TR Forums

Guess Intel's at it again even before Ryzen hits the shelves. And maybe this is also why AMD is out for blood with their pricing. This is why I said earlier that I will stick with AMD even if it's only out of principle.

Be sure to read the comments too.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-fear-i ... n-reprisal

Those tricks are what, exactly?

Guess ronch is at it again... with his fanaticism.

I thought being a hater (even of those who are just excited about the prospects of an imminent and exciting product launch.. and with 10 years of good reason) is about as frowned upon as being a fanboi, if not more? Don't pretend to be perfect and faultless, guys. I notice those that scream "Bigot!" or "Racist!" in the world are every bit as bigot or racist as the ones their fingers are pointed at, just towards different things.

So if I'm excited about Ryzen (and for GOOD reasons not just for myself but for everyone who will benefit), is there a problem with that? Would you also give the same treatment to someone who's a fan of something (or someone) else or is excited about something else? Are celebrities the only things humans are interested in or excited about? I think we're old enough to be honest here.

It wouldn't surprise me if Intel is going to be up to it's old tricks again.

ronch wrote:

Don't pretend to be perfect and faultless, guys.

You can be a 'fan', but when you take it personally which you evince here by reading deeply into this article, itself literally just errant speculation, you go from casual to fanaticism.

That's honest.

Do Intel really need dirty tricks? That's the real question.
Look at Pentium-G4560-probably the best budget CPU ever.
Probably good enough for 80% of the worlds general purpose box's.
We can probably thank Ryzen for pushing Intel into this.......
Let's wait and see what happens higher up.......................

It's in Intel's best interest to keep AMD in the state it was the last decade: surviving but not competing. So far, when Intel had to compete with AMD they did that with a plethora of dirty anti-competitive tricks, a few of which they got a slap on the fingers for. We could assume that Intel has wizened up and won't risk extreme penalties by trying to those same anti-competitive sleazebag tricks again, but that would be making an assumption against a most basic human condition: greed. Intel needs to be carefully watched and punished swiftly if they get caught, or AMD will bite the dust and nobody (not even Intel) wants that

I'm sorry, but that "article" was just a history recap and speculation. And some random guy spouting a salacious quote. Idle speculation is not confirmation, as your title would indicate. I don't think the utterly random financial statements facts thrown in at the bottom of the article are even relevant in any context.

Airmantharp wrote:

You can be a 'fan', but when you take it personally which you evince here by reading deeply into this article, itself literally just errant speculation, you go from casual to fanaticism.

That's honest.

Agreed

Headline paraphrase: AMD is afraid Intel might have a bigger marketing budget
ronch: Intel is currently doing illegal things to keep AMD in its place

derFunkenstein wrote:

Headline paraphrase: AMD is afraid Intel might have a bigger marketing budget
ronch: Intel is currently doing illegal things to keep AMD in its place

A/K/A: Hey courts, AMD here. Can you please limit Intel to spending our marketing & R&D budgets on their chips?

Like I said, read the comments on the article. Looks like Intel is already bribing IT folks. Lest we forget, Contra Revenue is pretty much the same thing. Intel will do everything to choke competitors, whether it's AMD or not. See, this isn't just about AMD, this is about a monopolistic company with questionable practices. And if they succeed and get things their way, who do you think ultimately pays the price? So as much as some of you don't see the big picture and immediately hit the fanboi alarm button, I hope the rest can think more broadly and see what's already happening even before Ryzen hits the shelves.

What comments? I read a single comment from someone making an unsubstantiated claim. I also read several comments of people asking for proof of his claims. I read no comments with any proof.

Convert wrote:

What comments? I read a single comment from someone making an unsubstantiated claim. I also read several comments of people asking for proof of his claims. I read no comments with any proof.

ronch doesn't need 'proof'. He already believes, and that's all that matters.

Yawn.

The only thing news worthy in that article is that AMD has made some filings that indicated they were wronged by Intel in the past. It is a basic legal tactic to build a case if Intel does it again.

I'm still pissed at intel for their dirty tricks during the early athlon days.
Even as a middle schooler, I could tell that intel was up to no good.
There was no way that AMD had such a performance lead and popularity among the enthusiast crowd yet there were almost no AMD machines being sold at big box stores.
And just years ago it comes out that intel was doing some pretty shady deal where they gave rebates to computer manufactures who refuse to build and sell AMD machines.

Nothing to see here. Thread title is wildly inaccurate, the article basically only says that in AMD's financial filings they state they are worried Intel MIGHT use tactics to limit Ryzen's sales potential. Nothing illegal about that, and it hasn't ACTUALLY happened yet so it's pure speculation.

chµck wrote:

I'm still pissed at intel for their dirty tricks during the early athlon days.
Even as a middle schooler, I could tell that intel was up to no good.
There was no way that AMD had such a performance lead and popularity among the enthusiast crowd yet there were almost no AMD machines being sold at big box stores.
And just years ago it comes out that intel was doing some pretty shady deal where they gave rebates to computer manufactures who refuse to build and sell AMD machines.

It didn't make sense, and then I bought two Pentium IVs, after owning AMD CPUs.

Why?

While AMD kept the performance edge in gaming (in most cases), it wasn't tremendous and Intel's chipsets were solid. Chipsets available for AMD CPUs, and the motherboards that used them, simply weren't, in my opinion. I wanted a stable system enough to deal with Intel's price/performance.

You can expect big integrators to feel similarly, particularly when it came to the workstation and server space.

