren't though luck for them, make them pay.
    When it comes down to their compilers, I was not aware that intel had any significant market-share that would allow it to therewith stifle competition.
    When it comes to licensing of patents... that's a whole other ballgame. You can't set the rules for intel to be any different just because they are top dog. To give make it bluntly obvious, why not force NV to free their patents so that intel could include a proper GPU? It is just as crazy as the other way around! What would be wiser, is to re-evaluate the patent-laws altogether. Patents that haven't been used for more than 5 years after applying... patent becomes open source. Patent older then 10 years... open source. That would drive competition, knowing that they couldn't hide behind patents for years. Imagine of all patents regarding CPU and GPU would be open source that were 10 years or older...

    Yes, intel needs to get punished, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    We must not forget why the patent system was invented in the first place. It is to protect the inventor so that he can exploit his invention.
    In that sense it's good. Without patents, I think the industry would become self-destructive... One company invests millions into a new invention, another company just clones it and runs away with the profit, leaving the first company to go bankrupt.
    At some point, nobody will invent anything anymore, because they cannot protect their investment. In software, open source is mainly doing the same... They provide clones for existing applications, but you rarely see something new or groundbreaking, it's just 'commoditizing'. Companies who invest in new developments (eg Apple's UI or Microsoft's Surface), will do that in a closed way, to protect their investment.

    I think they now run into the problem that patents can make a company huge and dominate the entire market. I think it's about 20 years too late now. Intel won the war back when AMD wanted to build 386 clones, and Intel could delay them for years, until they were finally forced to open up x86 and the related patents for licensing.
    During that time, Intel had already cornered the market, and gotten such a headstart on AMD that it's virtually impossible for AMD to ever get back in the race.

    So now they go after Intel and try to use the anti-trust laws to throw the book at them. Thing is that those anti-trust laws are pretty arbitrary.
    Steve Ballmer said the same thing... They battled it out in court for years because they wanted to have clear rules of what they can and cannot do. So now they made their own 'case law'.
    I think Intel should do the same thing. Just battle it out in court for years, and in the process, you basically paint the FTC into a corner.
    Let this anti-trust madness end. Define some proper rules. Sure, Microsoft and Intel may have broken the rules... but even if they don't, it won't change the situation. They're too big to compete with.
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    this whole Intel anti competitive drama was about the future of computing, not the past. At this moment they do not have / nor are they capable in such a short time, to offer anything better than AMD's concept of GPUCPU. Intel is not prepared, and has been blocking the future of computer processing for quite a while.

    asH


  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    AMD was first to conceptualize Dual Core (huge) – Intel beat AMD in production, but AMD’s was better, until Intel went back to the drawing board. AMD was first to conceptualize GPUCPU, Intel again will be first to production in 2010

    asH
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    AMD wasn't the first.
    The first 'regular' (as in not embedded/specialized hardware) CPU on the market to have two cores was the IBM POWER4, in 2001. The concept of multi-core itself is far older though, and certainly not 'conceptualized' by AMD.

    Likewise, GPUCPU isn't new, various vendors (including nVidia) already have chips on the market with both a CPU and a GPU on board.
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    that's what took you so long?
    lol
    asH
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link


    I was thinking Opteron
  • MengNa - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Being the first to conceptualize something means nothing unless you can actually deliver a good product at the right time...
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    If I had a billion dollars I and you had $100, I could easily make your ideas mine, and better too. You could never profit from your ideas more than I.
  • MengNa - Saturday, December 19, 2009 - link

    Well that's how business works. For the most part.
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    All AMD has is a concept of GPUCPU.
    Intel isn't blocking the future of computer processing at all.
    They have the most advanced multicore x86 architecture on the market, and I don't see anything from AMD that could get close, so there is nothing for Intel to block. Phenom II is way slower, and anything else is years off on the roadmap.
    Intel is also trying to get into the GPGPU market. Doesn't sound like blocking to me. Clearly they see that GPGPU is going to play an important role in the future of computing, and they're making an effort to be part of it.
    The only company who got GPGPU right so far is nVidia. AMD plays no role in GPGPU yet.

    This whole drama is about AMD and its huge following of fanboys crying about the fact that they cannot compete with Intel and nVidia on a technical level, so they try to exploit the fact that they're the small and weak company. Being a large successful company is a crime these days.
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    grow up

    asH
  • annoyedagain - Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - link

    You're an idiot. I know I've resorted to name calling, but you're complete lack of logic when making your argument is driving me nuts.
  • Ananke - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Guys, you are missing the point here. Intel is already a monopoly, and normally government regulation have to intrude, to reassure free market. So, it doesn't matter quality of products or past/current marketing practices. Intel has to give up market share, otherwwise they /logically/ face forced break into independant companies. it has happened to Morgan Stenley trusts, ATT, etc in the past. That is a reason of such agencies like FCC to exist - to guarantee working free market.

    Anyway, Intel is at a very bad position with this.
  • cmdrdredd - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The problem I have is... Intel came up with all these ideas they license, Intel flat out has better hardware than any competitor right now, Intel used their own funds to purchase and build fabs and purchase various technology they felt was viable.

    What I'm saying is...It could have been AMD who did this but it wasn't so go cry somewhere else. It's like people bitching about MS monopolizing the OS. I say so friggen what!!! I'd rather have a single OS that works with everything than have to have devs code 25 different versions because everyone and their brother has a shitty OS out there. Again, it could have been another company that did what MS did but it wasn't. Everyone is so quick to piss on the one who did things to make a profit and call them the bad guy. I have no doubt that any one of you would make the same calls they did if you were given the same situation. You're all utterly ridiculous. Sure competition is nice but when you can buy a Quad core Intel CPU right now for $200 I don't see any price gouging going on. The problem in my mind is the competition has to actually try to be competitive. If they aren't then WTF do you want!??
  • plague911 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    The idea is not as clear as what you are stating. Ill give you an example. A thief breaks into your house steals $10,000 from your mattress. Goes to the horse races bets it all and makes 100:1. So now they have $1,000,000 when the police come knowing on their door they are not just going to take the $10,000.

    What the FTC is accusing Intel of can be seen in the same way. Different crimes but same idea.

    On a competitive note. Perhaps the Intel stole AMDs $10,000 and put it into Intel's R&D now and left AMD with $100 for R&D. Of-course Intel will come out with a better product. This is why anti competitive fines from the FTC are more then the direct damages.
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    "Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that between 2000 and 2006—a period that includes Intel's supposed monopolistic behavior—the quality and performance of microprocessors improved while prices fell at an annual rate of 48.9%. Over the same period, the prices of related items such as personal computers, storage devices and software also decreased. The typical goal of anticompetitive corporate behavior is to raise prices, yet computer products that cost thousands of dollars a few years ago now cost hundreds."

