Discussion Forums > Technology
AMD vs Intel - legal issues ... and why Intel is big right now
Neco:
Seriously.
Like said above. Buy the PRODUCT not the brand. I am NO brand loyalist. I did that and got burned many times. I was pissed off about the K6-2 in the end. The Duron / AthlonXP restored my confidence for a while, but I was not too thrilled with the Athlon x64 for whatever reason.
I have been nothing but happy since my C2D build. It is my first Intel CPU ever, outside of the outdated shit I played with as a kid that likely had an Intel at some point. I am very happy with it and it performs very well, and taking it from 2.13Ghz to 3Ghz was a nice effort too, I've never been able to O/C an AMD chip like that, even with water cooling. Granted I was restricted to the AthlonXP line and some of them were just hot beasts already being pushed to the limit.
I've owned 3Dfx (r.i.p), ATI (fuck you R8500 flawed POS) and many Geforce cards. Right now I've been pretty happy with my 8800GTS512, and my next card will likely be Nvidia again, for lots of reasons.
I like competition, and I was a big AMD supporter back in the day. But clearly they can take care of themselves now, they are bigger, have more range of products, and hell they have ATI now. I'm not shedding any tears for them.
Intel has always been popular because it has brand recognition. I never saw commercials for AMD products, but you bet I remember those gay ass space suit Intel commercials. Intel probably stepped over the line at some point, in many situations, sure. But I don't think that was the major cause of AMD's lack of brand recognition.
vuzedome:
Well, thanks to all this intels new lineup is bigger than ever and will only keep growing.
Anti-competitive market-stifling tactics? This is how business is played out in the real world.
Can't keep up with the competition? Find another way around.
relic2279:
--- Quote from: Neco on November 14, 2009, 08:47:32 PM ---I have been nothing but happy since my C2D build. It is my first Intel CPU ever, outside of the outdated shit I played with as a kid that likely had an Intel at some point. I am very happy with it and it performs very well, and taking it from 2.13Ghz to 3Ghz was a nice effort too
--- End quote ---
Probably have the same chip I have. E6400? I can take mine from 2.13 to 3Ghz on air. Have had it clocked that way for almost 2 years now with no stability problems. Plays 1080p without stuttering and plays any game I throw at it... pretty damn decent for a 2+ year old computer build. (I did upgrade my video card though).
mgz:
--- Quote from: vuzedome on November 14, 2009, 11:11:30 PM ---Well, thanks to all this intels new lineup is bigger than ever and will only keep growing.
Anti-competitive market-stifling tactics? This is how business is played out in the real world.
Can't keep up with the competition? Find another way around.
--- End quote ---
in reality thought the kind of anti-competitive things they do when they talk about what intel was doing would be like hey
we will sell you this chip for say 50$ now amd would come in and say hey we will sell you chips for 45$ if you buy a fuck ton we will sell for 40.
Intel would then be like well if you buy exclusively intel chips we will sell it to you for 25 bucks.
Now if your a company like dell, or HP, or Lenovo, and your looking at your option completely ignoring performance your talking about equivalent chips here to your average consumer.
Which are you gonna go with.
Intel was also guilty of doing the same with Nvidia when they were pushing for their shit in netbooks, where intel would sell mobo + cpu for less then just the CPU
so that companies selling 300$ netbook would be looking at spending 40% more to use the nvidia shit in their product because of intel.
kureshii:
--- Quote from: vuzedome on November 14, 2009, 11:11:30 PM ---Well, thanks to all this intels new lineup is bigger than ever and will only keep growing.
Anti-competitive market-stifling tactics? This is how business is played out in the real world.
Can't keep up with the competition? Find another way around.
--- End quote ---
Anti-competitive market-stifling tactics are underhanded business tactics that run in the face of healthy competition required for capitalism to work ( even if just a little). It's not your typical predatory pricing or other aggressive marketing methods. As explained above, it refers to practices that seek to exclude your competitors, or clearly biased pricing that shows an intention to do the same.
In the case of Intel's biased pricing for the Atom processor and platform, Intel was selling the Atom processor to third-party OEMs alone for $45, but the Atom platform bundle (processor + 945GSE IGP + ICH7) costs only $25. That is clear anti-competitive pricing that seeks to exclude Nvidia's ION platform from the netbook/small-form-factor market. [addendum: See responses from both parties here.]
Does it happen in the real world? Yes. Does it hurt consumers? Yes. Should it be condoned? That depends, but I believe most people would prefer not to allow consumers like themselves to be screwed over by anticompetitive corporate practices.
So think a little before you make careless statements like that.
Also, Intel's lineup for this generation (Nehalem) of processors is actually smaller than last generation's (Core 2). Not that it has anything to do with these antitrust lawsuits...
[edit] On a related note: Intel's Insides
May require a bit of knowledge about what's going on in the industry at the moment, but it's pretty amusing.
This entry should be pretty obvious, though xD
[edit #2]Ars Technica has quite a detailed yet concise coverage of the issue, IMO.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version