You miss that the point of some here is to bash AMD in any imaginable way.
Personally, it seems like a pointless argument. I dont really care who invented what.
Personally, it seems like a pointless argument. I dont really care who invented what. All I really care about is the performance of the current processors. Who invented what, or who took who's idea doesnt change what the cpu landscape is today. I suppose that it could be important because innovation will affect the future path of both companies, but even then simply because one company was more inventive is the past does not mean that it will continue to be so.
Rebates aren't bribes.That would make Intel an extremely stupid company to spend billions in bribes for nothing. And the bribes were not imagined.
Rebates aren't bribes.
They are a normal part of business in many industries, not just the semiconductor industry.
I don't think that Intel would have repeated history if not for all the bad press. To see Yonah/Conroe as the solution you have to see the problem as it is first, and nothing is as good as competition to make problems surface.Did they? Netburst was the longest living Intel architecture, they spent 6 years tweaking the thing. And Intel stubbornly pursued it, even when it was clear that tualatin was a better approach. Only after Intel hit a thermal barrier they stopped. And it wasn't clearly a process issue, because the same 65nm that crashed Prescott gave us Conroe.
My point was that they also made the fat servers like Itanium look bad in comparison. I don't think sites like Youtube would have been viable without plenty of cheaper x86 servers.Same here. 64 bit wasn't really a differential until much further in the race. The opteron chips were good because of the good old efficiency, where they beat hands down whatever Intel could throw at them with Netburst.
Please link to proof of this statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600Seymour Cray's CDC 6600 from 1965 is often mentioned as the first superscalar design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600The 10 PPs were implemented virtually; there was CPU hardware only for a single PP. This CPU hardware was shared and operated on 10 PP register sets which represented each of the 10 PP states (similar to modern multithreading processors).
Intel took the design and incorporate it in to their x86 CPUs. Thats innovation as well but they didnt invent Superscalar.The 6600 CP included 10 parallel functional units, allowing multiple instructions to be worked on at the same time. Today, this is known as a superscalar design, but it was unique for its time.
Ferrari sells every car they can make, but if someone were to make sure that you can only buy them at some dirty "cheap and used" car dealership, do you think they would sell for the same money? Or have the same reputation?You should come to understand what the term capacity constraint means.
AMD sold every CPU it could make, so your imagined bribes had no impact on the number of units sold.
That is AMD's allegation, but never proven in a court of law.Rebates were given under the conditions that no competing
product is sold by the firm benefiting from thoses kickbacks...
Still legal according to the Intel fanboyz.....
Ferrari sells every car they can make, but if someone were to make sure that you can only buy them at some dirty "cheap and used" car dealership, do you think they would sell for the same money? Or have the same reputation?
If you need proof then get the legal documents of the original settlement ~That is AMD's allegation, but never proven in a court of law.
And they weren't listing/advertising AMD systems in most of Europe if they even sold them over here. Sometimes you had to beg for them on the phone...HP and IBM and SUN had/have as good a reputation as Dell.
If you need proof then get the legal documents of the original settlement ~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc.
But apparently the Japanese fined them in 2004 for this very same incident after their own investigation !
Don't dilute facts with your love for Intel, do you also believe that Bin Laden is alive because you didn't get to see his corpse :hmm:
Intel obviously settled out of court because they were guilty, they wanted to avoid admitting this at all costs, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to a settlement in the first place !
You don't have to sit in a court to understand what the final verdict is all about ! Don't make yourself look like a kid doing this repetitive exercise of yours over & over again !You seem to have difficulty grasping that allegations are not the same as facts.
Unless you learn this difference, you will continue to embarrass yourself in discussions.
You can't be serious ! You think every other antitrust agency in the world had an agenda against Intel ?AMD obviously accepted the settlement because they had no case and wanted to avoid the public embarrassment of this coming to light in a proper Court process, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to a settlement in the first place !
Excellent video. Learned a lot! Thank you!Not directed at just you, but everyone who hasn't seen this should check it out if you can (not sure if it is for US only?)
Innovation is everything...
American Experience: Silicon Valley
Robert Noyce's invention of the microchip launched the world into the Information Age.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2332168287
Interesting video, check it out!
No industry gives Rebates to "Not Use" its competition's products.Rebates aren't bribes.
They are a normal part of business in many industries, not just the semiconductor industry.
You seem very confused. There was no court decided final verdict, and this point continues to elude you.You don't have to sit in a court to understand what the final verdict is all about !
