Boycott AMD?

[Jeremy]

They are using government to try and "compete" with Intel: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8047546.stm

[werdd]

AMD had nothing to do with this. The EU is suing Intel for anti-trust / monopoly violations. Intel has 100% of the government accounts here in the US, and there are surely under the table deals with Intel exclusive companies like Dell and IBM. The same is happening in the EU.

AMD breathes competition to the micro-processor market, they are constantly causing intel to lower their prices on the lower-bottom end and they give intel a run for their money in the performance market. It would be a sad day for IT if Intel held the sole monopoly on this market.

Think about still using Single core Pentium 4's today. AMD is the reason we have multi-core technology, they own the patent and manufactured the first multi-core chip.

[werdd]

They found evidence that a couple years back Intel bribed PC manufacturers to delay the latest AMD powered machines. This is very very illegal worldwide.

This was back when Intel was still trying to push single-core p4's and D's, while AMD was offering faster cooler and lower powered AMD64's for cheaper.

[Texan4Life]

yeah I think I have to agree with werdd. If I built a comp I built it around an AMD. it was always cheaper with better performance. Or at least back in the day when I built a few comps. been out of the game for geez maybe 4 or 5 years. not up to snuff on current price/performance. but even back then major OEMs were all intel. not to sure why when AMD was better overall and cheaper on the retail/consumer market. Back then in any performance comparison AMD would win 85% of the time. many times with remarkable margins.

if you want to put a chip manufacture on the hot plate I would (and I think many others) would chose Intel.

Interesting non the less.

[UtahApocalypse]

If anything boycott Intel and only buy AMD products

[Jeremy]

They found evidence that a couple years back Intel bribed PC manufacturers to delay the latest AMD powered machines. This is very very illegal worldwide.

This was back when Intel was still trying to push single-core p4's and D's, while AMD was offering faster cooler and lower powered AMD64's for cheaper.

Why is it illegal? Is a bribe offering a company a better deal? If Intel is able to do that, then they are apparently able to offer their product for a cheaper price.



AMD breathes competition to the micro-processor market, they are constantly causing intel to lower their prices on the lower-bottom end and they give intel a run for their money in the performance market. It would be a sad day for IT if Intel held the sole monopoly on this market.
Then you don't understand economics. The only way they could have a monopoly is by using force (specifically government). We all know the EU doesn't blame government for creating monopolies. They don't actually understand how monopolies form. So now if Intel has to pay a fine, they will be forced to raise the price of their products. So AMD is trying to use government here (to cut back on the competition), which is why I made this thread.

[werdd]

Why is it illegal? Is a bribe offering a company a better deal? If Intel is able to do that, then they are apparently able to offer their product for a cheaper price.

Your not understanding here. They were behind in technology at that point, AMD was producing multi core chips for the same price. Intel bribed companies into holding back on the newer AMD chips and to continue producing machines based on their under-performing chips at the time.

This was before the Core2duo, Intel was in really bad shape at this point.

[Jeremy]

Your not understanding here. They were behind in technology at that point, AMD was producing multi core chips for the same price. Intel bribed companies into holding back on the newer AMD chips and to continue producing machines based on their under-performing chips at the time.

This was before the Core2duo, Intel was in really bad shape at this point.

No, I am understanding it fine. A bribe would be giving a company more money or a special deal. That's called better business. If Intel isn't doing a better job with the quality or the price, they wouldn't be selling to these companies. That's real competition.

[rpfan2008]

More players are better for the consumers.

[werdd]

No, I am understanding it fine. A bribe would be giving a company more money or a special deal. That's called better business. If Intel isn't doing a better job with the quality or the price, they wouldn't be selling to these companies. That's real competition.

Do some research on the state of the CPU market at that time. Intel was selling larger dye, single core chips for the same price that AMD was marketing dual core chips that performed roughly 25% better than Intel's offering at the time at the same or lower price.

The point is, their product was not better at the time. They wheeled and dealed using illegal business practices to tide them over until they could produce the core2duo almost a year later.

[Jeremy]

Do some research on the state of the CPU market at that time. Intel was selling larger dye, single core chips for the same price that AMD was marketing dual core chips that performed roughly 25% better than Intel's offering at the time at the same or lower price.

The point is, their product was not better at the time. They wheeled and dealed using illegal business practices to tide them over until they could produce the core2duo almost a year later.

You are calling for government intervention because consumers bought a product that you consider not as good??? You don't support the free market??? It's sad that you don't think think the free market works... why do you think government is needed here? There was consent between the buyer and the seller. That is all you need. But you are calling for government to intervene in the market.

