EU conducts antitrust raid on Intel and retailers

[v8envy]

B3, C0 or others won't scale well until the L3 cache is synchronous with the cores. So long as the L3 cache is stuck at an anemic 1.8 ghz Phenoms won't shine even at 3, 4 or 5 ghz clock rates relative to Intel's current offerings.

Of course, if AMD *can* make the cache run synchronous you may just see the performance boost of a lifetime.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Of course, if AMD *can* make the cache run synchronous you may just see the performance boost of a lifetime.

L3 cache has never made a big performance increase, at least compared to L1 and L2. BTW, am I the only one who knows that AMD can make cache that will run @ 3-3.5 Ghz? It seems to me that it must be an actual design flaw, somewhere between the L3 and L2 caches, not just an actual cache speed problem.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
Government controlled monopolies i.e communism is a completely different concept than monopolies in a single industry.

Lack of choice/competitions in both cases causes the market to stagnate. What about that concept don't you get?

In communism the government controls all aspects of supply and demand, in turn the whole economy. Comparing this to a monopoly, which all that can be controlled is some aspects of supply is incorrect.
I don't want to turn this into an argument but these two concepts are not even remotely similar.

As for the argument that Intel will become stagnate. In the industry Intel is in if they do not innovate their product people will not buy new computers.

Corporations aren't going to buy a computer for a 10% increase in speed/performance. They may buy a computer for a 50% increase. Intel knows this. Intel either needs to cut performance/watt or increase performance to get corporations which are thier biggest consumers on board.

Monopolies that work:
Pro Sports, US Steel, Microsoft, Apple, BHP Billiton with Uranium Molybdenum. Alcoa in the US, Berkshire Hathaway has a relative monopoly in that they are the only ones with deep enough pockets to insure places that others can not and awarded contracts because of this others are not even able to bid on(i.e. California).

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: v8envy
Of course, if AMD *can* make the cache run synchronous you may just see the performance boost of a lifetime.

L3 cache has never made a big performance increase, at least compared to L1 and L2. BTW, am I the only one who knows that AMD can make cache that will run @ 3-3.5 Ghz? It seems to me that it must be an actual design flaw, somewhere between the L3 and L2 caches, not just an actual cache speed problem.

I was under the impression, but admittadely I have no links to confirm, that AMD intentionally engineered the L3$ to be asynchronous to the rest of the CPU so they compartmentalize the thermal budget.

Pushing the L3$ to same GHz as the rest of the chip would increase TDP, and if you are going to increase TDP in the name of performance then it might be wiser to increase the GHz of the cores rather than the GHz of the L3$ or an even milder increase in GHz for both the L3$ and the logic xtors.

I think that was the theory, to recollection of course.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I was under the impression, but admittadely I have no links to confirm, that AMD intentionally engineered the L3$ to be asynchronous to the rest of the CPU so they compartmentalize the thermal budget.

Pushing the L3$ to same GHz as the rest of the chip would increase TDP, and if you are going to increase TDP in the name of performance then it might be wiser to increase the GHz of the cores rather than the GHz of the L3$ or an even milder increase in GHz for both the L3$ and the logic xtors.

I think that was the theory, to recollection of course.

Well, since we're all just speculating anyway, no need for spending time looking for links. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, since the Phenom has such a high TDP already, for it's clockspeed. Too bad they decided to reduce the L2 on all of their 65nm chips. I personally think that a 2.2-2.3 Ghz Phenom that had 4x1 MB of L2 cache, and no L3 cache would have been the way to go.

edit: And now that I think about it, it probably would have allowed them to take the Phenom to much higher clockspeeds, also.

 

[steve1616]

