PDA

View Full Version : Intel's Up To Their Dirty Tricks Again



KvHagedorn
24th August 2001, 21:30
This is illegal. It's restraint of trade. First IBM makes a big woohoo announcement about a non-issue (discontinued use of AMD processors), and then Micron does the same thing. Why else would they be very publicly dissing AMD if Intel wasn't giving them KICKBACKS to do so? Yes, I'm openly accusing Intel Corporation of a serious federal crime.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/21139.html

Commentary from someone on TMF:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15598498

Dr Mordrid
24th August 2001, 21:39
This is not the way to impress the Bush administrations Justice Department, which seems intent on hammering Microsoft for doing similar things.

Dr. Mordrid

Kosh Naranek
25th August 2001, 03:39
Don't you think this is also related to the all time low CPU selling prices and the all time low component prices and thus the all time low profit.
Most tier 1 vendors are saying that they need to push almost three times the amount of systems this year just to make the revenue the did last year !
And it's no big secret that *ntel CPU still gives the best resale profit compared to AMD CPU's.

So maybe the reason is as simple as that and if not then most companies I know off should be included in your accusations.
( Some more that others ) The latest example is VIA cutting back on rebates to those MotherBoards Manufactors using SIS chipsets.

spoogenet
25th August 2001, 07:52
It costs a company a lot of money to carry varying product lines. They must do compatability and stability testing on all new products they introduce to their systems, from processors to chipsets to graphics cards, the list goes on.

We are in a time of dismal computer sales. It quite possibly costs them more to do all this testing than they receive in profits and market share from selling the systems. If that is the case, then it is smart business to can the line.

While IBM has ditched AMD in the NA and Europe, they are continuing to sell in Asia. Rumor has it that part of this is because of lower brand preference in Asia.

b

Technoid
25th August 2001, 08:38
The trend for computer sales in sweden is quite funny:

Brandname computer sales are going down....

"Computershop" Brand computers are going up the roof!

I keep track of the stock awailable at 4 of the biggest computerpart OEM distributors taht only sells to computer shops and likewise (IE not to the general public)

And the latest 3 months its been the same story:

Intel based chipsets, cpu's and RAMBUS memeory is always in stock and dont't change price regulary (IE the stock are not moving)

SDRAM, DDRAM, AMD chipsetsmobos, AMD CPU's, VIA based moderboards,

Are only in stock from monday to wensday; then the weeks amount is gone...

Mostly 80% of the restock amount is already reserved.

The amount of the above mentioned desired parts in stock at OEM's has tripled in size.

I used to order CPUS's etc at friday every week, this year I seems to have to settle to "preorder" :)

Joel
25th August 2001, 08:39
It costs a company a lot of money to carry varying product lines.

Plus they will lose alot of money that they currently get from Intel if they don't drop the AMD line. :D

Joel

Kosh Naranek
25th August 2001, 11:16
Who is getting money from *intel ?

And how much ? or is it just pure speculation ?

Dr Mordrid
25th August 2001, 11:28
Intels MO is to "enhance" availability to "cooperative" vendors.

Dr. Mordrid

ALBPM
25th August 2001, 12:24
I told you last week that IBM was just the first of many.....

Kosh Hit the nail on the head....

Don't you think this is also related to the all time low CPU selling prices and the all time low component prices and thus the all time low profit.
Most tier 1 vendors are saying that they need to push almost three times the amount of systems this year just to make the revenue the did last year !
And it's no big secret that *ntel CPU still gives the best resale profit compared to AMD CPU's.

You have to sell 3 systems this year to equal the profits on 1 system last year. You are definitely going to have to find ways to cut expenses. That would include Customer Support.

Eventually you must make the decision to only sell systems that require the least amount of resources to support after the sale.




So maybe the reason is as simple as that and if not then most companies I know off should be included in your accusations.
( Some more that others ) The latest example is VIA cutting back on rebates to those MotherBoards Manufactors using SIS chipsets.

These are "Mainstream Business Tactics" nowadays for the Computer Industry. Most Graphics card, Sound card, Memory and Hardware Manufacturers are employing these tactics to sell their products.

For the consumer things have never been better!!!
You can get one Heck of a Deal on a high performance system these days.

Look how cheap Memory has gotten. And Intel will cut prices again, this Monday. :D :D :D :D

Paul

Joel
25th August 2001, 13:34
For the consumer things have never been better!!!
You can get one Heck of a Deal on a high performance system these days.

That's because of the competition but once that's gone things will skyrocket again like it was before AMD was a big contender. Why can't these companies just let their good products sell themselves instead of resorting to these scare tactics like Intel is doing? Or is it that the product is not that good after all? :D

Joel :D

KvHagedorn
25th August 2001, 21:14
And it's no big secret that *ntel CPU still gives the best resale profit compared to AMD CPU's.

Whence did you pluck this spurious bit of nonsense? AMD processors are much less expensive than INTEL'S processors of the same power (and will remain so even after Intel cuts prices again. The P4s also require RDRAM to run properly (until the new DDR chipsets hit, then they will not perform as well as before, since they were made to take advantage of RDRAM's architecture).

What all this means is that an OEM can make more profit from an AMD system because that system costs him much less to produce. That means more profitability and a better deal for OEMs. That is, unless Craig Barrett sends Lucca Brazzi to make the OEM CEOs offers they can't refuse, in which case profit is understandably forgotten. ;)

I know VIA makes crappy chipsets, but any problems these would cause are surely more than made up for in initial savings on hardware. This is more of an issue in mission-critical machines such as servers, which is why Tyan (and anyone else making a dual Athlon board) uses AMD's own 760MP chipset.

I also don't get where you say this is "no big secret." Please elaborate on these assertions. It certainly is news to me.