    Intel Net income (In Millions—Except Per Share Amounts) Deep discounts included
    ' 08 - $ 5,292......' 07- $ 6,976......'. 06- $ 5,044......' 05- $ 8,664......' 04- $ 7,516...... ' 03- $ 5,641.....'02- $3117

    Intel owned the market, they can set discounted prices and still make huge profits, and in turn force smaller companies out- they traded discounts for market share. What's amazing in all this is that AMD survived

    asH
  • BushLin - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Net income of the entire company means nothing, re-posting again and again doesn't make it any more valid.
  • cmdrdredd - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    What I'm saying is, this is typical government with an agenda right from the liberals. They hate success and want to drive you to either fail, or pay them because you're successful.

    Tax everyone who did things to make money...stupidity at it's finest. It's no wonder everyone is taking their work to china and elsewhere. They aren't punished for success there.
  • Ananke - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Actually free market and less government participation IN the market is a conservativism. Monopolies naturaly exist in communism, so YOU are kind of wrong here. FCC does what they suppose to do, quality of products, pricing, etc. have nothing to do with the situation of monopolizing the market. Maybe, if there were 10 competing technologies ON the same standart, products would've been even better and cheaper by now.
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    "Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that between 2000 and 2006—a period that includes Intel's supposed monopolistic behavior—the quality and performance of microprocessors improved while prices fell at an annual rate of 48.9%. Over the same period, the prices of related items such as personal computers, storage devices and software also decreased. The typical goal of anticompetitive corporate behavior is to raise prices, yet computer products that cost thousands of dollars a few years ago now cost hundreds."

    Intel Net income (In Millions—Except Per Share Amounts) Deep discounts included
    ' 08 - $ 5,292......' 07- $ 6,976......'. 06- $ 5,044......' 05- $ 8,664......' 04- $ 7,516...... ' 03- $ 5,641.....'02- $3117

  • BushLin - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Why don't you post that meaningless BS once more? Just to be sure that we know you're a douche...
  • mrd0 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    But, if you read antitrust case law...slowing the decrease in prices is just as much a problem. If you slow the decrease because of anti-competitive behavior, then consumers loose.

    Antitrust law is concerned with companies leveraging their dominant position, or other types of anti-competitive behavior, that controls price movement, whether up or down.

    If AMD was in a stronger position today, processor prices would be cheaper still...
  • MengNa - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Of course if AMD was in a stronger position the prices would be lower, but you can't blame Intel for the fact that AMD ISN'T in a better position. And I don't doubt that if Intel lowered their prices right now the FTC would be equally upset because they just aren't giving AMD the chance to compete. It's business 101; you price according to the market, not some fantasy world wherein it's wrong for a company to make a profit. Intel aren't an NPO after all.
    This isn't the textile industry or something that you can just start producing clothes and sell them at a competitive price, in the CPU industry it takes years of research, billions of dollars on R&D and billions more on building or updating fabs. So the fact that there aren't that many competitors on the CPU market can't be blamed on Intel.
    The problem is that a duopoly like there is now seems better then if there were a plethora of small companies with equal market share each, which would lead to none of them having the funds necessary to innovate at the pace we are seeing now.
    I doubt Intel will actually run AMD out of business, if only for the fact that they know that in case it happens the FTC will really split them up into 2 or more companies.
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    I don't think CPUs would be cheaper, actually.
    If you look at Athlon FX vs Pentium 4... Instead of AMD driving the prices down with their faster CPU, it was AMD that took the $1000-range.
    Makes sense too, you know that people are willing to pay that much for a CPU, so you just maximize your profit.
    Especially for AMD this is very important, because AMD doesn't make a profit that often.

    So if AMD gets more competitive, I think prices will just go up.
  • MengNa - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Good point. I forgot about that, which is funny as I still have a pentium 4 :)
    It's always a back and forth battle, and unless both always have the exact same performance one will charge more then the other.
  • cyberserf - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    It was sneaky of Intel to settle with AMD. I bet they knew this was coming and didn't want to fight legal battles on all fronts.
    I think AMD should have gotten way more then that 1.5B. This is nothing compared to what Intel brings in every quarter.

  • Doormat - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    "To stop prioritizing CPU shipments to loyal OEMs."

    So no more Apple getting Intel chips *before* the official release date?
  • Sureshot324 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I agree that many of the FTC's points don't seem valid (since when is offering bulk discounts illegal?) but breaking the Intel monopoly is something that just has to be done, even if technically by the rulebook they have done nothing wrong.

    It's like when Intel was forced to license x86 to AMD. Intel developed the standard and owns the license, so technically there's reason they should have to license it out. However, that license gave them a virtual monopoly over desktop CPUS and that's clearly a bad thing. The FTC forced them to license it out and that was the right thing to do.

    When AMD was competitive, Intel would frequently cut prices in response to AMD moves, which was great for consumers. Now Intel is making ridiculous margins on all their products. I'm fairly certain Core 2 costs much less to manufacture than any Athlon/Phenom, due to smaller die size and economy of scale (Intel makes much more of them). Yet the average Core 2 still sells for much more than an equivalent AMD CPU. X58 boards are crazy expensive now that they've shut out competition from Nvidia.
  • mrd0 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    "since when is offering bulk discounts illegal?"

    Try since LePage’s Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003). If you're a dominant firm, exclusionary pricing is illegal. Intel is accused of using its dominant position to put a smaller competitor at a competitive disadvantage. If AMD were to leave the market...does anyone think Intel would leave prices where they're at. Also, this same behavior can force suppliers Intel doesn't agree with out of the market. We're simply taking about using a dominant position in the market for anti-competitive behavior. If Intel weren't a dominant firm, there is no case.
  • plague911 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    gahhh I cant believe sooo many people are being sooo stupid. The problem is not that they are rewarding good customers. The problem is they are threatening to screw equally good customers just because they may choose to sell AMD as well.

    The example goes something like this. Company A and Company B sell 10000 a month. Both of them get a discount of X% because they are stable and have good sales. Company B starts to look into selling AMD products as well. Intel tells them that if they do they will no longer get the X% discount.


    Both company A and company B are theoretically equally good customers. To offer company A and B different terms because company B is considering AMD sales is what is ILLEGAL.

    This is pretty strait forward what the FTC is accusing Intel of. Im seriously doubting the intellect of those individuals who cant seem to understand this situation.
  • MengNa - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Regarding your last paragraph;
    So you mean to say that when AMD actually had a good product that Intel responded by lowering their prices across the board, and now that they don't have much of a competition that they overcharge for their products? Oh my, call the price police! The only way this would be illegal was if Intel was actually preventing AMD from making competitive CPU's, which they aren't.
    And what is your point about the X58 motherboards? That chipset is clearly intended for the higher end market. And the lack of competition from other chipset manufacturers hasn't stopped Intel from creating the less expensive P55 chipset, which is effectively competing against their own X58 chipset...
  • - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I didn't say it was illegal. Intel can set it's prices to whatever it wants. Some previous posters seem to be saying there's nothing wrong with an Intel monopoly as long as they continue to make good products for a good price. They won't, and that's the point I was making.

