News EU slaps Intel with record £948m fine

@Adnocturn

You are very wrong about the 3 months, if they appeal then the fine will be suspended until the end of the trial.

Personally I believe that AMD should be fined for the fact that their original competitor to Intel was actually a reverse engineered clone of the pentium!

Recently AMD processors suck when compared to intel! So Intel should be infront, so in the end it has benifited the consumer!
(shut up fan boys)

 

Note that the fine is suspended in an high interest account, and guess where the interest goes? Straight to the EU coffers.

64bit. Better Memory controller. AMD was making use of tech that Intel has just caught up with in the i7. AMD's done some pretty big things and to be honest, they've put out a lot of good products and made less mistakes. Intel managed to cover its mistakes with corruption. Explain why the Pentium 4 sold so well when it was, quite frankly, pathetic. Athlon XP was like cha-ching, but didn't sell...Makes you wonder.

I actually run an Intel rig and over the majority of my time owning PC's I've had Intel. How ever, the longest lasting and best performing system I've ever had has been an AMD one.

 

And what does the European Union do with all of that money?

 

what every union does, line their pockets and then dance around saying we are even richer now yay....

 

Normally I'd bow to greater knowledge since I have little expertise of this area, but your next two points show so little grasp of reality that it throws ALL your knowledge/opinions into doubt.

I assume you are talking about the K5, the abortion that almost killed AMD until the NexGen crew saved their backside? Although socket compatible with the Pentium, they are significantly different internally. The K5 was a wholly AMD design, which is probably why it sucked so bad.

But you could be clueless enough to be talking about the 286/386/486 processors, although they aren't Pentiums, but AMD had a licence to produce and develop them, and they developed them better than Intel did.

The K6 was a design AMD got when they bought NexGen, and again although socket compatible with the Pentium MMX, it was again totally different internally.

If you had it, logic should tell you something.
If AMD processors were clones they should perform the same as Intel processors at a given clock speed and benchmark, just like they did in the 286/386/486 era.

By your reasoning, Intel should also be fined for cloning the Phenom to produce the i7!

I have a headache just reading that.

So...

• Intel bribes OEMs not to use/develop AMD products.
• AMD sells significantly LESS products limiting their profits and ability to invest in R&D and manufacturing facilities.
• Intel maintains their dominant market share unethically, boosting profits on comparable or inferior products.
• Consumers continue to pay high prices for Intel products because consumers and OEMs are not given the choice to buy cheaper AMD based products and there-by developing real competition.
• Intel uses their ill-gotten gains to pump huge amounts of money into R&D and manufacturing (many times more than AMD can).
• Intel R&D money fails by producing the P4.
• Despite having a fraction of the money Intel does, AMD pushes innovation and leads Intel in performance and design.
• AMDs superior chip architecture is stifled by a lack of investment in manufacturing facilities (fabs cost big bucks) in the crucial previous years, exactly when Intel was cutting AMD out of important OEM deals and potential profit.
• AMD can't get their superior chip architecture into OEM boxes for the public to buy.
• Intel R&D money succeeds by producing the Core and Core2.
• Intel superior manufacturing capacity floods market with competitive or superior products that are manufactured cheaper than AMD can, driving prices down (great for consumers, not great for AMD).
• Consumers benefit from cheap and powerful processors regardless of how a company behaves!

I can see how it has all worked out for the best then!
Never mind the fact that a stronger, healthier AMD might have made processors even cheaper or more powerful or use less energy at less cost both now and in the future.
Did you even think that a reason why AMD processors may "suck" at the moment might be because of Intel's illegal practices?

 

Blah blah.

No I dont agree, Intel are ace and my core 2 rocks.
As did my P4 when I bought it, which by the way was created before the Athlon XP range which didn't IMO beat the P4 but I don't game which I believe is where they perform better.
In the end the P4 beat the Athlon XP although the next generation of AMD chips were slightly better but cost more than the P4.
Then came of course the Core2 which completely raped AMD who managed to produce a load of faulty chips to compete that cost more and performed worse.

Every manufacturer offers discounts to customers who buy a bulk load of that product. This is what commercialism is all about, making a cheaper product and selling a whole bulk load of it.
I believe in a legal system where a company is innocent till proven guilty, so I will await the verdict of the appeal before I pass judgement.

 

The Pentium 4 was based upon a 20 pipeline structure. This would be ****ing awesome except for two common problem that are just inherently involved in computing:
Misprediction: When the wrong instruction is called. When you've got a 20 stage pipeline and it mispredicts in one stage, it takes abso-****ing-lutely ages to restart that line.
Stalling: When the information is not in the cache for what ever reason and has to be drawn from RAM. This is MUCH slower when the pipeline is longer.

The reason Intel went with such a large pipeline was because it gave them the ability to crank up da gigahurtz lol!

The AMD XP on the other hand was running an 11 stage pipeline, which means any problems in the line and it recovers much quicker. Combine with that the more refined architecture of the AMD XP processor and bam...THE P4 WAS A MASSIVE FAILURE, GET OVER IT.

 

ya it wasnt until the release of Core 2 Duo series that Intel FINALLY had something that could properly beat what AMD had to offer but now that AMD has the Phenom II/AM3 line out they are regaing ground fast with a price to performance ratio that reasonably cant be beat.

 

I didn't really want to ignite that part of the argument again, but there is no way at all you can claim the P4 was a good processor. An AMD XP +2000 (1.6ghz) could pretty much compete with a 2.4ghz P4.

 

P4 sucked. Period. End of story.

I quite like how it is now with AMD being pretty much on the same level as Intel and both have to compete over the price.

The only that might hurt AMD badly is if Intel's i5 is an awesome performer AND overclocker for an amazingly low price. And we all know Intel will fail on one of those 3 points.