I thought pro sports offered entertainment as their good or service. People pay to sit in the stands to be entertained, and television broadcasts the games because they are a lucrative form of entertainment. This is the first time I have heard that pro sports had a monopoly in the entertainment industry. Also, no one said that monopolies are non existant. My argument was that I can not see how monopolies are good for society. Another thing, the concepts of communism and a monopoly are very similar in concept, they are just usually at different ends of the spectrum for the same concept. I wasn't going to even reply to the post, but it is disturbing that you said that you didn't want to start an argument, but yet you told someone that their logic was mickey mouse 1st grade logic. Everyone has their own opinions, and I will respect yours. I have legitimately tried to think of a monopoly that was better for society than if their was competition, and i honestly can't think of one, but I did give it a try.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I really believe AT$T should have never been broken up . My service was better and cheaper befor the breal up. However after watching the results of the Breakup from an after the fact perspective . I am not real sure that The Breakup wasn't a Plan. To duke people out of Billions of Dollars. Lucent is a prime example. After the break up and the Baby bells and lucent were spon off. Lucents stock sored . The Bid players dumped their shares and Lucent Crumbled . I am not angry about cause when Lucent hir 50 cents I bought 10,000 shares and sold @ $4. Now look whats going on AT&T is back and growing.

MS is more of a monoply than AT&T in ways. No matter what At&T was good without the breakup. Look up AT&T patents unbelievable stuff.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I really believe AT$T should have never been broken up .

You liked paying ~$1/minute for any long distance calls from your home phone, before AT&T was broken up?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I wouldnt place AMDs pitfalls solely on Intel being anti-competitive.

Phailnom barely beats its predecessor, the ATI aquisition was horrible timing, their marketing has been abysmal for years, they fail to outsource when they cant meet demands of OEMs... and the list goes on and on...

I will admit that it likely contributed to their current situation, but not $30b worth.

We should temper our expectations of what is reasonable product-line to product-line improvements based on the R&D resources available to make those improvemtns.

Consider, by whatever metric pleases you, the improvement Intel was able to generate in their Netburst -> Core transition. Normalize this IPC improvement in context of the financial investment Intel made to drive that improvement.

Now consider, by same metrics of course, the improvement AMD was able to generate in their K8 -> K10 transition. Normalize this IPC improvement in contect to the financial investment AMD made to drive that improvement.

Now compare the ROI (return on investment) each company derived from their investments. There are second-order effects (laws of diminishing returns, etc) which will prevent a linear ROI per unit investment scaling, of course, but to first-order this ought to be a linear scaling.

Phailnom would be a reasonable assertion if AMD generated Phenom type results with Intel type investments. But that was simply not the situation.

I find it hard to fault AMD for their product SKU's relative to Intel, this is pure numerology insomuch as it can ever be. Intel invested more and got more in return for that investment. QED.

Now why was Phenom not a more impressive product? Well AMD's contention could be that by having a legitimate business model be undermined by an abusive monopoly tactic they were starved of the GM's and thusly the R&D dollars needed 2-3 years ago to invest into a larger development team.

Ergo from there as logic dictates.

I would argue that unless AMDs research budget is so small that they simply didnt do any, there is no reason that they could produce a CPU that fails to significantly outperform its last generation (or in this case, 2 generations since K9 was dropped).

It may be too early to make that assumption.....Remember when Intel leaped to the P4 and particularly the willamette the speed increase was like 30% but it was not showing those numbers. most would speculate a netburst chip clocked as low as the last successful P3 at the time would have been slower clock for clock. Was it a failure? Hardly!!!!

In the end the P4 in the middle of its run was by far more successful. It ran for a huge duration, making the point that idontcare outlined even more. R&D ROI over the length of time. Only once the P4 began to reach its limits (IE prescott days) did we start to see those diminishing returns and AMD was able to successfully leapfrog INtel for performance crown.

I for one am not sold on the phenom, but it does have advancements that at least on paper should have produced better returns. Maybe it will take some more speed to really bring those advancements out. Maybe some better platforms, etc.


I think Intels practices did cost AMD huge....There inability to crack much above (I think) 21% marketshare eventhough for well over a 1-1/2 years theyhad the defacto performance champion was testament to the fact Intel was caping their gains with the oEM deals it was running. now would AMD have been able to go much higher? Who knows...maybe that will be a factor in determining the damages. While an argument could be made they lacked the fab capacity to have met much more demand, they perhaps would have switched to more lucrative chips and built their cash coffers. Ultimately the money they lacked we may be seeing today in the returns from their R&D. extra money could have led to some advertising as well....

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I really believe AT$T should have never been broken up .

You liked paying ~$1/minute for any long distance calls from your home phone, before AT&T was broken up?

I don't recall the $1 a min. But we rarely used long distance anyway. My phone bills have gone up not down. ALOT.