    Current AMD CPU's ARE competitive from a price performance perspective. AMD makes very low margins and Intel makes huge margins, and at many price segments AMD actually has the better deal, yet Intel still dominates the market.

    It's not because consumers don't want AMD. Most consumers really don't care what CPU is in their system. It's that most OEM systems have Intel CPUs, so unless a consumer specifically looks for an AMD system, he'll most likely end up with Intel.
  • brucelee816 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I think this whole crackdown could lead to the FTC looking into the practices of Nvidia and Ati/AMD. Again and again, ATI cards have extremely good specifications, but when it came to performance benchmarks, there was no gap. I've always suspected that Nvidia was doing something funny to the the software community to support Nvidia more than ATI products. Any rebuttal?
  • check - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    3. To stop prioritizing CPU shipments to loyal OEMs.
    That is how business works. You build a relationship with your clients and the ones that have been loyal and treated you well in the past you return the favor.

    5. For Intel to be disallowed from producing/distributing any software or hardware that unreasonably excludes or inhibits the performance of competitors’ GPUs and CPUs.
    You are going to disallow Intel from distributing hardware and software because it isn't compatible with their competitors? I would like the FTC to investigate Apple's xcode software suite because I can't program my iPhone on my windows/linux/(non-intel-basedapple) based computer system.

    6. To stop selling things below cost. The FTC is defining this as being the average variable cost plus a “contribution to Intel’s fixed sunk costs in an appropriate multiple of that average variable cost.”
    The point of these sorts of investigations are to protect the customers. How is the FTC fixing prices and making the market uncompetitive helping out the customer?

    7. For Intel to do a few different things about the versions of their compiler that put AMD at a disadvantage (which the FTC is calling the Defective Compiler): offer a substitute compiler to customers for free that is not a Defective Compiler, or to compensate customers in switching to another compiler, to provide notice to software buyers of products compiled using the Defective Compiler that they may need to replace their software.
    You don't like the software, don't use it. This compiler wasn't intended to support the AMD platform fully.

    8. To stop Intel from making misleading statements.
    You find me a salesman that doesn't do that when he is trying to convince you to buy his product over a competitors

    10. For Intel to license the QPI and DMI buses to 3rd party chipset manufacturers.
    Intel owns it, why are they obligated to license it to the competition?

    12. For Intel to stop badmouthing competing products unless they have solid scientific evidence.
    Why are Verizon and AT&T allowed to mother-fuck each other left and right?

    13. For Intel to foot the bill for the independent organization that will monitor this.
    No conflict of interest there... so a company that has been essentially bribing people will now be paying the organization that will be monitoring them?

    Now, I'm not saying that Intel is in the right here (far from it) but we have to remember that the people working for the FTC are just as big of assholes (if not bigger) and have limited technical knowledge on the topic to begin with. Forcing a company license a technology that they have patented? Come on, that is bullshit and even the FTC knows this.
  • mrd0 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Oh Check...you would be the perfect jury member for Intel. No clue about dominant firm anti-trust law.

    And you can be forced to license your patents...just see Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) for one example. That's a twelve year old case...nothing new here.
  • thebeastie - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    You just don't get it do you? It isn't really about specifics if you ask me it is about the overall prickiness of Intels behaviour and about what is more just, that's why they are called "Federal Trade Commission" not the "Federal Square Commission".

    Maybe you would understand what is really all about if they called it the "Federal Fair Commission".

    They know Intel has always been in a very unique position and has always been way over the top taken advantage of this position.

    No they aren't going to care that people like you hold stock, they might hope you have a little intuition to maybe sell out of your Intel stock if every dollar counts, but that's it.

    So the Federal Trade Commission are going to do what they do and that is smack Intel hard for being pricks even if it doesn't fit in your PATHETIC SQUARE view of the world. The world doesn't always revolve around how square things are, sometimes it just is done because, and no amount of square whining is going to turn it around.

    Intel has always been in a very unique business position to just about any other company in the world and they have always fully exploited it in every means possible especially via laws and smart lawyers that wouldn't normally been in such good position to protect their products over the many decades due to the unique nature of CPUs.
  • bh192012 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    If Intel is guilty of manipulating their monopoly for illegal gains in other markets, the corrective action should be to void their monopolies (current patents) so that the market can, self correct. Intel would survive and could continue to make new patents.

  • ash9 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Check, you're embarrassing yourself
    asH
  • IKeelU - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Well you sure showed him (?)
  • - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    it was clear enough for you, 'need me to connect the dots too?
    asH
  • pjs - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    So they just decided to pay AMD over a billion U.S. dollars just to be nice.

    Yup, that's it.

    I wish they would be nice to me as well.
  • MengNa - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    IIRC most of these allegations, not including those concerning the GPU market, are about things that happened some while ago? Amazing that the FTC got around to dealing with it since I thought they were still hard at work on the Ford model T monopoly :) Who else gets the feeling that in about 10 years or so the FTC will come after Intel for getting into the SSD market?
    The GPU thing seems nonsensical... What do they mean by "Intel hurt GPGPU by developing Larabee"? What, more competition in the GPU market is bad? Does the FTC intends to maintain the duopoly the currently exists?
    It really seems to me that most of the claims made by the FTC are whimsical and aimed to strong arm Intel into being more "competitive", which seems somewhat ridiculous, because actually complying with everything the FTC seems to want will actually raise prices and hinder the development of future products...
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that sometimes the government needs to stay out of certain things, as it isn't exactly the foremost expert on ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
  • rbfowler9lfc - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Leave Intel alone! If they didn't exist, what were we supposed to use, AMD or Apple? Who cares for a buggy nVidia board to waste an i7 processor?
  • zipzoomflyhigh - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    They lie, cheat, steal, bribe and infringe on copyrights, and you want us to leave Intel alone. LOL Typical fanboy response.
    It's a shame they filed this suite AFTER AMD settles with Intel, they could have gotten a lot more money. Makes you wonder if Intel paid off someone in the FTC committee.
  • LaughingTarget - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The first three "complaints" are perfectly legitimate business practices. No business is required to sell products to customers. No business is required to sell products to customers for the same price.

    The first complaint. Wow, seriously? It's only bad when Intel does this? It's a standard business practice to offer bulk discounts and offer incentives to not buy a competitor's product. Intel is not obligated to provide funds for R&D and advertising. Business isn't a welfare system. And someone is going to get a low priority at OEM during chip shortages. Intel would clearly prefer to provide its best customers with the products. Again, business isn't welfare, Intel can operate how it choses so long as it does not violate contractual obligations. None of that was breached in complaint 1

    The second complaint. This is only a problem if Intel advertised that optimizations functioned on AMD processors. Intel is, again, under no obligation to expend funds and resources making sure their products work for the competition.