So yeah, Intel did play every trick they could and likely crossed the line a little, but to say that they didn't have a compelling product vs. AMD, even for gaming, is quite silly.

Later Nforce and VIA chipsets were pretty solid for the most part. VIA had the best chipsets for AMD platforms towards the end of AGP era but they gave up because didn't bother getting the PCIe license from PCI-SIG group. Most of the Via issues were actual from Creative and VIA not comforting to PCI standards.

Intel chipsets from that time period weren't flawless either. They had their own set of teething issues.

Intel's so-called "dirty tricks" were far less effective than the AMD faithful would have you believe. Back when Intel was supposedly making "dirty" deals with Dell that cost Intel money [not AMD, they sold their chips full-price], AMD's own press was all about how fab-constrained they were and how they needed additional capacity: https://www.cnet.com/news/amd-turns-to- ... -for-help/

If Intel literally didn't exist AMD couldn't have sold any more chips, and if you look back at when AMD really was leading Intel, they weren't handing them out for free either. Sure, AMD's executives put on some big sob story about big-bad Intel, but when the chips were down Jerry Sanders had no problem being a witness at Microsoft's anti-trust trial... in favor of Microsoft... and ain't it funny that the Athlon XP and Windows XP just coincidentally had that similar name branding?

People forget that AMD finally got their "victory" in gaining widespread acceptance in Dell systems in 2006: And it was all downhill from there. The "victory" that Intel had been keeping out of AMD's mits wasn't really that much of a victory since AMD had to offer Dell discounts just like Intel had been doing, and furthermore AMD screwed over all the small channel suppliers by cutting off their supply of Athlon64 parts just a few months before the Core 2 launched... guess who was there to clean up the mess with the smaller suppliers?

Anyhoo, back to this particular article, I love this quote:

“Intel could also take actions that place our discrete GPUs at a competitive disadvantage,” the report says, “including giving one or more of our competitors in the graphics market, such as Nvidia Corporation, preferential access to its proprietary graphics interface or other useful information.”

Well no wonder RyZen is so much better than anything Intel has! Intel has been wasting all its time on magical "proprietary graphics interface" stuff that nobody has ever seen!

Airmantharp wrote:

ronch wrote:

Don't pretend to be perfect and faultless, guys.

You can be a 'fan', but when you take it personally which you evince here by reading deeply into this article, itself literally just errant speculation, you go from casual to fanaticism.

That's honest.

As readers, I don't think we have to be perfectly objective and neutral. In fact, nobody is perfectly neutral. That being said, I would typically associate the word fanatic with suicide bombers and similar nutjobs, not with brand loyalty.

ptsant wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

ronch wrote:

Don't pretend to be perfect and faultless, guys.

You can be a 'fan', but when you take it personally which you evince here by reading deeply into this article, itself literally just errant speculation, you go from casual to fanaticism.

That's honest.

As readers, I don't think we have to be perfectly objective and neutral. In fact, nobody is perfectly neutral. That being said, I would typically associate the word fanatic with suicide bombers and similar nutjobs, not with brand loyalty.

I think Airmantharp was trying to avoid the trigger word "fanboy/fanboi", but then some people still took it the wrong way. The "article" presented nothing new and shattering. And then a comments? Since when do we take random comments to some article posted on the internet as truth?

I had so much trouble with VIA chipsets back then. Built a bunch of Duron based systems for an office, and they were plagued with HDD corruption issues. Migrate the drives to a 440BX platform though and nothing was wrong.

That said, some of my favorite rigs were from back in those days.
One was an MSI BX Master that I kept forever. Used it for a Celeron 333 @ 500, then later a Pentium III 700 @ 933.
It was later succeeded by an Athlon 64 on nForce build.

I found proof of what ronch feared.

OK, not really. Microcenter sells their CPUs like this so they can sell you the rest of the parts and make money, but don't tell him

derFunkenstein wrote:

I found proof of what ronch feared.

OK, not really. Microcenter sells their CPUs like this so they can sell you the rest of the parts and make money, but don't tell him

Must be some really dirty trick. Let's get a class action lawsuit together and rein in the evil empire!

Le Gasp!

Of all the rotten bastardly things to do. I am disappoint.

jihadjoe wrote:

I had so much trouble with VIA chipsets back then.

At least by the time of the KT400 series Darth VIA was manageable. Socket A mounting tabs? I'll never be over Macho Grande ...

wow ronch.

I always get a kick out of these 'dirty tricks' threads. Big scary Intel would be obliterated by the Koreans, much less an actual marketing heavyweight like Big Auto or Apple. They're practically Miss Marple by real-world business standards.

Airmantharp wrote:

It didn't make sense, and then I bought two Pentium IVs, after owning AMD CPUs.

Why?

While AMD kept the performance edge in gaming (in most cases), it wasn't tremendous and Intel's chipsets were solid. Chipsets available for AMD CPUs, and the motherboards that used them, simply weren't, in my opinion. I wanted a stable system enough to deal with Intel's price/performance.

You can expect big integrators to feel similarly, particularly when it came to the workstation and server space.

So yeah, Intel did play every trick they could and likely crossed the line a little, but to say that they didn't have a compelling product vs. AMD, even for gaming, is quite silly.

please. The biggest OEM at the time had quarters where Intel's "special payment" for not using AMD was larger than their net profit.

AMD got up to 26% market in 8-way (or was it 4+8 way?) systems in the era. Clearly they offered good enough for professional/server space. OEMs have lower need of quality I think?

Call it what it is. Illegal anti-competitive practices. NOT tricks.