[Kludge]

Intel's caught up in a lot of litigation, ATM, including legal battles with ARM and Nvidia. Intel's large market share is also getting it hit with antitrust lawsuits around the world. I don't see much merit in investing in INTC long-term, but it does produce some fantastic chips, and, if allowed, will be onto octo-core processors and integrated graphics chips within a couple years.

AMD/ATI is currently winning in value for budget PC builds, but I doubt they will last long... ATI only has an advantage now because they're using dual-GPU mid-range cards to surpass the value of Nvidia's single-GPU high-end cards. Similarly, although an Intel Core 2 Duo would probably be most practical and efficient for users today, but AMD offers quad-core CPUs for the price of Intel's dual-core CPUs, and it looks better on paper. Unfortunately, testing CPUs and GPUs is often not based on application, but rather maximum possible performance if all cores are being utilized. Nvidia's implementation of PhysX technology is also wonking up some benchmark tests even though it isn't taken advantage of in much software.

Synthetic benchmarking utilities need to be shelved by major hardware reviewers in favor of using common software and gaging time to complete common tasks, power draw, and average FPS in games over a long period of time. This is usually only done for GPUs and full PCs, and it's a shame. Programs like 3DMark need to be thrown out entirely.

Huh. I went a bit off-topic.

[werdd]

You are calling for government intervention because consumers bought a product that you consider not as good??? You don't support the free market??? It's sad that you don't think think the free market works... why do you think government is needed here? There was consent between the buyer and the seller. That is all you need. But you are calling for government to intervene in the market.

That is not even the issue here. Intel bribed private entities to boycott their competitors better product! That is not free market.

Private entities lack the cash to take on intel. Just like they lacked the cash to take on Microsoft 4 years back, when they coughed up 500 mil.

I would agree with you right now if Intel actually had the better product at the time, and the companies chose them for the better quality price performance ratio. That is free market, companies competing to make the best product at the lowest price.

Not bribing your clients to avoid releasing machines based on your competitors cheaper and better offering.

[Kludge]

Intel bribed private entities to boycott their competitors better product! That is not free market.

How isn't that "free market"? It probably isn't good for consumers, but freedom doesn't always favor the "Common Good".

[werdd]

How isn't that "free market"? It probably isn't good for consumers, but freedom doesn't always favor the "Common Good".

Intel imposing on it's competitors right to participate in the free market?

[Jeremy]

Intel imposing on it's competitors right to participate in the free market?

They aren't imposing on the rights of AMD to participate in the market. Did they use force against AMD? Did Intel threaten to kidnap their employees or burn down their offices? Hold up a bank where AMD keeps their money? They offered a better deal to a company. That company accepted. How is this any different than selling your product at a cheaper price, for example?

If AMD was a better company, they would be able to go even cheaper and the "bribes" would have been meaningless. Competition means the best offer wins and the consumer is the happiest person. In this case, the consumers are the companies buying the products of AMD or Intel. But this indirectly benefits the consumers of their products because if they're making more money, they can sell their product for a cheaper price.

So although Kludge and I agree that this is how the market works, I would also say that it benefits the consumer. But don't act as if Intel can do that forever. If they give too much money away they would go bankrupt... then so much for their "bribes."

[Kludge]

Intel imposing on it's competitors right to participate in the free market?

"right to participate"...? What about Intel and OEM manufacturers' right to enter into contract agreements delaying release of competitors' products? So long as it doesn't breach contracts between AMD and OEM manufacturers, I don't see any problem that deserves government coercion.

[werdd]

They aren't imposing on the rights of AMD to participate in the market. Did they use force against AMD? Did Intel threaten to kidnap their employees or burn down their offices? Hold up a bank where AMD keeps their money? They offered a better deal to a company. That company accepted. How is this any different than selling your product at a cheaper price, for example?

If AMD was a better company, they would be able to go even cheaper and the "bribes" would have been meaningless. Competition means the best offer wins and the consumer is the happiest person. In this case, the consumers are the companies buying the products of AMD or Intel. But this indirectly benefits the consumers of their products because if they're making more money, they can sell their product for a cheaper price.

So although Kludge and I agree that this is how the market works, I would also say that it benefits the consumer. But don't act as if Intel can do that forever. If they give too much money away they would go bankrupt... then so much for their "bribes."

Bigness by competition is good, but if we let companies constantly work to eliminate all competition, you get corporatism.

I'm fine with businesses striving to release the best product they can while trying to gain market share at the lowest price in a constant limbo of free-market business competition. And if in the process of that, a company gets elminated(ala cyrix, texas instruments, motorolla, etc.) then that is fine.

