Just for clarification, since alot seem to lack the knowledge.

Intels 5th Generation core is a CISC design known as Pentium from 60 to 233Mhz

Intels 6th Generation core is a RISC design that looks like a CISC on the outside. From this we have the PentiumPro, P2, P3, Pentium-M (Including the upcoming dualcore Yonah)

Intels 7th Generation core covers the P4 series. Northwood, Prescotts etc.

Intels 8th Generation core comes in early 2007 with a combined mobile/desktop/server solution again (Meron, Conroe etc). Unlike the current Pentium-M/P4 usage.

The different types in the same core family is evolutions basicly. Where a new core is the complete new design.

Now if I only knew when the K9 core would come...

Fun part is actually, that we today have a P6 core from the 90s that is still the fastest per clock of the CPUs we got today and the most power effective. In other words, both AMDs and Intels new designs since the 90s suck!

If the process is remotely fair, I see no problem for AMD in proving its case. The case against Microsoft, remember, was far less compelling and evidentiary, but this did not stop the DOJ from officially branding the company a "monopoly." So if that's true for Microsoft it's a cinch it's true for Intel.

Harm to consumers? That's easy--the deprivation of choice. By rigging its sales contracts with OEMs in such a way as to either lock out AMD or else artificially restrict AMD to a low percentage of OEM purchases relative to OEM Intel cpu purchases, Intel assures itself of a production volume which allows it to sell a Pentium D 820 for $241 while at the same time makes it difficult for AMD to compete in terms of price because of artificially constrained volumes. It's easy to see that if the markets were opened up for AMD to truly compete then the Pentium D 820 might well cost $141, instead...;)

BTW, Intel has been consistently flubbing up and blundering technically since 1999, with possibly the sole exception being the Northwood P4, but even that success came because of one of AMD's rare process flubs relative to Athlon development, IIRC. The entire Pentium D architecture owes a lot more to the Athlon than it owes to the P4, imo. The Prescott scewup was just one of a long line of screwups over the last several years, screwups that began with the original cacheless Celeron and Intel's failure to advance the P3 to 1GHz and beyond successfully, as I recall. Intel has also had major screwups with core-logic chipsets, Rdram deployment, etc., in this time frame. How about Intel's original x86-64 screwup--you know, the PR campaign Intel waged explaining how the only "64 bits" people needed was Itanium and as such Intel had no intention of going x86-64? And then there's Itanium itself, of course, which is a pretty grand fizzle all the way around.

If the only "major screwup" you can recall out of Intel is Prescott, I'll suggest that you need to reconsider and refresh your memory...;) All of this is precisely the point to AMD's suit, however--that for the last several years Intel has not competed with AMD in terms of technology but rather has leveraged its wealth in an effort to drive AMD out of business strictly through anticompetitive strategies.

Really, I have no idea what you mean about Intel's "trajectory of clear, consistent progress on many fronts." That's pretty funny if you are talking about pre-1999 when Intel had no high-end x86 cpu competition at all and monoplized the markets, and by "consistent" do you mean Intel's pre-Athlon habit of announcing a "new" architecture (such as the P2 and then the P3, etc.) which in reality was merely a tiny change over the previous architecture? Do you mean to say by "consistent" that you approve of Intel's pre-Athlon habit of milking cpu runs according to MHz for months and years, and charging premium prices for cpus running 50Mhz faster than previous versions? We all should remember the day of the $1200 P3 600MHz cpu while the 550MHz P3 cost $600, I think. As well, it should never be forgotten that this all changed post Athlon in a dramatic fashion the result being that per-Mhz/IPC, cpus today are much, much cheaper than they were pre-Athlon.

What Intel is "consistent" at in my view is being a monopoly cpu supplier. That's it. For nearly the entire decade of the 90's Intel was the *only* high-end game in town for x86 cpus, and unfortunately the lack of competition in that market led some to believe that the Intel "way" of doing things was the only way that things could be done. Post Athlon, however, all of us should know better and know what we've been missing. AMD simply wants to bring more good stuff to market in the way of competition and innovation, which in itself will continue to hold down prices in the same dramatic way that prices have fallen for IPC per MHz ever since AMD shipped the first Athlons way back in 1999.

It isn't Intel's technology, remember, which is holding back AMD--it's Intel's anticompetitive strategies that have been doing it--and so if those practices are not stopped then in my view irreparable harm to consumers is certain. If AMD had gone belly up in early 1999 as many circa-1998 "analysts" were glibly and smugly predicting at the time, then I shudder to think where we'd be today in terms of x86 cpus. There'd be no Athlon, and I seriously, seriously doubt the P4 as it shipped would have seen the light of day--but if it did wind up produced anyway, I'll wager Intel would now be "struggling" to hit 2GHz with it for not much less than $2k per *desktop* cpu, and we'd all be using Rdram and paying through nose for it, along with lots of other bad stuff it's easy to imagine. The fact that AMD has lived and prospered as long as it has despite Intel's best efforts to snuff it is proof positive that the markets are *screaming* for exactly the kinds of choices AMD has brought to the x86 cpu and core-logic markets. Just think what might be accomplished technically in the years ahead if Intel's anticompetitive practices are finally brought to heel.