    The third complaint. Again, perfectly legitimate business move. This is common practice in every industry, yet (once again), useless entities (like the entire EU) have arbitrarily decided that the CPU business requires special treatment.

    The fourth complaint. This is a completely valid complaint. However, this belongs in civil court. Purchasers of the compilers who made the purchase decision based on falsified specifications at exactly the amount of economic loss suffered.

    Just like the Microsoft decisions promulgated in the US and EU, it had nothing to do with improving competition. The EU and US saw a means to generate more revenue for their bloated bureaucracies by fleecing a large, successful corporation of resources. It uses ill-concieved monopoly laws to do this. Did any of the supposed wronged parties ever see a red cent of the huge payout the EU slapped on Microsoft? Nope. It all went to the EU general fund.

    The first three are perfectly legit business practices. It's crystal clear that if consumers actually wanted AMD processors, Intel's group discounts and labeling requirements wouldn't have an impact. If AMD was actually competitive (which they are not), any of these supposed "bully" tactics that Intel uses would only backfire and result in more sales of AMD processors. PC manufacturers have no intention of offering more AMD systems because the market simply doesn't want them. Using the blunt force of anti-trust won't accomplish anything but driving up the cost of Intel processors and giving respective governments more money to spend on abusive programs. People will still buy the Intel processor, even if the manufacturer doesn't get all the bulk discount deals.

    If AMD wants to cut into Intel's market, build a better product at a price people want. If that can't be done, find something else to do. Quit whining to activist governments when someone does a better job.
  • mrd0 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    The first complaint is only legal standard business practice if you're not a dominant firm. It can be exclusionary pricing, or anti-competitive behavior, under the antitrust laws (Section 2 of the Sherman Act in particular) if you're a dominant firm. You need to look no further than case law to see this. Try LePage’s Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) for starters...
  • BushLin - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    "If AMD wants to cut into Intel's market, build a better product at a price people want. If that can't be done, find something else to do. Quit whining to activist governments when someone does a better job."

    Er... were you paying attention when during the Athlon 64 / Athlon X2 vs. Penitum 4 / Pentium D days?

    Large OEMs were simply not offering AMD's superior product at that time.

    The company I was working for used Dell and HP but only Intel CPUs were available despite common knowledge that they were slower, less power efficient and more expensive.

    Why was this? I would assume they're part of the reasons Intel are having their arse nailed to a wall right now.

    Right now, Intel has the better products, but the position they're in was a result of anti-competitive practices which made us all suffer.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Don't forget that Intel is a much stronger brand than AMD. You know the old saying "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"?
    The same goes for Intel.
    Especially the corporate market isn't going to change supplier overnight. Same with Windows for example. When a new version comes out, they don't just jump ship. They'll wait until it's proven itself in the field.
    Another issue was poor supply of AMD parts. For companies like Dell it's only interesting to sell AMD systems if they can get a certain volume of units out the door, else it's not going to be profitable (too much overhead on developing and supporting different motherboards, drivers, bios, servicedesk etc).

    I think AMD is mainly to blame for not capitalizing on their success. If AMD had a good successor to the Athlon X2, and had done more to build a strong brand in the public eye, then they wouldn't be in the current situation. They had their chance, and they blew it. I don't think Intel is going to allwo them another chance.
  • Penti - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    I think you forget that AMD was common in use among big OEMs around the K6 - Slot A days. That was still computers bought from Taiwanese ODMs and contract manufacturers. And there's plenty of AMD Dells, HPs etc now. Plenty of OEMs sell computers with sis-chipsets and so forth. It has nothing to do with getting large supplies. Dell is like all the others for desktop PCs they can simply just buy a already designed/made motherboard from one of their Taiwan/China partners. Don't be retarded. There's plenty of Foxconn etc motherboards in Dell's. Foxconn produced AMD64-boards in this period of 2003-2006. AMD sold more then ever after their period of performance lead though, your views are just borked. It's price who has dropped back to pre AMD64 days or less. They even produce chips in Chartered since 2006.
  • - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    "Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that between 2000 and 2006—a period that includes Intel's supposed monopolistic behavior—the quality and performance of microprocessors improved while prices fell at an annual rate of 48.9%. Over the same period, the prices of related items such as personal computers, storage devices and software also decreased. The typical goal of anticompetitive corporate behavior is to raise prices, yet computer products that cost thousands of dollars a few years ago now cost hundreds."

    Intel Net income (In Millions—Except Per Share Amounts) Deep discounts included
    ' 08 - $ 5,292......' 07- $ 6,976......'. 06- $ 5,044......' 05- $ 8,664......' 04- $ 7,516...... ' 03- $ 5,641.....'02- $3117

    Intel owned the market, they can set discounted prices and still make huge profits, and in turn force smaller companies out- they traded discounts for market share. What's amazing in all this is that AMD survived

    asH


  • BushLin - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    What exactly are you demonstrating here? Some net income figures say very little by themselves, they certainly don't show what profit Intel were making on say, Pentium 4 chips.

    I don't know the full details of the FTC investigation but it stands to reason that, if they were making deals with OEMs to not use AMD's products, they'd have large income figures but a lower profit margin per unit.

    Whatever the case, I'll be awaiting the official verdict and detailed findings, rather than some pasted figures that prove nothing.
  • LaughingTarget - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Forgot something. Monopolies are not inherently bad. A monopoly that is formed because the entity provides a product or service that is so good, so cheap, that no one can hope to compete is good for the people. If there aren't any regulations on the market (like anti-trust for instance), entering to compete against this monopoly will be easy should they cease offering a decent product, hike prices, and/or treat workers poorly. Nothing is blocking someone else from coming in. Natural monopolies tend to go out of business because they end up paying workers too much and keeping prices too low in efforts to avoid competition. How anyone can think of this as bad is beyond me.

    The only bad monopolies are those protected by government force. If we believe Intel is moving into a monopoly position, we need to identify why. If it's because they make a good product people want, let it be. If it's because our national governments have become so onerous to businesses that competing against the big guys is too expensive, maybe we should reevaluate our laws, tax system, and regulatory structure.

    In either case, it isn't Intel's fault for doing this. Either it's good for us or our governments tax and regulate too much. Don't blame Intel for making most of the rules and conditions set by powers beyond their control.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I'd like to add that especially in the computing world, there is a strong natural push towards a monopoly.
    Is it really a coincidence that both the hardware (x86) and the software (Windows) completely dominate the market?
    I don't think so. The market demands compatibility and interoperability. As soon as one technology reaches 'critical mass', it becomes so entrenched in the market that you're locked-in seemingly forever.
    AMD was smart enough to realize this to a certain extent, and decided to fight for an x86 license, and won. Virtually all non-x86 CPU manufacturers have long been wiped out.
    But how are you ever going to win the battle, if you have to pay royalties to your main competitor over every product you make?
    You aren't as big and powerful as Intel to start with, how will you ever reverse that situation?
  • karielash - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link



    There is a strong push to a compliant world with common standards. Hence the domination of standard hardware and software. That does not mean a world dominated by a single supplier, your claims that one supplier should dominate demonstrates a remarkably (and somewhat laughable) naivety.