One other factor that can't be proven. I do remember having great service in those times. I can't help but wonder and its food for thought. If AT&T wouldn't have been broken up . I honestly believe we Americans would all have fiber internet hook ups by now. OR at the very least Better DSL service than this current nightmare. SO their it is I think AT&T was better as a monoply. Using hindsight Ireally believe we would all have better internet service also faster and cheaper . NA I think At&T was a bad breakup.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
What is VIA's CPU design budget? What is AMD's?

How can VIA design a CPU that's pretty good for what it's aimed at?

Has anybody actually done benchmarks on the CPU? How do you know what it was aimed at? For all we know, they were like Transmeta and thought their chip was going to be screaming fast. Heck, if you look at their announcements from 2004, this chip was supposed to be out 2 years ago. A chip that's "ok" in 2008 is "fast" in 2006.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Quote CTho9305


At first glance, the deal doesn't look that evil - it looks a lot like like an ordinary volume discount. However, when you look again, you can see that it's set up in a way that makes it impossible for competitors to enter the market.

At AMDs curent prices doesn't this apply to Via also. Or is it just AMD we are concerned with.

This isn't about AMD's current prices. This is about, among other things, a situation where AMD had a good product, and Intel made it virtually impossible to sell the good product. This probably also covers periods before that - I don't remember the details.

At first glance, the deal doesn't look that evil

Evil! One thing I like about offtopic section and Politics is you get to know other posters.

What is your positition on gay rights and abortion? Would you consider these evil or a Choice thing?

You think it's not evil to use pricing schemes that make it impossible for a second player to compete? Capitalism only works if sellers and consumers are fully informed and understand all the costs and benefits of every option. If those conditions aren't met, you need regulation, or consumers lose. I'm not going to discuss other issues with you.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Has anybody actually done benchmarks on the CPU? How do you know what it was aimed at? For all we know, they were like Transmeta and thought their chip was going to be screaming fast. Heck, if you look at their announcements from 2004, this chip was supposed to be out 2 years ago. A chip that's "ok" in 2008 is "fast" in 2006.

Even though it's The Inquirer, I suggest you check this out anyway: The Inquirer - VIA releases a brand new core

From the article: There were three demonstration units out at Via/Centaur HQ today, a 1.2GHz fanless model running 720p video, a 1.4GHz running a 1080p Blu-Ray movie, and a 2GHz model running various games. With an NV 7950 on board, it ran Crysis acceptably but not at frame rates that would make a Skulltrail blush.

.. and: It is pretty clear where Via is taking the CN, small efficient low cost PCs, small notebooks, and devices below that. They have a roadmap for continuous tweaks, upgrades and additions for the next several years, and the CN appears to be a good starting point. We will know for sure by the end of Q2 when it is slated for release, until then, it looks good.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
That is the reason you are paying less now for Intel chips.

When monopoly powers do not innovate or overcharge no competitors come into the market.

Intel is a monopoly right now and is putting AMD out of business. Once AMD does go out of business a new chipmaker will come out from the ashes that will actually give Intel a run for its money going forwards.

History is not on your side. The same basic microchip makers have been around for 30 years, regardless of how well they do financially.

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Has anybody actually done benchmarks on the CPU? How do you know what it was aimed at? For all we know, they were like Transmeta and thought their chip was going to be screaming fast. Heck, if you look at their announcements from 2004, this chip was supposed to be out 2 years ago. A chip that's "ok" in 2008 is "fast" in 2006.

Even though it's The Inquirer, I suggest you check this out anyway: The Inquirer - VIA releases a brand new core

From the article: There were three demonstration units out at Via/Centaur HQ today, a 1.2GHz fanless model running 720p video, a 1.4GHz running a 1080p Blu-Ray movie, and a 2GHz model running various games. With an NV 7950 on board, it ran Crysis acceptably but not at frame rates that would make a Skulltrail blush.

.. and: It is pretty clear where Via is taking the CN, small efficient low cost PCs, small notebooks, and devices below that. They have a roadmap for continuous tweaks, upgrades and additions for the next several years, and the CN appears to be a good starting point. We will know for sure by the end of Q2 when it is slated for release, until then, it looks good.

What Intel/AMD chip is the minimum to do the same?