But when they start dealing in a way to eliminate their competitors so that they can charge whatever they want for shit products, i get pissed off.

[Jeremy]

Bigness by competition is good, but if we let companies constantly work to eliminate all competition, you get corporatism.

I'm fine with businesses striving to release the best product they can while trying to gain market share at the lowest price in a constant limbo of free-market business competition. And if in the process of that, a company gets elminated(ala cyrix, texas instruments, motorolla, etc.) then that is fine.

But when they start dealing in a way to eliminate their competitors so that they can charge whatever they want for shit products, i get pissed off.

You need to read some books by Mises. :D

You can't have a monopoly without government intervention.

[Kludge]

Bigness by competition is good, but if we let companies constantly work to eliminate all competition, you get corporatism.

That's not corporatism at all... Corporatism is when government is involved in regulating markets, which is what you are advocating (disallowing Intel to enter into agreements with other producers to hinder AMD's sales).

[werdd]

You need to read some books by Mises. :D

You can't have a monopoly without government intervention.

Yeah wouldn't it be great if we allowed Wal-Mart to buy out every mom and pop store, and business. Then we could just all work for walmart, and intel.

[werdd]

That's not corporatism at all... Corporatism is when government is involved in regulating markets, which is what you are advocating (disallowing Intel to enter into agreements with other producers to hinder AMD's sales).

Well Intel has 100% of all US government accounts, so ;).

[Kludge]

You can't have a monopoly without government intervention.

False.

You cannot have a government (coercive) monopoly without government intervention. A monopoly under free markets is unlikely but still possible. A R&D-reliant market like the microprocessor market would is one of the most vulnerable markets to monopolization in a free society.

[Kludge]

Well Intel has 100% of all US government accounts, so ;).

So.... That isn't relevant to this argument.

A "boycott" on either corporation would only be significantly detrimental to us LFers.

[Jeremy]

False.

You cannot have a government (coercive) monopoly without government intervention. A monopoly under free markets is unlikely but still possible. A R&D-reliant market like the microprocessor market would is one of the most vulnerable markets to monopolization in a free society.

It's not possible without force. You can have a "temporary monopoly" but that's not really a monopoly. And you need to be honest, Intel doesn't have a monopoly. AMD is a big business.

As far as governments using Intel, this is another issue. Do you think EU considered this? Lol, no... because they don't understand how the economy works.

[Kludge]

You can have a "temporary monopoly" but that's not really a monopoly.

Uhh... Do you have any evidence to prove that a "permanent monopoly" has ever existed?

[Jeremy]

Uhh... Do you have any evidence to prove that a "permanent monopoly" has ever existed?

It's almost as if you are proving my point...

But by "temporary monopoly" I simply mean that a business can, at one point in time, own all of the products that are like it. But it won't take long before somebody else sees an opportunity to compete. As soon as they try to drive the price up in order to make high profit... that high profit is what people see and what will encourage them to make their own business (and compete).

[Kludge]

It's almost as if you are proving my point...

You're ignoring a great flaw in your argument: free markets don't exist.


But by "temporary monopoly" I simply mean that a business can, at one point in time, own all of the products that are like it. But it won't take long before somebody else sees an opportunity to compete. As soon as they try to drive the price up in order to make high profit... that high profit is what people see and what will encourage them to make their own business (and compete).

We aren't talking about a business manufacturing plastic bowls or wooden spoons. The microprocessor market relies on patents (research & development). You can't just open up a microchip manufacturing plant... It would take many years and billions of dollars to be competitive with Intel/AMD/ARM. An oligopoly already exists (a duopoly in some areas where ARM has nothing to offer). If AMD or Intel were to fail, a monopoly could easily exist, even in a free market. Were the government to cripple Intel or somehow make (some of) their patents public, it would open the restricted market up to competition.

[Kludge]

Of course, some anarchists get around the above argument by claiming the IP concept to be bunk, but even then, it would probably just lead to manufacturers and developers being more secretive.

[Jeremy]

You're ignoring a great flaw in your argument: free markets don't exist.

My post was a response to your post and I was showing that you need government to create a monopoly. So... you're just rambling about nothing now lol

Obviously as libertarians we want the market to be as free as possible. And AMD is using government to "punish" a competing company, which is why I made this thread.

By the way, the next part of your post is incorrect. Why are you making assumptions like employees are permanently a part of a business and that a business owns the knowledge of their employees? What if the top people of Intel decide to split off and start their own company? They aren't owned by Intel... And they would get the money from a loan after they prove how high the profits in that part of the market are.

