Wall Street Jounal Blasts EU over Intel Decision

[Nemesis 1]

Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But saidly thats not what happened.

AMD has had plenty of capacity...I don't see your point Nemesis...
Intel had loads of fabs, but only 3 for x86 IIRC...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

I know that's not what happened. And it's not a question of "why" either anymore now is it?
I don't ever remember a "shortage" of AMD processors short of having manufacturing process bugs. But I do not ever remember seeing "Out of Stock" tags on AMD CPU's because they couldn't keep up. Your capacity argument is bogus beyond reason.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

I know that's not what happened. And it's not a question of "why" either anymore now is it?
I don't ever remember a "shortage" of AMD processors short of having manufacturing process bugs. But I do not ever remember seeing "Out of Stock" tags on AMD CPU's because they couldn't keep up. Your capacity argument is bogus beyond reason.

You're wrong on this one Keys. Even Michael Dell said that AMD couldn't supply them even if they wanted to add them as a supplier earlier than they did. And there is no way you could have missed when the channel dried up after Dell came on board. Heck, AMD even covered the topic in the earnings calls.

 

[Schmide]

All you capacity whores understand that this just reinforces the argument that Intel has a monopoly position. If you are the only competitor that can supply the market, you are a monopoly and are thus subject to regulation. If you coerce people with threats of limiting supply, you are guilty of monopolistic practices.

 

[aigomorla]

oh noes!

politics and news invaded one of my tech sub forums. :X

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
oh noes!

politics and news invaded one of my tech sub forums. :X

Agreed. Merge the two threads and move them to P&N

 

[lopri]

Didn't anyone think this 'capacity' theory strange when first heard? I first had difficulty understanding until it was 'explained' to me. But since I am kinda slow, I still can't quite get it..

1. I'm selling pizzas. There is another pizzeria down the block. I heard that they didn't get enough pepperoni delivered to make pizzas so I'm getting a lot of customers seeking extra pepperoni topping. Should I offer them discounts, rebates, rain checks, bundle deals?

2. I need 12 dozen eggs for a party today. There are Shoprite and Pathmark by my house. Went to Shoprite and they only had 3 dozen eggs left. Am I screwed? I can't buy the rest (9 dozens of eggs, that is) @Pathmark?

If someone can explain to me then I'll feel smart again.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

I know that's not what happened. And it's not a question of "why" either anymore now is it?
I don't ever remember a "shortage" of AMD processors short of having manufacturing process bugs. But I do not ever remember seeing "Out of Stock" tags on AMD CPU's because they couldn't keep up. Your capacity argument is bogus beyond reason.

No its not because AMD had performance advantage Keys. So inorder to keep from over ordered they kept orders inline with capicity threw pricing. It really Simple Keys .

Not only that KEYS I know for FACT you understand this . AS AMD showed the exact same Ability to do to NV as Intel did To AMD. Intel used manufactoring advantage on AMD 64 . AMD over priced alot. NOw MD did exact same thing to NV with the 4000 series. Its the same thing AMD has Margin advantage . I see clearly . Yet I am shamefully Intel/ATI fanbois.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: lopri
Didn't anyone think this 'capacity' theory strange when first heard? I first had difficulty understanding until it was 'explained' to me. But since I am kinda slow, I still can't quite get it..

1. I'm selling pizzas. There is another pizzeria down the block. I heard that they didn't get enough pepperoni delivered to make pizzas so I'm getting a lot of customers seeking extra pepperoni topping. Should I offer them discounts, rebates, rain checks, bundle deals?

2. I need 12 dozen eggs for a party today. There are Shoprite and Pathmark by my house. Went to Shoprite and they only had 3 dozen eggs left. Am I screwed? I can't buy the rest (9 dozens of eggs, that is) @Pathmark?

If someone can explain to me then I'll feel smart again.

There are two pizzeria's in town.

There are several large companies in town that hire the pizzeria's to cater their lunches.

Pizzeria A has one oven running flat out, can't make any more pizza than it is now, and is selling every one it can produce. It even charges more for its pizza. Pizzeria B has six ovens and not all of them are busy, so it is supplying more pizza to the companies than Pizzeria A.

Now pizzeria A comes along and says pizzeria B isn't competing fairly. Pizzeria says "WTF? You are selling every pizza you can make. No matter what we do, you cannot sell any more pizza because you are selling as much as your oven can bake."