The irony in this is that lets say everything goes bad for Intel. Now this is just hyperthicical that everything just goes bad for Intel and they just crash. That leaves AMD standing.

Doesnt that make AMD a monopoly? Does that make it an opportunity for Apple to sue AMD now?

Isnt it ironic? Keeping in mind that Apple partner with Intel so lets say that AMD killed Intel Apple will bite back now saying AMD is a monopoly.

So the reality is that you do not want to shoot Intel completely you just want to hurt them.....but here's another side to it.

AMD is what it is becasue it is the underdog, just like Apple and Linux and open source. The typical nerd uses Linux/Unix running on AMD processor with everything open soruce, and a sticker that says f-microsoft on the side.

When AMD gains majority share it will no longer will be small and the fan base will be threaten by its growth and start to hate AMD. And then the tables will be turn.

Another thing is that Intel just doesnt make processor they make many things. They have hands on a lot of markets. AMD just makes processors and flash. Intel has an advantage in court here to prove that the reason AMD isnt growing is that it hasnt branched out like Intel has.

Many companies and customers are about to give AMD a chance once Intel's illegal business practices which have prevented many AMD customers from even selling AMD products are exposed....

You better believe all those companies (HP, DELL, Sony etc etc ) that have been blackmailed by Intel will be A LOT more interested in selling AMD products now that the shit has hit the fan and they can come out of hiding.

People tend to remember stuff, especially in the small world of biz. If Intel's execs end up in prison where they belong for all those alleged felonies it could be even worse. Think enron.. tyco..wastemanagement etc ... no one but GW is above the law.

I love the United States where thugs can't run over the law and people like in some third world shit-hole where they are immune and above the law.

For those arguing about lawyers, and how intel will outspend AMD.. a first year law student that barley passed the bar exam could succesfully prosecute this case. When you're right, you're right...When you have over 100 allegations of felonous behavior which seem to be provable with executive witnesses they citel, F Lee Bailey would tell you to settle and settle quick before the FTC jumps down your throat and starts setting bail amounts... which is exactly what Intel will do.

From Anandtech's blog
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx#228

... I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:

1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard

Out of fear of Intel retaliation. ...

.. I wonder if they'll be able to get the execs who comment about being beaten into "guacamole" or liken it to being hooked on "cocaine" to really testify..

intel have the best *MOBILE* product
AMD have the best *DESKTOP* product ...

That is NOW !.

stop saying AMD have the best ALL-AROUND product...fanboys (shrug).

/me someday I'll get a Centrino based notebook besides my Athlon desktop...or perhaps future P-D desktop 'cause X2 is so expensive.

hey. HP and compaq use AMD.

so does emachines.

so then, why hasn't AMD gained market share?

I guess it all lies in the consumer....... and the fact that everyone is fixated on owning Dull machines

I just read the whole thing, and it reads almost like a novel.
At every turn, there is crushing and squeezing and manipulation, much like a quality juicer.
There is a wry tone to the complaint, yet it avoids being plaintive; it's a very "here's the facts" kind of thing.

I think intel has done a damn good job over the past few years. Contrary to what many people say as far as "technical blunders" and the such, intel has done repeatedly what a business is expected to do.

When the PIII line came to an end, I might add at 1.13 GHz... mobile PIII's finished at 1.4 GHz... Intel was fully aware of one thing. People looked at clockspeed. A mentality that had become ingrained into the PC buying mindset was that he who owns the fastest clockspeed operates the fastest computer. Perhaps this mindset was engineered by Intel itself. In any case, they took advantage of it.

Of course, any computer know-how person will tell you flat that this isn't true. It depends on the amount of work done per clock cycle as well. But when you don't know that, it's very easy to overlook the weak looking AMD Athlon XP M 2200+ at 1.8 GHz as compared to the Intel Pentium 4 at 2.2 GHz.

To those who call NetBurst a grandiose failure, I have to bring to light the fact that it was a brilliant success in terms of Intel's business. Unfortunately, the average computer user isn't quite that apt in this field, so big numbers and words like "Hyperthreading" make for an attractive CPU. And why not? The entire line of P4's performed admirably. They aren't bad processors at all. I enjoy my 3.0 GHz Northwood. I also enjoyed my Athlon XP 1500+. What can I say?