[werdd]

My post was a response to your post and I was showing that you need government to create a monopoly. So... you're just rambling about nothing now lol

Obviously as libertarians we want the market to be as free as possible. And AMD is using government to "punish" a competing company, which is why I made this thread.

By the way, the next part of your post is incorrect. Why are you making assumptions like employees are permanently a part of a business and that a business owns the knowledge of their employees? What if the top people of Intel decide to split off and start their own company? They aren't owned by Intel... And they would get the money from a loan after they prove how high the profits in that part of the market are.

AMD isn't using the government to do anything. As far as i know, the EU is acting independently on this.

[werdd]

You're ignoring a great flaw in your argument: free markets don't exist.



We aren't talking about a business manufacturing plastic bowls or wooden spoons. The microprocessor market relies on patents (research & development). You can't just open up a microchip manufacturing plant... It would take many years and billions of dollars to be competitive with Intel/AMD/ARM. An oligopoly already exists (a duopoly in some areas where ARM has nothing to offer). If AMD or Intel were to fail, a monopoly could easily exist, even in a free market. Were the government to cripple Intel or somehow make (some of) their patents public, it would open the restricted market up to competition.

The history of AMD is really very interesting. Back in the 80's, IBM wanted to use intel as their vendor. But IBM had a policy that they would only do business with a company that has a competitor(Great business policy IMO). So, Intel handed it's x86 IP to AMD voluntarily. AMD later returned the favor by voluntarily offering Intel it's IP for multicore processors. If AMD didn't do this, there would be similar anti-trust lawsuits right now.

[Join The Paul Side]

Boycott AMD?

Nope. I don't want to overpay for good technology. Screw Intel.

[rockandrollsouls]

yeah I think I have to agree with werdd. If I built a comp I built it around an AMD. it was always cheaper with better performance. Or at least back in the day when I built a few comps. been out of the game for geez maybe 4 or 5 years. not up to snuff on current price/performance. but even back then major OEMs were all intel. not to sure why when AMD was better overall and cheaper on the retail/consumer market. Back then in any performance comparison AMD would win 85% of the time. many times with remarkable margins.

if you want to put a chip manufacture on the hot plate I would (and I think many others) would chose Intel.

Interesting non the less.


First and foremost, AMD has been unprofitable for a long while. Secondly, AMD processors are not better performance. They produce a lot of errors during processing which is why a lot of businesses don't use them commercially. I have a few friends that are very prominent in this field and they've all told me AMD is garbage.

Let them go bankrupt already; Intel can stay afloat easily without any government assistance. What AMD needs to do is spin off its graphics cards division because that's something they can actually make well. Nvidia has been producing garbage as of late (GPUs in my Macs have failed numerous times, studies show Nvidia is at fault.)

[Kludge]

My post was a response to your post and I was showing that you need government to create a monopoly. So... you're just rambling about nothing now lol

Obviously as libertarians we want the market to be as free as possible. And AMD is using government to "punish" a competing company, which is why I made this thread.

By the way, the next part of your post is incorrect. Why are you making assumptions like employees are permanently a part of a business and that a business owns the knowledge of their employees? What if the top people of Intel decide to split off and start their own company? They aren't owned by Intel... And they would get the money from a loan after they prove how high the profits in that part of the market are.

Refute my arguments if you're going to reply. Don't create strawman nonsense.

[tpreitzel]

The 4 top technology companies that I personally hate the most ... based on 3 decades of experience:

1. Microsoft
2. Intel
3. Apple
4. IBM

Let them all die a slow and agonizing death ... ;)

If you look hard at the tactics of all 4 companies, you'll see common traits and those common traits have little to do with free markets...

[damania]

First and foremost, AMD has been unprofitable for a long while. Secondly, AMD processors are not better performance. They produce a lot of errors during processing which is why a lot of businesses don't use them commercially. I have a few friends that are very prominent in this field and they've all told me AMD is garbage.

Let them go bankrupt already; Intel can stay afloat easily without any government assistance. What AMD needs to do is spin off its graphics cards division because that's something they can actually make well. Nvidia has been producing garbage as of late (GPUs in my Macs have failed numerous times, studies show Nvidia is at fault.)

I don't know where you get your info from. AMD chips are not buggy. AMD currently makes CPUs that are about 10% slower than intel. Their ATI motherboard chipsets are superior than anything that intel puts out. If you combine an AMD cpu + ATI chipset motherboard, you've got an unbelievable computer at an unbelievable price! Low power use and high performance in one bundle! ATI video cards are best in class too!