    AMD signed a cross licensing agreement with Intel in 1976, this was extended in 1982, the only fighting that was done is when Intel tried to illegally (according to the court) prevent AMD from manufacturing products under a legal contract between the companies.

    AMD cross license now includes technology developed by AMD being used in Intel CPU's, they are both mutually dependent and rely upon each others patents to extend their current technology.

    http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/a-histo...">http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/arch...story-of...
  • Taft12 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    There are so many errors in your post, it is hard to decide where to begin. The "strong natural push" toward a monopoly is what the FTC is there for! We do not have "unbridled capitalism" in this country or anywhere because the bad outweighs the good. Competition is necessary.

    Growing market share from Apple, Linux, ARM refutes your claim that critical mass cannot be reversed.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The 'push' coming from the market I meant, not from Intel or Microsoft.
    FTC shouldn't do anything about that. It's a majority vote.

    Apple and Linux have been struggling for decades, and still have not reached critical mass. If anything, they prove it's futile to try and resist. They certainly don't prove that you can reverse Microsoft's dominant position.

    Oh, and next time, skip the personal attacks like "there are so many errors in your post, blahblah". It doesn't exactly make your arguments any stronger.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I have two issues with the Intel Compiler complaints:
    1) Yes, I know for a fact that it originally generated SSE/SSE2 code which only worked when the CPUID instruction returned "GenuineIntel" as a brand name.
    How you interpret that fact is another matter though. AMD didn't have SSE/SSE2 support yet at this point. So any CPU that wasn't Intel, couldn't run the code anyway. Intel couldn't guarantee the compatibility of future SSE/SSE2 implementations from other vendors either.
    I personally never used the "GenuineIntel" string, I only looked at the MMX/SSE/SSE2 bits, because that should be the 'correct' way to determine these features... But I can understand why Intel would only enable them on their own CPUs. After all, I'm an independent software developer, and Intel is a CPU manufacturer.
    The motive is not necessarily 'foul play'.

    2) It is the Intel Compiler, the name says it all. It is written by Intel, for Intel products. Intel has no responsibility to other vendors whatsoever with this product, Intel has never made any claims or guarantees about performance on competing products.
    The responsibility is completely with software vendors, if they decide to use the Intel Compiler for their products. They could just as easily have used a more neutral compiler, such as the Microsoft Compiler or gcc. It is the vendor's choice, not Intel's.
    I don't see why Intel wouldn't be allowed to make a compiler for their CPUs. And I also don't see why Intel would be responsible for how developers decide to use their compiler, which may or may not benefit CPUs other than Intels. Perhaps the developers weren't interested in anything other than Intel CPUs anyway. It happens.

    I see a parallel with nVidia's CUDA, and the software that's now trickling in, like games with PhysX acceleration, virus scanners, Adobe products etc.
    Yes, they only work on nVidia hardware, so it's 'not fair' to other GPU brands... but you can't blame nVidia for that. The developers knew (or should have known) what they were getting into and chose to support only nVidia.
  • Radnor - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The thing is CUDA, is a proprietary, NVIDIA developed technology. The fact that is exclusive to Nvidia is because nobody bought a license for it. So, no harm no foul.

    x86 is a standard and it is licensed to more partners. I believe the point with the Intel C++ compiler, isn't that it gives advantag to Intel Hardware, but mainly because it was forced to software developers. Lets wait and see in this point.
  • blaster5k - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The vast majority of developers on Windows use Microsoft Visual Studio -- not the Intel compiler. It's hardly "forced". I'd guess that it's market share is pretty low actually.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    x86 was a proprietary, Intel developed technology, until AMD managed to persuade a court to force Intel to license the technology back in 1991. Before that, it was no different from CUDA.
    Even though Intel is forced to license it to other companies, it's still Intel's instructionset, and Intel is the one who controls the licenses. It was never meant to be a multi-vendor standard, and Intel has never considered it a multi-vendor standard either. They never speak about AMD at all.
    Again I point out the obvious: It's the Intel Compiler. The brochure specifically talks about Intel platforms.
    It doesn't say anything about 'any x86 platform' let alone 'AMD'. It's a compiler BY Intel, FOR Intel. Intel has never claimed otherwise.
    Compare it to Mac OS X. It runs on x86 processors, but it's not meant for 'any x86 system'. Apple sells it as an OS for their hardware. You can't sue Apple because you managed to install OS X on your non-Apple hardware, and now the performance, stability or compatibility are not as good as on Apple hardware. It's not Apple's fault that you installed it on unsupported hardware.

    I don't see how Intel could force their compiler on any developer. Are you implying that Intel has men in black who visit developers and put a gun to their heads, saying "You will use our compiler, or else..."?
    I don't see it. Intel may be able to muscle OEMs a bit, because they depend on Intel's supply and Intel's pricing. But what leverage could Intel possibly have over any developer?
  • karielash - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link



    Your dreaming. Intel licensed the original x86 design to AMD who were to be a secondary supplier to IBM in 1982 (single source products were frowned upon by IBM) the court forced Intel to stand up to their commitment in 1993 and agreed that the 386 was an extension of the original x86 design and was covered by the license agreement allowing ADM to continue to manufacture x86 CPU's.
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Intel didn't license the x86 design to AMD at all.
    AMD manufactured Intel's designs as a second source, but AMD had no rights to the design at all.
    It's no different from AMD having their CPUs manufactured by GlobalFoundries and Chartered, or AMD/nVidia having their GPUs manufactured by TSMC.

    The issue with the 386 was that Intel had never used any second source at all (by then there were enough clones on the market that IBM could no longer make any demands). AMD tried to reverse-engineer the 386 and make their own clone. The court actually DIDN'T rule that AMD was covered by the license agreement. One major problem was the copyright that Intel had on the microcode. However, since x86 became such an important architecture, the court decided to have Intel license it anyway. But AMD did NOT win the claim that they had the right to the x86 architecture based on the earlier second-source contracts.
    This is why it took so long to get a ruling in the court, and why an all-new x86 cross-licensing contract had to be drawn up (which would never be required if AMD was already covered, would it?).

    I'd like to add that I'm getting pretty tired of people like you, with comments like 'your dreaming'. You don't even seem to grasp basic English grammar, and you obviously don't know the facts. Yet you try to 'correct' someone who does know what he's talking about, and do it in a patronizing way.
  • Griswold - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Why do you people think that all the problems intel is facing would just go away when they struck that deal with AMD? They broke laws and in the end cheated not only AMD but mostly you, the customers.