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

I know that's not what happened. And it's not a question of "why" either anymore now is it?
I don't ever remember a "shortage" of AMD processors short of having manufacturing process bugs. But I do not ever remember seeing "Out of Stock" tags on AMD CPU's because they couldn't keep up. Your capacity argument is bogus beyond reason.

You're wrong on this one Keys. Even Michael Dell said that AMD couldn't supply them even if they wanted to add them as a supplier earlier than they did. And there is no way you could have missed when the channel dried up after Dell came on board. Heck, AMD even covered the topic in the earnings calls.

Dell wanted assurances that AMD could move massive quantities to Dell on a moments notice. In other words, they wanted AMD to stock large inventories...
AMD could not afford to do that (keeping inventory is expensive!), and even Intel got stuck because of it.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Pizzeria A has one oven running flat out, can't make any more pizza than it is now, and is selling every one it can produce. It even charges more for its pizza. Pizzeria B has six ovens and not all of them are busy, so it is supplying more pizza to the companies than Pizzeria A.

First of all the italicized part you snuck in doesn't make sense. Nice try, though.

But even then, you're actually proving the opposite. What you're saying is that the issue is NOT the pizzeria A's insufficient supply, but it's the pizzeria B's idling ovens. Think about it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

I know that's not what happened. And it's not a question of "why" either anymore now is it?
I don't ever remember a "shortage" of AMD processors short of having manufacturing process bugs. But I do not ever remember seeing "Out of Stock" tags on AMD CPU's because they couldn't keep up. Your capacity argument is bogus beyond reason.

You're wrong on this one Keys. Even Michael Dell said that AMD couldn't supply them even if they wanted to add them as a supplier earlier than they did. And there is no way you could have missed when the channel dried up after Dell came on board. Heck, AMD even covered the topic in the earnings calls.

Dell wanted assurances that AMD could move massive quantities to Dell on a moments notice. In other words, they wanted AMD to stock large inventories...
AMD could not afford to do that (keeping inventory is expensive!), and even Intel got stuck because of it.

LOL . That last part I had to LOL . Because its true. When Intel released C2D they had hugh back up of CPUs P4 style LOL. But it was intel gutting intel Viditor. Notice how slowly they are moving now . Not slow but smart moves. Also a more likely story is AMD didn't have capity to build required just in time inventory for Dell.

AMD would never beable to prove they had capcity for just in time inventory system the japan drove us to. When Dell orders 2 million CPUs they want them when HP orders 2 million CPUs they want them . Ect ect ect . AMD couldn't do this . To say they could is shameful on your part.

 

[Schmide]

It's more like this Frozen Pizza maker A is selling 70-80% of the market, while Frozen Pizza maker B 20-30%, Frozen Pizza maker A sees Frozen Pizza maker B being offered at some grocery stores, so it goes to these stores and says, we'll offer you a great kickback on our pizzas but we really want to stop or lessen doing business with Frozen Pizza maker B as well as start making our quota of our frozen pizzas. The Grocery store says what if we don't play by your rules or don't sell enough pizzas? Frozen Pizza maker A, then you don't get your kickback and we may have a hard time finding enough pizzas for you. Oh and by the way, if you want to participate in our marketing program, you're going to have to not support the launch of that new type of pizza Frozen Pizza maker B is offering.

 

[Nemesis 1]

No legeal proof of such a thing occurring.

 

[sonoran]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Dell wanted assurances that AMD could move massive quantities to Dell on a moments notice. In other words, they wanted AMD to stock large inventories...
AMD could not afford to do that (keeping inventory is expensive!), and even Intel got stuck because of it.

Let's assume your scenario is correct. Doesn't that mean that not winning Dell's business was AMD's own fault?

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
No legeal proof of such a thing occurring.

None that we the public can see. There is 500 pages and plenty of testimony that may sometime make it into the open.

Regardless, we're talking about pizzas right?

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant 300 Irrelevances 300 Irrelevances . 4 Irrelevances to 1 4 Irrelevances to 1

Fixed

Dud haven't you heard the OEMs are saying Intel did nothing wrong.

IBM has programm right now paying people not to use SUN.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe if Intel did NOT pay off OEMs to stonewall AMD sales, that perhaps AMD would have slowly gained enough market share and capital to actually have more fabs today? Instead of fabless? Look I'm fairly certain that AMD corp are not angelic either. But given the chance, they maybe could have accumulated the wealth needed for more fabs. I'm talking before this ATI BS aquisition. Before the recession. Then, could have had a massive effect on, now.