Other than the EU(whose own Ombudsman criticised them for ignoring information helpful to Intel's case), all the other antitrust agencies gave Intel a trivial slap on the wrist, yet crazy people want to believe that Intel was engaging in great acts of evil that did irreparable harm to AMD.You can't be serious ! You think every other antitrust agency in the world had an agenda against Intel ?
That is AMD's claim, Intel denies it and no Court has ever passed judgement on the matter.No industry gives Rebates to "Not Use" its competition's products.
You are doing a bang up job yourself showing that you are unable to grasp the facts.You seem to have difficulty grasping that allegations are not the same as facts.
Unless you learn this difference, you will continue to embarrass yourself in discussions.
AMD obviously accepted the settlement because they had no case and wanted to avoid the public embarrassment of this coming to light in a proper Court process, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to a settlement in the first place !
I'll make this short:That is AMD's claim, Intel denies it and no Court has ever passed judgement on the matter.
Reign in your biases.
The fact that Intel paid AMD out of court is enough proof for any sane person. If you don't agree then you might as well state that ~ even though Intel was right they paid AMD billions after a sudden change of heart ! Not even a toddler would find that believable.You seem very confused. There was no court decided final verdict, and this point continues to elude you.
These agencies don't go to court without evidence, but the fact that their was no public admission by the defendants doesn't dismiss the case either. Intel were found guilty in most places around the globe hence the findings by those agencies, the court itself cannot & will not investigate a case to join the dots cause its the job of investigators.Other than the EU(whose own Ombudsman criticised them for ignoring information helpful to Intel's case), all the other antitrust agencies gave Intel a trivial slap on the wrist, yet crazy people want to believe that Intel was engaging in great acts of evil that did irreparable harm to AMD.
Most govt agencies need to justify their existence and therefore have a natural bias towards running with complainants claims, but unless an alleged wrong doer gets their day in court, where they can cross examine witnesses and call witness for their defence, then only a fool places blind faith in govt agencies that bring their own biases to the table.
Like I said, you claim a lot of things but can't do simple logic ~ its 1+1=2 not eleven !Intel's settlements weren't about admitting guilt, they agreed to not do things they claimed they were never doing in the first place and put it all in a more formalised manner.
You are doing a bang up job yourself showing that you are unable to grasp the facts.
There were quotes, notes even from the CEOs of multiple OEMs on how Intel strong-armed them into not using the AMD processors even when Athlon as well as Hammer series was cleaning Intel's clock.
I actually partially agree with you on this one. AMD should have gone all the way and exposed Intel for its shenanigans and allowed the Trade commissions of multiple countries/regions to look deeply. And all the "business processes" would have been exposed to the whole world so that even someone like you can understand (Or may be not).
Dirk and AMD's BOD settled for a settlement so that they could get the money, show something positive for their shareholders after the disaster that was ATI acquisition (financially not strategically), Core series leaping beyond K8 processing power and they also as a part of settlement able to ink an agreement that allowed AMD to spin of its fabs to Global Foundries.
As a part of settlement AMD withdrew its complaints against Intel across all continents and with the chief complainant withdrawing the allegation, the cases wound down.
I'll make this short:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-400_en.htm
Official press release of the case. Base your claims on that if you can.
If Intel had paid a substantial amount, then it would look bad for Intel, but as it was, they paid a very modest amount to get rid of the distraction.The fact that Intel paid AMD out of court is enough proof for any sane person.
They go to court with evidence that has not been tested by a court and may not hold up in court.These agencies don't go to court without evidence,
Nor does it make the defendant guilty. Is the penny starting to drop for you yet?but the fact that their was no public admission by the defendants doesn't dismiss the case either.
Intel were found guilty in most places around the globe hence the findings by those agencies, the court itself cannot & will not investigate a case to join the dots cause its the job of investigators.
Thanks, that was a perfect answer. You obviously haven't read my link - that was the antitrust court decision followup. You know, the one where Intel had to pay 1.06b .What part of no Court Decision on these issues has ever been made, do you not understand?
You seem to think an untested allegation is all that is needed.
In a Court, witnesses can be cross examined, things taken out of context, can be placed in their proper context, etc.
There's nothing to discuss here really, you want court documents then contact Intel/AMD lawyers on those settlement papers ! If you want admission of guilt then you ain't getting one because apparently the US of A doesn't apologize be it Vietnam or Iraq & whatever else you don't already know about !What part of no Court Decision on these issues has ever been made, do you not understand?
You seem to think an untested allegation is all that is needed.
In a Court, witnesses can be cross examined, things taken out of context, can be placed in their proper context, etc.