    You cant undo that by paying some cash to AMD and settle patent disputes. That is what the FTC is for. They will be hard on intels ass and it is clear to me that they will find alot of rotten fish, just like the south korean authorities did and recently the EU trade commision.

    I'm an intel shareholder. I would be happy if intel was not guilty. But they're not, I'm sure of that. And I'll have to keep an eye on the situation as a shareholder. My investment was not affected after the EU found intel guilty, mostly because everyone expected it and knew Intel guilty. I wonder if the same will hold true once the FTC fines Intel in the future...

  • uibo - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    What does the I/F stand for on the last image? Interface?
  • thebeastie - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Even if you want to live in dream land and believe that Intel never did things unfair to AMD in the past it is even impossible to see that Intel are being complete pricks with NVidia and x58 MB chipsets.
    If NVidia were able to make MB chipsets for x58 I am sure we would have some cool new stuff like SATA3 already here and more MB choices and cheaper MBs on top.

    You can argue about specifics until the Jesus returns but the reality is Intel need to be king hit and need to take it in the backside for once and just play a bit more fair and reasonable.

    Intel has always been in a very unique business position to just about any other company in the world and they have fully exploited it in every means possible especially via laws and smart lawyers that wouldn't normally have such good position due to the unique nature of CPUs.
    I am sure suing them is a difficult task but I fully support it and it must be done.

  • Orangutan2 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Word, bring in nVidia chipset competition.

  • - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Can anyone say Standards-
    Intel playing on an level playing field?? Intel relying on tech alone??
    yeah, I know, most void of the knowledge of history would say -"but Intel has always made the better processor"- therein lies the rub

    (a time line of events around AMD's Opteron that lead to the FTC's decision)

    In 2004 AMD produced the first X86 dual core server procrssor, in 2005 Intel was the first to ship their dual core

    http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=2743">http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=2743
    --------
    To sleep: perchance to dream
    ------
    Intel First to Ship Dual Core
    .........Dell announced it would be one of the first PC makers to ship Intel's new dual core Pentium Extreme. .....prices starting at around $3,000. ...

    http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3...">http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3...
    --------------
    Workstation Processors Duel: AMD Opteron against Intel Xeon
    [12/21/2005 08:44 PM | CPU]
    by Ilya Gavrichenkov
    ..... It is a fact that AMD is currently the technological leader and has been such for quite a while already. ..
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/opter...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/opter...
    -------------
    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
    ------------
    May 18, 2006 2:00 PM PDT
    Dell opts for AMD's Opteron
    By Tom Krazit , Michael Kanellos and Ina Fried
    Staff Writers, CNET News

    Dell has agreed to use Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron chip- ending a long-standing policy of sticking exclusively with Intel. . ...........

    http://news.cnet.com/Dell-opts-for-AMDs-Opteron/21...">http://news.cnet.com/Dell-opts-for-AMDs-Opteron/21...
    ____________
    AMD Files Antitrust Complaint Against Intel In U.S. Federal District Court
    – Intel’s Illegal Acts Inflate Computer Prices and Limit Choices for Businesses and Consumers –

    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo...">http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo...
    -------------
    Find out the cause of this effect,
    Or rather say, the cause of this defect,
    For this effect defective comes by cause

    asH
    So Intel's practice of building a better mouse trap while holding back the competition is over- can they compete on a level playing field? can you teach an old dog new tricks? can Intel make a decent graphics chip?
  • Scali - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    I could say standards, but the bottom line is..
    x86, PCI, PCI-e, SATA/AHCI, USB...
    Intel is heavily involved with pretty much all common standards that a modern PC is based on, not just the CPU, but also the chipset technology.

    AMD hasn't done all that much for standards, aside from adding some extensions to Intel's x86 architecture.
  • shotage - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Take away the x86 licensing from Intel pure and simple. This needs to happen.
  • wumpus - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Considering that the Pentium (original) came out more than 17 years ago, any production of the 32-bit x86 has to be considered prior-art (I'm sure they have some sort of other bogus IP protection, but patents would be worthless). MMX should come pretty soon, but you would have to wait for SSE and later. Also note that these are almost certainly "use a pin/bit to change something blindingly obvious" patents, and were probably shotgunned at the patent office until somebody let one through. Don't count on seeing a court invalidate a patent over a FTC complaint, though.

    You would have to get AMD64 from AMD. Of course, it requires SSE-something or other, which you would have to pry out of Intel's cold dead hands.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    32-bit x86 started with the 386 back in 1985... So building a 32-bit x86 without a license shouldn't be a problem.
    Thing is, you need at least a Pentium II to run a modern version of 32-bit Windows, if I'm not mistaken. They use the new instructionset features such as sysenter and whatnot. And you can't do that without a license.
  • iwodo - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Yes, Give Nv an x86 license, ( Or allow them to Purchase VIA ),

    I would love to see an Geforce X86 combined GCPU.
  • Ard - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Just a correction. The legal term you're referring to as it relates to damages provided under Section 2 is "treble damages." This allows for the damage award to be tripled. You had the right idea, just the wrong term.
  • mrd0 - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Also, you mean Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act...
  • idoln95 - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Could someone explain to me why doesn't the FCC (or some other government body) takes actions against microsoft?
    THEY are the worse monopoly of all.
    They control 90% of the OS market, They threat hardware manufacturers that make decent drivers to other Operating systems and help fund computers for schools as long as they have windows on it (The children must get use to using Microsoft products.).
    I know i sound paranoid, but everything i say is true.

    What other company can make developers write BAD and miswritten websites just to make them work with a BAD browser?


  • Laitainion - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    They did, the US tried to split Microsoft in 2 about 10 years ago, and the EU's been suing their arse almost non-stop for the past 5 years or more.

    As a result, IE8 AS STANDARD has dropped all of Microsoft's propriety extensions, so websites written to work with IE6 won't render properly in standards mode. IE8 now passes ACID2, while ACID3 is another story it *is* an improvement. Plus ACID3 wasn't finished until half-way through (or more) IE8's development cycle. (Ask wiki)

    As for the hardware thing, I think you meant threaten and I have heard nothing of the sort and what's wrong with Microsoft helping school's buy computers? If a company wants to help buy equipment for schools, more power to them. It's not as if the schools have to accept the money. I'm at uni now, and love the fact that I can get academic licenses for just about every piece of Microsoft software for free.
  • Penti - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Well the fat file system is patented and they successfully sued GPS-maker TomTom for using the built in support for FAT in the Linux Kernel (or systems).

    How would you make an updateable system without vfat? You got to have the capability to put the files there with your Windows computer. Same is true for every media player and digital camera out there.

    Now TomTom pays a patent license for FAT32...

    The Novell-deal doesn't make this situation better it's creates a climate of FUD. Other companies don't go after Linux in this way. Actually Intel develops Linux distributions (Moblin). Oracle has actually made an agreement to not sue PostgreSQL and MySQL for patent infringement when used together with Linux as they have joined OIN. And are of course developing their own distribution.
  • Taft12 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I agree with you that MS has cleaned up it's act from the bad old days around the turn of the century (don't ever forget MS will always be a convicted monopolist), but it sounds as if you have been bought off by their "free" software.