I have been buying AMD exclusively throughout the entire time that they were supposedly stonewalled... heck I even got an HP laptop zv6000 running an AMD athlon 64 (yes, a desktop CPU stuffed in a laptop, because AMD didn't have anything better at the time... running a massive battery and a massive power brick).

 

[taltamir]

anyones... instead of everyone attacking the "evil right wingers"... can anyone actually point out possible mistakes in the argument and not in who said it? Hitler was a vegan and against animal cruelty, does that make... ok bad example...
But its not about WHO said what, its about WHAT was said...

is it true or is it false that they were judge prosecutor and jury? is it true or not true that the fine is vaporware?

PS... the leeches was obviously referring to the old bloodletting that was not in any way good for anyone, not modern anti coagulant treatments.

PPS. I actually don't think all the statements the author makes are accurate, some are, some aren't. But please don't hide ignorance of a subject by attacking his character instead of his arguments.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: taltamir
anyones... instead of everyone attacking the "evil right wingers"... can anyone actually point out possible mistakes in the argument and not in who said it? Hitler was a vegan and against animal cruelty, does that make... ok bad example...
But its not about WHO said what, its about WHAT was said...

is it true or is it false that they were judge prosecutor and jury? is it true or not true that the fine is vaporware?

PS... the leeches was obviously referring to the old bloodletting that was not in any way good for anyone, not modern anti coagulant treatments.

PPS. I actually don't think all the statements the author makes are accurate, some are, some aren't. But please don't hide ignorance of a subject by attacking his character instead of his arguments.

As a point of nitpicking here, I believe that it's quite simple for opposing sides to take the same set of facts and spin them so that they mean something else entirely. Also, remember that the article wasn't news, it was just an opinion piece...so pointing out an agenda (IMHO) is pertinent...
BTW, I don't think right-wingers are evil...at least not all of them.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Did you ever stop to think that I understand all of this. It comes down to Capicity . IF AMD would have started another Fab in 2002 and gone to 300 waffer sooner . I would agree with everthing . But sadly thats not what happened.

I know that's not what happened. And it's not a question of "why" either anymore now is it?
I don't ever remember a "shortage" of AMD processors short of having manufacturing process bugs. But I do not ever remember seeing "Out of Stock" tags on AMD CPU's because they couldn't keep up. Your capacity argument is bogus beyond reason.

You're wrong on this one Keys. Even Michael Dell said that AMD couldn't supply them even if they wanted to add them as a supplier earlier than they did. And there is no way you could have missed when the channel dried up after Dell came on board. Heck, AMD even covered the topic in the earnings calls.

Dell wanted assurances that AMD could move massive quantities to Dell on a moments notice. In other words, they wanted AMD to stock large inventories...
AMD could not afford to do that (keeping inventory is expensive!), and even Intel got stuck because of it.

LOL . That last part I had to LOL . Because its true. When Intel released C2D they had hugh back up of CPUs P4 style LOL. But it was intel gutting intel Viditor. Notice how slowly they are moving now . Not slow but smart moves. Also a more likely story is AMD didn't have capity to build required just in time inventory for Dell.

AMD would never beable to prove they had capcity for just in time inventory system the japan drove us to. When Dell orders 2 million CPUs they want them when HP orders 2 million CPUs they want them . Ect ect ect . AMD couldn't do this . To say they could is shameful on your part.

Looking back on that time, from this vantage, I can see what Dell was probably doing. Dell had been almost exclusively and Intel shop for as long as I can remember. Intel and Dell had a long, and close business relationship and got fatter and fatter off of each other. AMD files suit and commences discovery court orders. Dell, in an attempt to make themselves appear open to AMD's products, makes an offer. "AMD, we will use your CPU's in our laptops, desktops, and servers, but since we are a no inventory shop and build to order, we are going to need you to build up a huge inventory immediately. If you cannot do this and keep (insert number here) in stock for us at all times, well then, you can't say we never offered you anything. We'll stick with Intel, and maybe give you a few value segment desktops in our line just to keep you around."

There was no way, that AMD could have kept a huge inventory as Dell required. As Viditor mentioned, even Intel had a tough time doing this.