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Has anybody actually done benchmarks on the CPU? How do you know what it was aimed at? For all we know, they were like Transmeta and thought their chip was going to be screaming fast. Heck, if you look at their announcements from 2004, this chip was supposed to be out 2 years ago. A chip that's "ok" in 2008 is "fast" in 2006.

Even though it's The Inquirer, I suggest you check this out anyway: The Inquirer - VIA releases a brand new core

From the article: There were three demonstration units out at Via/Centaur HQ today, a 1.2GHz fanless model running 720p video, a 1.4GHz running a 1080p Blu-Ray movie, and a 2GHz model running various games. With an NV 7950 on board, it ran Crysis acceptably but not at frame rates that would make a Skulltrail blush.

.. and: It is pretty clear where Via is taking the CN, small efficient low cost PCs, small notebooks, and devices below that. They have a roadmap for continuous tweaks, upgrades and additions for the next several years, and the CN appears to be a good starting point. We will know for sure by the end of Q2 when it is slated for release, until then, it looks good.

The problem is "acceptably". As I understand it, most people here consider "acceptably" to be "no less than 60FPS with max antialiasing at the highest settings", whereas normal people might play with 20fps at reduced detail levels, etc. It takes a lot less power to play "acceptably" by more reasonable definitions. Do you happen to have a link to a review where CPU scaling was considered and the GPU wasn't the limiting factor?

 

[GFORCE100]

Foul practices in business is one thing, but those selected few who govern these things in the EU is another.

I get the impression for some time now that those responsible for these things in the EU has some kind of mental disorder that they have proved time and time again with Microsoft.

If Intel is found to be the bully and there is evidence to back it up in court then fine, but then I expect the EU to lay off and not continue as they do with Microsoft.

I'm not even an American but get worked up with the incompetence of EU dictatorship. They're aren't doing it to protect fair trade, they're in it because they have an issue with MS.

Microsoft for example has done everything to allow competition into Windows, you don't have to use IE, neither do you have to use Media player, their photo viewer/editor, their movie maker. This can also be uninstalled but no, the EU wants more and more. They want MS to ship a bare Windows or better still, not ship Windows at all. Is there another OS out there that can support running all the already existing software out there? NO. Try telling that to the EU rascals.

It's exactly like they would get worked up because Ford sells their cars with Goodyear tires but they think this is unfair because the user should decide what brand tires they want. Well Ford isn't stopping this, just go buy whatever brand tires you fancy and have them fitted then sell the Goodyear's on eBay. If Windows comes with media player then fine, install real player, quick time or what not beside it and stop complaining MS is making this hard on you. What so MS should provide a link in IE which immediately diverts the user to real.com or quicktime.com? Oh come on please. Makes you wonder if the EU is full of men or boys.

It's not just amusing, it's pathetic that EU taxes are being paid down a black hole.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
The problem is "acceptably". As I understand it, most people here consider "acceptably" to be "no less than 60FPS with max antialiasing at the highest settings", whereas normal people might play with 20fps at reduced detail levels, etc. It takes a lot less power to play "acceptably" by more reasonable definitions. Do you happen to have a link to a review where CPU scaling was considered and the GPU wasn't the limiting factor?

I suppose, but given its intended market, "acceptably" would mean something other than what it means to most gamers.

I don't have a link to what you request, no.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: jones377
What Intel/AMD chip is the minimum to do the same?

I don't know, but that's not really the point. The point is that it doesn't necessarily take an Intel or AMD-sized R&D budget to design a CPU that fits well in whatever market it's geared for.

 

[The-Noid]

I believe free market capitalism with limited government intervention is the way to economic prosperity. If monopolies come out of the mix, the market has a way of fixing itself. The EU needs to get off their socialist horses and worry about other things like .4% growth in the Eurozone last quarter. Suing Intel < Growing Annualized Growth.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
I believe free market capitalism with limited government intervention is the way to economic prosperity.

I used to staunchly beleive this too. But then over time and lots of hours of thought regarding how/why the USA has slowly decayed to where it is today (in terms of government spending, entitlements, taxes, laws, etc) and I realized that the fundamental flaw in economic models relating to free market growth expansions is that they all assume the consumer behaves like a perfectly defined hypothetical consumer.

The problem is humans are not good consumers in terms of the expectations that economics theory places on them and their behavior.