    In case you aren't aware, MS enjoys tax write-offs from their software donations to schools and gets an inside track into the hearts and minds of children. This is not completely benevolent activity
  • ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    I agree that actions that are blatantly malicious should not be allowed, such as refusing sales or support to resellers who also offer competitors' products or deliberately skewing benchmark results to reduce the performance of competitors' products.

    But some of the FTC's other complaints seems questionable. For example, can the FTC actually make it illegal for Intel to design a processor with 1 PCIe x16 slot instead of 2 as implied in the article? With transistors shrinking and transistor count pretty much doubling every 2 years and the lack of breakthroughs in multithreading, it makes sense to put an IGP on die since there is room in the transistor budget rather than keep doubling core counts. If it's acknowledged that the CPU and GPU are converging, it seems counterintuitive for discourage Intel from following that evolution by integrating GPUs at reduced costs.

    Intel should license DMI and QPI to third parties although I'm not sure how viable the IGP chipset business would be for nVidia even if Intel does. DMI is low-bandwidth and probably wouldn't be sufficient to allow a nVidia IGP to share the on-CPU memory controller. If nVidia IGPs then integrate their own memory controller and own memory pool to compensate, then that eats into the cost, power, and motherboard area advantages of IGPs. QPI is only used on high-end CPUs, which wouldn't be the target audience for IGP chipsets anyways.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Intel has never had a good graphics solution - in fact it is the worst. This CPU GPU convergence is a convenient excuse for Intel to force "bundle" its crappy graphics with its CPU. Did you ever think they would bundle a quality nvidia or ATI graphics chip with their CPU?

    Intel tool PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, and Sony will like just ship the crappy graphics chip and lie "say" to everyone that it's good. I'm sure they roll out some make believe benchmark to prove it.

    The only thing that bothers me is the timing. I'd like to think that our Government is trying to protect consumers, but it may well be that this is just some political, pre-election year, shake-down and Intel has deep pockets. It's FTC v. Microsoft all over again.


  • Taft12 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    [quote]but it may well be that this is just some political, pre-election year, shake-down and Intel has deep pockets. It's FTC v. Microsoft all over again.[/quote]

    Every second year is a pre-election year. I don't find this timing suspicious.

    I am in agreement with most of the FTC's complaints and it sounds like you are as well. I was certainly in agreement with FTC vs Microsoft, and MS was rightfully convicted as a monopolist. These things must be done.
  • yuhong - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    "This CPU GPU convergence is a convenient excuse for Intel to force "bundle" its crappy graphics with its CPU. "
    And to be honest, AMD will be doing the same thing later in 2011 with Fusion, and of course the graphics will be better.
  • prodystopian - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    "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, our assumption is that this the specific complaint. To our knowledge this has been resolved for quite some time now."

    Can someone explain this? What compiler that Intel designs would an AMD CPU have to run? Does AMD not make their own compiler?
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    There are a number of x86 C/C++ compilers out there. The 3 most popular ones are the GCC compiler (free and open source), the Microsoft Visual Studio compiler, and the Intel C++ compiler. The Intel compiler in particular is rather popular as Intel has proven to be quite adept at extracting meaningful SSE optimizations out of code, and hence it's used in a lot of performance-critical situations. AMD does not make their own compiler (it's very, very hard work) but they do contribute to the GCC compiler.

    When a compiler is using advanced code and wants to generate a binary that is backwards compatible, it will create multiple codepaths, with the program itself deciding which one to use depending on what feature set the codepath needs versus what the current CPU offers. For a time, Intel's compiler was simply checking for Intel processors, and ignoring AMD processors regardless of the feature set. As a result programs compiled with the Intel compiler would not take SSE/SSE2 codepaths on AMD processors, even if the processor did support that feature.
  • JumpingJack - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Ironically, one example is Lame MP3 compilations -- the Intel compiler compiles better code for an AMD CPU than does the MS compiler.
  • prodystopian - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Thank you very much. I am familiar with GCC and VS but didn't know Intel had their own C++ compiler.
  • ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Could Intel argue that they didn't want to spend time verifying and supporting the functionality of the SSE/SSE2 code path on AMD processors and so disabled it? To avoid liability if something did go wrong and say data got corrupted. Or can it be assumed the AMD's SSE/SSE2 implementation is 100% compatible with that of Intel's implementation with no need to verify compiler compatibility?
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    It can be assumed that AMD's SSE/SSE2 implementation is 100% compatible. There was no technical reason to take a different codepath on any processor that identified itself as SSE2-capable.
  • jensend - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    The most crucial part of all of this is the demand that Intel license QPI and DMI. Ever since coming out with the Pentium M and Centrino Intel has been doing a lot of odd things to crush the 3rd-party chipset market.
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Hell no. If Nvidia gets a DMI / QPI license, there goes SLI on Intel chipsets. Besides, Nvidia chipsets are buggy as hell.
  • jensend - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Intel would be perfectly within its rights to make the continuation of the SLI licensing agreements a condition for their licensing QPI to nVidia. I can't imagine the FTC having a problem with that; that's just sound business.

    Don't know where you're getting your beef with nV chipsets from. nV and VIA showed years ago that they have the resources to do just as well with chipsets as Intel and AMD, but they've been squeezed out by anticompetitive practices. The death of the third-party chipset market is really bad news for consumers.
  • MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    For all we know, the "Defective Compiler" has been causing instability for nVidia (and other) products. After all, those chipsets are stuck interfacing with what ends up being Intel-defined standards. If specs on new features are handled like USB3, then competitors are stuck playing catchup.
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    It'll probably require that Intel make versions of their CPUs with no GPUs on die at a lower cost. If an OEM doesn't want to spend the extra money to buy a GPU with a CPU, it shouldn't have to. Bundling products together gets you into hot water with the FTC when you're in a monopoly position.
  • Hector1 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Really ? Do you have a clue what you're suggesting ? Just how do you define GPU legally ?

    Do we stop at GPUs ? How about L2 Cache, multi-core or any other additional piece of logic Intel (or AMD) would add to the 'CPU'. Intel wouldn't include GPUs but we'd allow AMD to do that and allow Nvidia to include CPU logic to their GPU ? Would we have 1 set of rules for Intel and another for everyone else ? For how long ?

    Maybe we should break up the big ICs into separate smaller ICs so that everyone can jump in and compete ? Let's go back and breakup chipsets into smaller pieces like they used to be to allow the guys who couldn't keep up and compete back in the game. Let's take the L2 cache out of the CPUs and re-enable the memory guys to compete again in this space. Oh, I almost forgot. That would lower performance and increase the costs across the board and we'd go back to paying $2000 for a standard desktop.