Also, it was mentioned that AMD shipped 25 million CPU's from 2000 to 2001. At that time, they had a fab capacity yield of 1380,000 CPU's per week actually giving them an annual CPU production rate of about 67 million. Yes, I'm talking about 80% yields which is lowballing them at that time. It was closer to 90%.

So I wonder where people are getting the idea that AMD was selling every CPU it could make. They obviously were not. I'm sure Dell could have settled for even 1/3 of what they were asking AMD for, and I'm sure AMD could have complied with that number. Dell could have "weened" AMD in. And over a period of say 5 years, AMD could have had a much greater presence in Dell lines than we see today.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Also, it was mentioned that AMD shipped 25 million CPU's from 2000 to 2001. At that time, they had a fab capacity yield of 1380,000 CPU's per week actually giving them an annual CPU production rate of about 67 million. Yes, I'm talking about 80% yields which is lowballing them at that time. It was closer to 90%.

Yields were fantastic at that time. We had a high level manager cross over from AMD and he brought with him a graph of yields versus time up to that time and they were 95% for a particularly popular leading edge cpu from AMD.

He posted it on his door for everyone to see at my employer, a violation of god only knows how many confidentiality rules on his part, partly as motivation and partly to just show that it could be done. We internally long held onto this expectation that yields above 80% just weren't practical unless huge resources were dumped into the "fixing" the node. But our resources were substantially larger than AMD's, so if they could do it, then...

(BTW that guy eventually came to be frustrated by our uninspiring corporate culture and he moved on after a few years to far better things in another business)

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Also, it was mentioned that AMD shipped 25 million CPU's from 2000 to 2001. At that time, they had a fab capacity yield of 1380,000 CPU's per week actually giving them an annual CPU production rate of about 67 million. Yes, I'm talking about 80% yields which is lowballing them at that time. It was closer to 90%.

Yields were fantastic at that time. We had a high level manager cross over from AMD and he brought with him a graph of yields versus time up to that time and they were 95% for a particularly popular leading edge cpu from AMD.

He posted it on his door for everyone to see at my employer, a violation of god only knows how many confidentiality rules on his part, partly as motivation and partly to just show that it could be done. We internally long held onto this expectation that yields above 80% just weren't practical unless huge resources were dumped into the "fixing" the node. But our resources were substantially larger than AMD's, so if they could do it, then...

(BTW that guy eventually came to be frustrated by our uninspiring corporate culture and he moved on after a few years to far better things in another business)

I'm sure that with an APM system, TI probably could have done about the same...
A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon it gets expensive!

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Viditor
I'm sure that with an APM system, TI probably could have done about the same...
A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon it gets expensive!

That was definitely the argument, internally, but the management who created TI's process control system in the late seventies (vastly vastly inferior to AMD's modern APM) had been promoted to executive VP by the turn of the century and he wasn't about to see his legacy displaced by one not invented internally let alone not invented by him.

Like I said, the guy we brought in to deliver his message realized it fell on deaf ears pretty quickly and he moved on to a company with more receptive executive leadership...APM wasn't/isn't just about having the right control system and feedback algorithms in place, it requires the human side of the equation to function in a certain way too.

GF's APM technology will place it at the top of the heap in the foundry world, absolutely no question. A bigger concern (from my POV) is whether they can compete $/wafer with foundries operating in Asia.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Viditor
I'm sure that with an APM system, TI probably could have done about the same...
A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon it gets expensive!

That was definitely the argument, internally, but the management who created TI's process control system in the late seventies (vastly vastly inferior to AMD's modern APM) had been promoted to executive VP by the turn of the century and he wasn't about to see his legacy displaced by one not invented internally let alone not invented by him.

Like I said, the guy we brought in to deliver his message realized it fell on deaf ears pretty quickly and he moved on to a company with more receptive executive leadership...APM wasn't/isn't just about having the right control system and feedback algorithms in place, it requires the human side of the equation to function in a certain way too.

GF's APM technology will place it at the top of the heap in the foundry world, absolutely no question. A bigger concern (from my POV) is whether they can compete $/wafer with foundries operating in Asia.

It's a good question...
I can't remember specifics, but as I recall AMD had made some serious inroads into SOI wafer manufacturers as well. They invested some significant seed money which allows them a hefty discount on the produced wafers.
Another thing to remember is that the Saxony government (Dresden) is also a serious contributor to the GF Fabs, as will be NY. It's always a good idea to get local government on your side as it decreases the chances of taxes and infrastructure going pear shaped...