Then again, I wouldn't mind another mind blower from the blue ones that puts AMD under pressure as they seem to respond well whereas they failed last time they had the lead.

 

The Phenom is nothing when compared with the core2, and the I7 just kicks it out of the park.
At the end of the day you are a bunch of fanboys who cant stand to see someone bash your beloved AMD even though they suck.

I did use an Athlon XP and found my P4 prescott a hell of a lot faster, it also overclocked a lot better too. This seems to contradict all of your points. I do use an Athlon XP on my machine at work but it has no hope of multitasking, it just about runs my embeded development tools.
This is from personal experience not reading Wikipedia and 'AMD monthly' like you guys seem to read.

I bet you all love Microsoft too, bollox to that FOSS for the win!
Intel support the open source world in so many ways but AMD lack behind in all aspects of that place.

 

oh look a fanboi trying to justify the money hes wasted over the years, ehh each to their own. I have owned both AMD and Intel, but I must say bottomline they each have their ups and down but in the end it is AMD who pushes the forefront of CPU development, lets see the only thing I have seen Intel beat AMD to the punch on was DDR3 with Triple Channel, other then that they tend to lag behind but that makes since too, let a different company put their neck out there so if it fails you dont lose anything but if it succeeds quickly copy it and then release it as some wonder of a product... Im sorry but its clear to see that Intel business practice has always been dirty, I dont deny the quality of their product but my main argument is how manipulating they are to the public and how easy it is to convince the general public as this person has demonstrated. Pretty much how Mac fanbois are soo brain washed and have to fight to convince themselves that the money they wasted was actually for something lol.

 

I haven't really wasted much money, I'm on my 2nd Intel processor in 7 years, and both processors cost less than my daily wage. Oh no I have wasted so much money. (not)

Mac invented the graphical personal computer so you shouldn't really slate them. Their systems are better than windows systems although you cant run your precious computer games on them so you are upset :'(.
The IBM power PC processors the older macs used to use (604e era) were a lot better than both the PC processors of the time and are the basis for the cell processor being used in the PS3 now.
Oh and no I don't run a Mac any-more, I had a mac before I ran windows so around 1994.

I notice that you didn't contradict my argument of the I7 kicking the crap out of the Phenom but still believe the AMD processor is better. Is that how a structured argument works? I think not.
Go back to school funboy!

 

lol ur argument was originally P4 but when you started loosing that argument you switched to the i7 which yes I still believe at this time is a waste of money and FYI if you want to do the whole wage thing which by the way you remarked about it ties in with your ego/self worth, my daily wage well actually less then 4hrs of my daily wage could purchase such processors easy as well but again I dont believe in wasting money on items that have next to no upgrade path.

As for Mac oh I dont have a problem with their OS or their designs, its really the opposite, I dont care for the companies business practices, charging nearly on average 600+ for the same hardware thats found in a windows based system. Besides whats special about the OS, it can be effected in the same ways a windows based OS can be, I mean if you think I am only using windows for gaming your wrong, I have yet to come across anything that a mac could do that I couldnt do on a PC, in fact I find what you can do on a MAC to be pretty limiting so thats a mute point.

So again as for arguing your point in i7 against phenom sure but i7 did come after Phenom so thats not much of an argument either, again its just Intel finally catching up to what AMD has already done for many years, like integrated memory controller and a native multi-core die.

So please before opening your virtual mouth come up with something a bit more intelligent to go in your pointless arguments.

 

Welcome to the forum

But seriously, you registered to tell us THIS? Where does all the anger come from?

To delve into your arguments, first of all... how can this be a PC vs MAC thing all of a sudden? "we" like AMD, so we must like Microsoft too? And yes, i use windows because games run on it. They dont run on a mac, so i dont use macs. I'm not saying windows is better, it just works for me, so i use it. I'm deeply sorry if that offends you.

About the I7... great piece of horsepower on that platform, i'm just not going to buy into it, because the roadmap is very unclear at the moment. I've upgraded on 775 (yes i run Intel) about as far as it can go, and i wont need an upgrade for a while. When and if i need an upgrade, i'll seriously concider AM3 too.

Having said that, this thread is not about the better processor or the better fanboy. It's about Intel getting caught with their hand in the cookiejar. They have been very naughty, and for that alone i'm inclined to concider not buying any more silicon from them for a while. I'm just really glad there's an alternative now

 

True that.

 

Your personal beliefs on a matter doesn't make it true. Just because you BELIEVE the P4 is faster doesn't mean it is. Industry experts countless times have stated how the Pentium 4 was a failure. I've talked to programmers who work in the games industry that just lol at the idea of a Pentium 4 being considered "good".

You're nothing more than a blithering troll trying to amuse your self.

 

Actually you really should get your facts a little more precise first.

For starters - the i7 is not a direct competitor to the Phenom II, the Core 2 quads are. AMD has priced them accordingly and they are competitive.

With regards to the PS3. It contains a single Power PC core CPU that was developed independently to the SPE processors co-designed by IBM, but mostly by Toshiba and Sony. They are fast, efficient but linear in-order cores, however these are not expressly "Power PC" by definition.

You do get rather riled up against others, which is really quite funny, so I left your posts alone.

 

I had to snip your quote, but thanks for your insightful comments and opinion, Dags. I'll be sure to find you when I need an education on semi-conductor history and design processes.
However, given the current economic climate, for now I'm going to try and not continue feeding free-loaders who sulk under bridges.

I'd love to debate your points, but there are no sensible arguments to be found in your posts. There were glimmers, but then you pasted on all that nonsensical rambling, bouncing from one processor to another, from one point to another, that in the end it all came spewing up like a morning after.

Anyway, welcome to Bit-Tech, trolls enter from the side door, and remember to clean up after yourself.

 

EU = Organized Crime