Humans are inherently socialists and lazy bastards (not my professional opinion ), which make for poor free market economics when you want to rely on said humans to be the balance against the same humans running huge corporations.

Were people interested and motivated in constantly assessing NFV and NPV versus opportunity cost for every transaction then you could begin to argue that letting the free market (i.e. the people) decide how things are valued and how companies are operated (companies are operated by people, not anonymous space beings from mars, well at least most of them aren't)...but its not the case.

I want my free government entitlements (let's raise Yoxxy's taxes yo!) and I want to freedom to keep people from paying for those entitlements with my own wealth (lower taxes please). I also want free gasoline, and cheap healthcare, but I also want to eat with impunity.

Conclusion - We all suck at being intelligent consumers and we make for terrible free markets.

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: jones377
What Intel/AMD chip is the minimum to do the same?

I don't know, but that's not really the point. The point is that it doesn't necessarily take an Intel or AMD-sized R&D budget to design a CPU that fits well in whatever market it's geared for.

Well duh. If you set the bar low enough you can achieve anything.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
I believe free market capitalism with limited government intervention is the way to economic prosperity.

Humans are inherently socialists and lazy bastards (not my professional opinion ), which make for poor free market economics when you want to rely on said humans to be the balance against the same humans running huge corporations.

Agree with that, but to make a fair comparison you have not seen a society in the USA with out massive government intervention and expenditures.

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I want my free government entitlements (let's raise Yoxxy's taxes yo!) and I want to freedom to keep people from paying for those entitlements with my own wealth (lower taxes please). I also want free gasoline, and cheap healthcare, but I also want to eat with impunity.

My marginal tax rate is bloody 24% (look up how our tax system works, before some noob says OMG THERE IS NO 24% TAX BRACKET LOL!!!!) on the Federal already. Add in the fabulously high 7.85% on the state, 7.65% on the first 102,000 for FICA + 6.5% sales tax on anything I purchase inside the state. Oh and there are ad valorem (fun tax) on gas and alcohol + property tax. Overall I would say I pay close to 50% already.

It is amazing there is any money left over to do anything. The market is run and dominated by the government and their wasteful spending.

 

[piasabird]

IBM was helping VIA. You may not realize this.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
I believe free market capitalism with limited government intervention is the way to economic prosperity.

Humans are inherently socialists and lazy bastards (not my professional opinion ), which make for poor free market economics when you want to rely on said humans to be the balance against the same humans running huge corporations.

Agree with that, but to make a fair comparison you have not seen a society in the USA with out massive government intervention and expenditures.

Hehe, ad veloreum, I snorted out loud when I "discovered" what Robin-Hood property taxes are in the North Dallas suburbs when I bought my first house. Quite a shocker to realize you are buying your own house back from the county and state every 33 years (nearly 3% property tax).

My point about the inefficiencies of the consumer is that it is these same consumers that allowed for government to become what it has. The government's current state of existance is actually proof of how ineffective we citizens are in being cold-minded mini-accountants out to maximize our purchasing power.

If we are so inefficient as to allow such wasteful monoply entity as the government to become what it has (it was created by people after all, not thin air) then how can we reasonably expect these same people to be balanced consumers? We can't, we shouldn't.

As a human civilization we tend towards socialism, always have, every culture in history.

It is endemic to being human to seek out a means of leveraging your neighbors wealth to subsidize your own lifestyle. This does not make for free market economics, it simply can't.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't recall the $1 a min. But we rarely used long distance anyway. My phone bills have gone up not down. ALOT.

Well, it has been ~25 years. You're also paying 4x as much for gasoline today, and 5x as much for milk. Plus, if you subtract the ~$10 a month that the crooks in both D.C. and most state capitals have tacked onto all phone bills with their mysterious taxes, it's actually a pretty decent price, compared to what we were paying back then.

If AT&T wouldn't have been broken up . I honestly believe we Americans would all have fiber internet hook ups by now. OR at the very least Better DSL service than this current nightmare.

Nope, competition is always good, for any market. The fastest internet you used to be able to get was cable. All of the cable companies swore that ~5 megabits/second was the fastest that their lines could carry. Then Verizon came out with FIOS, and within just a few months, all of the cables companies were offering 10, 15, & 20 megabit service, and not a single one of them replaced any of their lines.