Unfortunately, it pains me to agree that Intel has more than probably been doing some underhanded things to box AMD in. I keep an open mind however, and realize both AMD and Intel for what they are -- corporations. I doubt AMD is the innocent victim who is being crushed by Intel's Evil Machiavellian conniving, and I'm certain they have their fair share of doing exactly what Intel has been doing.

The fundamental difference is their respective sizes. AMD can offer discounted CPU's to Gateway... and Intel and offer discounted CPU's to Dell. Problem is, Dell and Intel are individually bigger than Gateway and AMD put together. This meaning, an Intel discount to Dell is to keep AMD out, while and AMD discount to Gateway is to put itself "in," so to speak.

As someone with a law degree, let me say this. It's no accident that this case is being filed now. I think that shows what AMD is thinking more than any other factor. They are riding high in the market. Intel can't compete. What better time to file a complaint like this. If they win, great, but even if they lose, they force Intel to play nice for awhile during the case and they'll gain even more martket share. AMD has nothing to lose by doing this and the action is well timed.

We cant stress this enough, anyone that hasnt - PLEASE leave the site and read the full complaint.

Intel is dominant, but not a monopoly.

I can use AMD and Intel CPU based systems and they work with all the same software and HW peripherals. Try Windows vs Mac/Linux, if you want see what a real monopoly is like.

My x86 CPUs have been AMD, Intel, Intel, AMD, AMD. It seems likely my next system could be AMD as well, but I am in no hurry so by then there could be a compelling reason to get an Intel (Mactel?). Hardly seems like a monopoly.

But Intel is still using its dominant position to pull slimy buisness practices (patented by MS). So they should get slapped around for that.

So go AMD. I don't want to see Intel damaged, just a bit more of a level playing field.

Regarding harm to consumers -- I don't think the history of Intel's advances are as beneficial to consumers as you describe them. Much of that benefit is from the inevitable advance in technology, not Intel per se. Let's look at little more closely at history, shall we?

In the 1980s, Intel was granted a monopoly in the PC biz by IBM. The success of the x86 had little to do with its merits (most people agree the 680x0 line from Motorola was a superior chip) and everything to do with IBM's choice.

In the 1990s, without AMD pushing Intel on the 386, the transition to the 486 would have been much slower. Without IBM pushing with the PowerPC, the transition to the Pentium/Pentium II would have been much slower.

In the 2000s, Without AMD pushing with Athlon and Opteron, Intel would be trying to ram Itanium down everyone's throats, and we'd probably buy it to, because the best alternative would be the crippled Pentium 4 (which would almost certainly not be dual core).

Looking back over Intel's history, they really only got one thing right, and that's the P6 core used in the Pentium-Pro through the Pentium-M. Everything else they've done is a hack or a very bad design decision (most recently, Itanium, Rambus, and the P4).

So my read of history is that every major advance that Intel made was the result of some competition from other firms. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that consumers would be much better off if Intel had not used its considerable market power to squash each of those competitive threats.

Having said that, AMD could very well lose this case, since law isn't about right and wrong, but about which lawyer makes the best case, and I'm sure Intel can afford better lawyers than AMD. But I am hopeful that even the mere presence of this lawsuit over the next few years will help AMD, since it might force Intel to restrain its bad behavior. This will be a critical time for AMD as its manufacturing capacity is increased to be large enough to really expand marketshare. If this lawsuit can stave off Intel dirty tricks during this time, AMD actually could make considerable gains in market share. We shall see...

Has anyone thought that professionals buy items based on quality and history? AMD are the K-Mart brand, Intel in the high end road.

AMD user base have to stop sooking/crybabies.

.

By my count of reliability issues we have:

AMD : JPEG issue
Intel : FDIV issue, 1.13 GHz P3 recall

The AMD JPEG issue was a manufacturing problem, not a design flaw. It's unclear how many people were actually affected by it, but according to Ron Gordon, every flawed chip was willingly replaced by AMD.

The Intel FDIV was an actual design flaw, but Intel initially spent several months denying the impact of the problem (which is what really made the issue explode). It also took four weeks of denial for Intel to recall the 1.13 GHz P3, despite several major websites discovering problems at launch time.

So both of them have bad QA, but Intel has also produced incorrect chip designs and then tried to deny them.

btw, where is the Wednesday's bread ???

quote from Anandtech reader:
"Or the payments to IBM in order to scrap their already designed Opteron line of servers in 2004? "

Do you really believe IBM got paig by intel ? ::LOL::

You need to reference a link to an AMD quote on an official AMD site before it is proper to state that AMD "admits" to something. Last time I checked the "gordonfamily" has no connection to AMD and does not officially represent AMD in any capacity.

It's the site that came up in google when searching. AMD has issued the following blurb to the then cosy vanshardware.com:

…the testing methods in past production cycles of the AMD-K6®, AMD Athlon™ and AMD Duron™ processor families did not detect a small number of processors that exhibited a minor manufacturing issue that could potentially cause the distortion of JPEG images or MPEG audio/video. The issue is not design related and has been addressed through additional manufacturing tests AMD has implemented.