    Should we nationalize Intel and force them to open up their wafer fabs to everyone else ? Who would set the prices ? The FTC ? Maybe the Congress should setup an Intel Governing committee to manage the business.

    As long Intel is selling their 'bundles' or anything else above cost at a profit, and they don't tell customers they can't buy from anyone else, what exactly is broken ? How is the FTC going to dictate and manage the technology roadmap if they're going to start dictating day-to-day business decisions? What exactly is free market & competition anyway ?

    Think before you leap.
  • jconan - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link

    microsoft was being handed the same verdict in their bundling of certain apps as being monopolistic however their competitors apple, linux distributions, sky, amiga all bundle their os with apps that microsoft can't...
  • Scali - Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - link

    I don't agree with this decision, but at least with software, it's not that big of a deal.
    Microsoft can still offer IE, Media Player and other apps as free downloads. So anyone who wants it can still install it,
    Intel can't have you 'download' and install a GPU for your CPU. It would effectively lock them out of that market, ironically enough making AMD the monopolist on integrated x86+GPU chips.

    It just doesn't work.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Anyone care for an Apple? I would think they might have something to say as well if it gets ugly.
  • blyndy - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I don't think Apple has anything to do with this case.

    Back on topic, I believe that Intel effectively defrauded AMD of possibly tens of billions of dollars in revenue. Intel should be forced to return those ill-gotten-gains to AMD and THEN be fined.

    Intel may have even set AMD into a future bankruptcy, given their current uncertain situation. If AMD does go bankrupt Intel should be forced to fund and license a new and independent x86 producer until that new producer has attained the same market share equivalent, and performance difference as AMD vs Intel at the time just before Intel's monopolistic practises began. The new producer should get the design aid of Intel's engineers should AMDs staff be dispersed by the time the new producer is established.

    In effect if Intel's unlawful actions could reasonably be considered to have led to the demise of their main competitor, they shouldn't be aloud to live with the benefits of their wrong-doing, namely a monopoly, and instead be forced to establish an equivalent competitor.

  • Aries1470 - Saturday, December 19, 2009 - link

    Well, may I remind you that AMD is NOT the only producer of x86 CPU's. There is still Via making them. Now if you were to say you wanted another manufacturer to take on Intel at the same height that AMD has, well then I guess there are MANY companies that can come back that either had licence to make x86 cpu's (from the 486 / 586 (pentium era)) or they still do, but for whatever reason they have not done so. IBM is a company that can come back in to this market, but would they be willing to? I think most of the companies at that point in time would have had the MMX extensions only, and not the SSEn (n=number versions). Then the royalties will come in to play etc. Then, would they need to create their own socket or which way would they go? AMD or Intel, or their own proprietary version?

    If you did some research, nVidia was recruiting in the past x86 engineers. There was speculation that they were getting ready to enter the CPU side of things, but everything quieted done and I haven't found any other updates on that matter.

    As for Intel's Larrabee, maybe they chose to continue developing it, instead of releasing it, due to the FTC. Hasn't anyone noticed the timing of this? That way the FTC has one less hand to play at them, and they get to mature their product and testing it and developing it. Maybe they will release a special version of it in IGP form for the moment, or they may do something that will not be consumer centric and would be for industry, where they do NOT care that much, since it is a final design with specific parameters. Look at Medical, Production lines etc. Many places to hide something ;-)

    That is my 2¢ anyway
  • iwodo - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Rumors has been circulating that Apple wants an Intel Nehamlem Dual Core CPU without the crap Intel HD Ggfx next to it. I could only imagine how intel response.

    I could only hope Intel lost, pay 1 billion to Nvidia, and forced to liscense DMI and QPI to Nv. After all Intel 's foul play insisting that connection to CPU is different from FSB to DMI / QPI. Making consumer have less choose in choosing a decent Chipset. ( Intel 's chipset has been poor, lack of innovation and just seems cheap. )

    And hopefully it will finally get rid of Intel iGFX.
  • Duwelon - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link

    Intel integrated graphics are crap for anything other than powerpoint, but to say their chipsets in general are subpar is anything but a flat out lie. Intel's chipsets are the most reliable there are right now.
  • uibo - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I thought their graphics drivers were not so great?
  • Orangutan2 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I simply disagree with that.

    With integrated graphics Intel's chipsets are utterly abysmal. At a high level based off volumes you could conclude all Intel chipsets are rubbish.

    Without integrated graphics they are sub par at the high end, relying on nVidia chips to support PCIe connectivity for RAID, graphics, SLI etc.

    Sure they are ok for the average user or gamer. Is that what you want? Pure crap on the low end and lack of innovation at the high end?

    Without competition we're back to 1997 with the Pentium II coming out with 66mhz bus on a slot = fail
  • mindless1 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    You are aware the Pentium II, on 66MHz bus with a slot, was the right move?

    Do you not recall how much slower the old motherboard socket 7 L2 cache was? Do you not recall they were an evolutionary performance increase and did outperform the K6-2 handily, particularly in floating point?

    Do you not recall the limitation was the process size and cache yields, that once they had the ability to get rid of the back-side bus and integrate the L2 into the die they did it and never looked back except a spattering of products to continue support for partners who had already invested R&D on the slotted platform?

    I'm not quite sure who you're contrasting against when you look down upon their chipsets either. nVidia? I don't mind nVidia chipsets but there's the bumpgate scandal, a few issues with nForce 1 as well.

    Who else? Sis or Via? Not even in the same ballpark as the aforementioned two. AMD only now has begun to polish their chipset drivers enough that they have the basic support claimed in the first place. Same could be said for Intel I suppose but they were always much better at documenting such errata.

    Truth is, on average over time Intel had at least as good a product as anyone else, but it seems they tried to keep a bit too much of the pie because they weren't THAT much better and I can't condone their misguided attempt to force 945 chipsets on Atom platforms, a combo that makes no sense at all but for deliberate crippling and abandonment of the market's demands.
  • Diosjenin - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Yes, Intel's IGPs are crap. But the quality of Intel's chipsets in general has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of the nForce 200 on high-end X58 boards.

    The X58 chipset has support for up to 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes. That's enough for two GPUs at x16 apiece, or for three GPUs, either in x16/x8/x8 or x16/x16/x4. nVidia allows two-way SLI to be enabled natively on X58 boards (after validation), but to enable x16/x16/x8 or x16/x16/x16 three-way SLI, you *need* an x16 to x16+x16 lane splitter.

    That's exactly what the nForce 200 does - and that's more or less all it does. In fact, it's not even tied directly to SLI support at all. Boards like ASUS's P6T6 WS Revolution include *two* nForce 200 chipsets, just to get a higher number of PCIe lanes.

    Everything else - native PCIe support, RAID, etc. - is all handled by X58, and is handled quite well. Intel's IGPs may suck, but they run a pretty tight northbridge ship.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now