AMD vs Intel

By Steve Gibson, Jun 28, 2005 11:15am PDT Ahhhhh its good to see some good old fashion piss fighting between big companies. AMD has filed a suit against Intel for Antitrust saying that Intel was naughty instead of nice.

The suit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, alleges Intel has bullied 38 companies, including large-scale computer-makers, wholesale distributors and retailers, to secure a monopoly in the highly competitive x86 microprocessor market. [snip] In March, Japan's anti-monopoly watchdog, the Fair Trade Commission, issued a warning to Intel, saying that the company was curbing competition in the microprocessor chip market by pressuring Japanese clients to buy its chips.

Click here to comment...

Comments

14 Threads | 41 Comments


  • I would say "well if the antitrust thing is true I am not going to use Intel" but I haven't bought Intel since I got my Athlon 1 ghz back in 2000 I think. Since then I have upgraded a few times and now I am on a A64 @ 2.65 ghz.

    Intel to me has come to mean "Overpriced Underperforming Proccessors For the Ignorant". In certain workstation environments or if you have to do a lot of multitasking then the P4 has the edge. But if you are like most of the Shack and gaming is your main concern then you would have to be insane to pay for an Intel proccessor when the A64 is so much better for gaming.

    There are a few reasons people still go Intel if not for work reasons:

    1)"AMD systems are buggy"

    Not at all, back in 2k when I got my Thunderbird people actually said to me "I heard there are certain games you can't run on AMD chips" Thank god that has died for the most part but I still find people from time to time that bitch about stability on AMD systems and they have used Intel only for years, funny how I haven't had a blue screen...um......ever...besides when I overclocked way too high.


    2)"AMD runs hot"

    The latest p4s run hotter than AMD chips

    3)"the p4 EE is so expensive it MUST be faster"

    I love the logic, Intel charges more so it must be better, every once and a while on hardocp and other sites people with more money than computer savy, will dish out crazy amounts of money for a top of the line system and they almost always go for a P4 EE and are heartbroken to find out that it looses in benchmarks to $200 proccessors, usually they are mildy annoyed but some of them are so in denial they will just claim even though it is slower it is "more efficient" and call it a day, I don't understand the logic either.

    So yeah, Intel probably engages in these practices because they haven't really held the performance crown since the late 90s.