Since the problem was first discovered, we've received a very limited number of customer inquiries regarding this issue, and AMD has in each case made every attempt to resolve the issue. A very small number of AMD processors may exhibit this issue. AMD has updated its test measures, and we stand behind the quality and reliability of our products. We encourage any customer who believes they may be encountering this issue to contact their AMD field sales representative or AMD technical support. AMD technical support may be reached at (408) 749-3060.
http://216.194.77.198/news/2001/july/010723_AMD_JPEG/010723_AMD_JPE...

The speaker for Germany's branch has issued a said similar note to heise.de's Andreas Stiller (you may know the him of c't mag fame)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/19599

Two different spokes persons for AMD, two different sites on different continents. Official enough for me.

Indeed, the image he links to show the silk-screening of an affected cpu goes to "www1.amd.com", and I have no idea what that is...;)

It's the first www-server in AMD's arsenal, they like e.g. THG, designate(d?) them by using different subdomains. (www1,www2 ...)

And despite the smileys you use, I'd like to add that the fact that you haven't personally experienced an issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What do you mean my Athlon is no longer x86 compatible? When the heck did this happen?.....What lawsuit? Crap. ;-)

I've always wondered why Intel just did not pull the x86 code from AMD and tell em "good luck".

I would like to see a broader acceptance of AMD chips, I hope this pans out for the better.

AMD and Intel have been playing cat-and-mouse with performance since the original K7 Athlon. At some times, they've had a clear advantage, at others an obvious disadvantage (the time between Intel releasing Coppermine and AMD coming up with Thunderbird is a good example).

If free market forces were at work here, AMD should have seen rapidly increasing market share when they had competitive/leading performance and significantly lower prices. The AMD 750 and 760 were good, stable chipsets, and there was only a short time where AMD had a processor that was not supported by one or the other. Then, nVidia got into the game with nForce and VIA finally started making reliable chipsets somewhere around the KT266A (when we got the 8233 southbridge) so there have been plenty of excellent chipset choices for AMD processors.

At the moment, with the Athlon 64 and X2, AMD has clearly superior performance, competitive pricing (if somewhat higher than Intel at the high end (but for good reason)), stable, high-performing chipsets, and they generate far less heat and use far less power. Stability is not a factor and has not been for a long time (and it was NEVER AMD's fault. You didn't have to use a VIA chipset). Heat is not a factor like it was in the days of the Thunderbird (well, actually it is, but the shoe's on the other foot). Nobody in their right mind would recommend an Intel CPU for gaming right now, but Dell is still selling their Intel-only XPS and doing a great disservice to their customers by implying that it's the ultimate gaming PC.

All in all, I don't understand why, if Intel is doing nothing illegal, AMD is not gaining marketshare in a hurry right now (and why they weren't in the earlier days of the Athlon and Athlon XP).

man...AMD sux....intel will kick them sooner than later with a big P-M..bigger than a the whale tha sallowed (sp?) Yonah ::LOL::

don't flame me. j/k

So will we finally get AMD Dell machines?

AMD's K5 wasn't a defective product. Just really crappy performance.

And just to make a point:

Pentium Math Flaw anyone?

Now there was a defect.

Not counting my proliant 3000 or my work laptop. I have 1 intel in the house. 3 AMDs.

And I know I am one the X2 bandwagon.

Intel pours huge amounts of money into R&D, develops new standards for the industry to follow, and regularly passes along the happy benefits of Moore's Law to consumers in the form of faster, better, and cheaper microprocessors. No to be too trite, but it's hard to find the harm in a Pentium D 820 processor for $241. I suppose if there were justice in the world, AMD's market share would have risen perceptibly since the introduction of the Pentium 4 "Prescott," after which Intel's processors gained some small ground in clock speed, but offered few performance gains to go with their additional heat and power consumption.

I think a more potent example of Intel actually harming the customer would be the initial introduction of the P4, a processor that actually performed slower than its predecessor.

I think AMD's failure has more to do with their sketchy past in terms of making solid, reliable products. Sure they have great stuff now, but nobody outside north america gives a crap. And even here, it's hard to market a name with a tarnished history to people who don't read sites like this.

AMD is buying themselves a whole world of hurt, IMO. I hope the end users don't get screwed in the end.

Does AMD have the funds for a prolonged legal battle? I can see Intel filing a countersuit for something here, and spending AMD into bankruptcy. Then Intel will truly be a monopoly.

Even if you're right, it doesn't mean you'll win. Aureal was proof of this, and Creative is living proof.

but nobody outside north america gives a crap

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Edit: Oops! Mean't to be a reply to #3

Groklaw will be monitoring this. They always have great commentary.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050628043815368

Go AMD! Woooot! :)