[torchbearer]

I don't know where you get your info from. AMD chips are not buggy. AMD currently makes CPUs that are about 10% slower than intel. Their ATI motherboard chipsets are superior than anything that intel puts out. If you combine an AMD cpu + ATI chipset motherboard, you've got an unbelievable computer at an unbelievable price! Low power use and high performance in one bundle! ATI video cards are best in class too!

disagree on the ati video card part. this is why- aegis PhysX.
In SLI mode the second card can be used as an aegis PhysX card for games that support it. Adding an entire processor and ram for nothing but physics calculations in games.
Crossfire- no such thing.
AMD + NVIDIA = awesome

[DAFTEK]

I would boycott Intel way before AMD.. Intel can kiss my ass with those overpriced chips...

[2young2vote]

I always thought the point of sueing someone was to get something back that was taken from you. Or even just making sure you get a payment from someone who did you wrong. I don't see how Intel has done anything to the EU.

[RonPaulwillWin]

I've always bought AMD, but I recently switched to the core 2 duo. They made a more efficient, cheaper, faster product that uses less energy. Hopefully AMD will pump out it's next 'AMD64' so I can become a fanboy again.

[rockandrollsouls]

I don't know where you get your info from. AMD chips are not buggy. AMD currently makes CPUs that are about 10% slower than intel. Their ATI motherboard chipsets are superior than anything that intel puts out. If you combine an AMD cpu + ATI chipset motherboard, you've got an unbelievable computer at an unbelievable price! Low power use and high performance in one bundle! ATI video cards are best in class too!

You are absolutely wrong. I'm sorry. I have numerous friends that rely on their processors for the work they do and they swear against AMD because they are buggy. Work where if there is any kind of error their job, and even business is potentially in serious trouble.

AMD might be okay for the every day consumer, but not for the type of work my friends do apparently. And, the consumer sector in CPUs isn't exactly where the money comes in. Let AMD fail. They aren't profitable for a reason.

ATI does make a great video card, though. Stable, sturdy, and better performance than Nvidia. Torch, you might want to look at the issues going on with Nvidia cards right now. They are putting out trash.

[Kludge]

AMD, ARM, ATI, Intel, Nvidia, and VIA all make pretty solid parts. I've only experienced problems with ATI one time, but otherwise, have never had any problems with any of the producers.

Both AMD and Intel (and ARM and VIA) CPUs both have their own pros and cons. Same with ATI and Nvidia (and Intel...).

They're all very competitive, but there is a serious risk of AMD going bankrupt -- soon (it's really already insolvent), which would cause all sorts of problems in the microprocessor market. Hopefully, AMD's ATI will not be negatively affected by AMD's demise.

I really don't understand why Intel and AMD are so competitive, though... There's no need for hardware to be developing as quickly as it is... It'll probably only bring on some techno-apocalyptic nightmare sooner.

[werdd]

I've always bought AMD, but I recently switched to the core 2 duo. They made a more efficient, cheaper, faster product that uses less energy. Hopefully AMD will pump out it's next 'AMD64' so I can become a fanboy again.

It's called the phenom II, 4 ghz on air easily, and performs as well as intels i7 offering at 100 dollars more.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674

I've built AMD machines for 10 years, and never once had a processor fail on me.

[powerofreason]

Yeah wouldn't it be great if we allowed Wal-Mart to buy out every mom and pop store, and business. Then we could just all work for walmart, and intel.

You sounds like a commie.

:rolleyes:

[damania]

You are absolutely wrong. I'm sorry. I have numerous friends that rely on their processors for the work they do and they swear against AMD because they are buggy. Work where if there is any kind of error their job, and even business is potentially in serious trouble.

AMD might be okay for the every day consumer, but not for the type of work my friends do apparently. And, the consumer sector in CPUs isn't exactly where the money comes in. Let AMD fail. They aren't profitable for a reason.

ATI does make a great video card, though. Stable, sturdy, and better performance than Nvidia. Torch, you might want to look at the issues going on with Nvidia cards right now. They are putting out trash.

What bugs are you talking about? CPUs do not have bugs in them that stop the user from doing whatever they're doing. There have been bugs in previous release of both AMD and Intel CPUs that were neutralized with bios updates.

[hotbrownsauce]

We should have to keep the Government in check not AMD. Once we keep government in check AMD can ask what ever they want but will get nothing. The problem isn't companies getting special benefits, its the laws / government.

[RonPaulwillWin]

It's called the phenom II, 4 ghz on air easily, and performs as well as intels i7 offering at 100 dollars more.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674

I've built AMD machines for 10 years, and never once had a processor fail on me.

Correct, but that wasn't the case a year ago when I upgraded my mobo and cpu. Phenom II looks promising :) I can play all of the most demanding games on high everything, so there's not need to upgrade at the moment.