And what's with the "*ntel" stuff? Are you afraid that if you speak of the devil he will appear? ;)

KvHagedorn
25th August 2001, 21:31
Oh, and what you were saying about OEMs having to sell more systems to generate the same revenue? That just proves that this ridiculous price war (instigated by Intel because they cannot accept the fact that they have competition and must compulsively bleed themselves dry in a futile attempt to destroy AMD) is doing much more to damage the economy than to help it. Frankly, no one NEEDS the crazy fast CPUs out there nowadays, but we surely need our jobs. I know how badly the Dell layoffs have affected this area (they are about 40 miles south of here). The big buying power of those Dell guys is suddenly gone, along with that of many others who have been layed off or let go. This affects the people who were selling them things, and in turn affects their buying power. Honestly, most people who are going to buy a computer are going to buy it whether it costs $799 or $1199. If the economy is booming, they don't worry too much about the $1199, but if it is bust, justifying the $799 is at least equally difficult, in my opinion.

Kosh Naranek
26th August 2001, 01:37
Whence did you pluck this spurious bit of nonsense? AMD processors are much less expensive than INTEL'S processors of the same power (and will remain so even after Intel cuts prices again. The P4s also require RDRAM to run properly (until the new DDR chipsets hit, then they will not perform as well as before, since they were made to take advantage of RDRAM's architecture).

Most tier 1 vendors say so ....... Average selling price compared to the 1000 unit price gives *ntel CPU's the best profit margin ! Period !

Ahhh ... here we go agian with the performance thing !
No one said anything about performance.I and others are simply reatcing on accusations made by you against *ntel.


And what's with the "*ntel" stuff? Are you afraid that if you speak of the devil he will appear?

ALL AMD sites I know off writes Intel's name like that.

Joel
26th August 2001, 06:17
Ahhh ... here we go agian with the performance thing !
No one said anything about performance.I and others are simply reatcing on accusations made by you against *ntel.

If you want to know about performance differences then go to this site http://www.rivastation.com/max_payne_e.htm It's amazing that a 1.2GHz Thunderbird with 256MB of SDRAM can beat a 1.5GHz P4 with 256MB RDRAM. It shows me you get more bang to the buck with the AMD setup so there is more behind it than just profit margins. And we all know what I am talking about. :D

This reminds me of the things Intel did back when they dropped the socket design to go to the slot to try and drive AMD out of the market. They tried to convince OEMs at that time not to continune with AMD and the socket design or else. But AMD hung in there, along with a few OEMs who weren't going to put up with Intel's bull****, and now Intel has gone back to a socket design and is trying to do the same thing again. :D

Joel :D

Kosh Naranek
26th August 2001, 08:34
I can see where this is turning so this will be my last post !

and of course you are right ... Max Payne is THE only benchmark which matters and of course it's fully optimized to take advantage of the P4 and the K7 and no matter how fast or how modified the P4 gets in the next couple of generations AMD will always have the best CPU !

Sorry, my mistake !

spoogenet
26th August 2001, 10:13
Is Max Payne optimized for the P4? From what I understand, things that aren't compiled to be optimized for the P4 will run much slower than those that are....that being the case, I don't trust many benchmarks run on the P4 to be accurate to the processor's capabilities. That is not to say that the consumer will always see this in real-world performance due to lack of optimization, but a processor's abilities should at least be compared fairly.

AMD chips being cheaper does NOT automatically mean that the system will be more profitable. The systems takes a while to develop and test, a length of time and expense that varies with different systems. Also the support required after sales varies with systems and can cost much more. These all dip into the profits. Initial savings in hardware don't necessarily compensate for the higher cost of compatability testing and support when it fails if it's crappy.

There are many issues a computer company considers before deciding which products to carry, it's not quite as simple as the price and alleged kickbacks.

b

superfly
26th August 2001, 10:42
Joel...

Do you really think that AMD will have an easy time against intel in the coming year???...I don't think so since it's a fact that AMD is likely having problems ramping up the athlon past 1.4 ghz.


How long have we been waiting for the palomino to arrive because i seem to remember that it was scheduled for Q1 and yet nearly six months later are nowhere to be seen,save for the server version,which only runs at 1.2 ghz or the mobile version which runs at a lower clock still.


And no,i don't buy the argument (from AMD's PR point of view) that they don't release faster versions,because their 1.4 gig nearly matches the performance of intel's 1.8 ghz p4 in most cases(which it does,i'm not disputing that fact).

But almost 2 years ago,that didn't stop AMD from releasing athlon's(in volume) that were clocked 150~200 mhz faster than any p3,even when everyone knew that the athlon was significantly faster and much cheaper than the p3 at the same clock speed.

Fact is, AMD did that because it could,but now they can't and then there's the updated version of the p4 with 512 k l2 cache to contend with,which according to some,can make the new p4 25~30% faster that the existing one,even when both are running at the same clock speed and will be released before the end of the year and six months ahead of AMD's transition to 0.13 micron production.

Here's the confirmation for the l2 size of the new p4...www.asus.com/products/techref/cpu/p4faq.html


In a way the roles are inverted now,intel has a cpu that can pretty much be clocked higher at will quite easily while AMD is trying to squeeze out as much speed as they can out of a two year old core,but isn't being very successful at it and as far as i'm concerned will only compete when they release the k8(aka sledgehammer/clawhammer series),in both clock speed and performance potential.

Joel
26th August 2001, 12:08
Well all I can say is that as long as there is a competitor againist Intel there will be no "Intel Inside" for me. And I dread the day that there is no longer a competitor againist Intel. :D

Joel :D

PowerHungry
26th August 2001, 19:58
The day Intel doesn't have a competitor is the day it is a monopoly, and will be split into two companies- one that manages Processors, and the other which handles everything else.