or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FTC sues Intel over alleged anticompetitive tactics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FTC sues Intel over alleged anticompetitive tactics

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced Wednesday it filed a lawsuit against chip maker Intel Corp., accusing the company of illegally using its position to stifle competition.

The FTC has alleged that Intel "waged a systematic campaign to shut out rivals' competing microchips by cutting off their access in the marketplace. In the process, Intel deprived consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise the computers' central processing unit, or CPU."

In June 2005, Apple announced it would switch to Intel processors for all of its Mac products. Previously, Macs were powered by microprocessors from Freescale and IBM. By the start of 2007, the transition was complete.

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said that his company was disappointed with the progress of the PowerPC technology. The Mac maker switched to Intel because they felt the world's largest chip maker could better suit their needs.

Intel's role in the chip market goes well beyond Apple. Its dominant presence in the PC market as a whole has caught the attention of the FTC, which believes that Intel used threats and offered rewards to computer makers Dell, HP and IBM to keep them from using rivals' products. The commission has alleged that Intel used a practice known as "restrictive dealing" to prevent manufacturers from marketing computers that do not feature an Intel chip.

"Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, Director of the FTCs Bureau of Competition. "Its been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commissions action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer."

The commission also claims that Intel has secretly designed compilers to deliberately restrict the performance of competitors' chips, like products from Advanced Micro Devices. It has alleged that Intel has "deceived" its customers by failing to disclose its practices, and claiming that software performed better on its chips than those of others.

Now, the FTC said, Intel has taken the same monopolistic approach toward Nvidia in the graphics processing unit market. In October, Nvidia announced it would cease development of future hardware until its ongoing lawsuit with Intel is settled sometime in 2010. Until then, the nForce chipset line has been placed on hold.

Intel is accused of violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. The chip-maker is also charged with illegal monopolization, attempted monopolization, and monopoly maintenance. The commission approved the suit 3-0.

Months ago, the FTC had taken an interest in Google and Apple, which shared two links between their respective boards of directors. After Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, resigned from the Apple board, and Arthur Levinson, former CEO of Genentech, left the Google board, the commission said it was satisfied with the outcome.
post #2 of 53
I guess Intel wanted to get a little too serious. I felt like playing nice with NVidia would have kept them out of trouble but maybe not. Geez, I bet there are some puckered hind-ends at Intel.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #3 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I guess Intel wanted to get a little too serious. I felt like playing nice with NVidia would have kept them out of trouble but maybe not. Geez, I bet there are some puckered hind-ends at Intel.

Agreed. This isn't some random lawsuit from some disgruntled manufacturer. They said they would be cracking down on anti-competitive practices. I'm still waiting/hoping for the bomb to drop on the telecommunications industry.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #4 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I guess Intel wanted to get a little too serious. I felt like playing nice with NVidia would have kept them out of trouble but maybe not. Geez, I bet there are some puckered hind-ends at Intel.

Typing on iPhone but boy is there ever a story to tell.

1999. AMD and Apple had something in common, clockspeed did not define the strenght ig the CPU. AMD. Had released the 1.0 before intel and like the PowerPC, it did more work with slower speeds. It once got so ugly for Intel that they Neenah almost 1.0 gigahert mote than AMD at achieving the same benchmarks. The thing is though is that intel had deep pockets so that along with core duo and the forced sale of the AMD Dresdend Fab, put intel on top againg. To bad too. Although not as bad as before where intel litterlly charger $500 more for a 50hz speed bump over chips, is was AMD that made fast powerful computing available to all. Maybe this is the shot they need. Goodness knows we pay a fortune for intel if know amd around.

The sad part for die hard pc lovers is that when they saw Apple go to intel many were excited but it never happened in that as the chip got cheaper, so did the machine. It never happened. Some actually thought was going to happen and Apple would be everywhere or rather their macs.


Peace
post #5 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

Typing on iPhone but boy is there ever a story to tell.

1999. AMD and Apple had something in common, clockspeed did not define the strenght ig the CPU. AMD. Had released the 1.0 before intel and like the PowerPC, it did more work with slower speeds. It once got so ugly for Intel that they Neenah almost 1.0 gigahert mote than AMD at achieving the same benchmarks. The thing is though is that intel had deep pockets so that along with core duo and the forced sale of the AMD Dresdend Fab, put intel on top againg. To bad too. Although not as bad as before where intel litterlly charger $500 more for a 50hz speed bump over chips, is was AMD that made fast powerful computing available to all. Maybe this is the shot they need. Goodness knows we pay a fortune for intel if know amd around.

The sad part for die hard pc lovers is that when they saw Apple go to intel many were excited but it never happened in that as the chip got cheaper, so did the machine. It never happened. Some actually thought was going to happen and Apple would be everywhere or rather their macs.

Peace

I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).

Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #6 of 53
The case will drag on a decade or so until the market has changed so much that the outcome doesn't matter, and maybe there will be a new Republican administration that wants to settle for less than a slap on the wrist. Just like happened with the Microsoft case.
post #7 of 53
I wonder if this will give Nvidia the cover to allow them to go back to normal business without fear of the law suit?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #8 of 53
Either way, Nvidia will have their day!

The Penguin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I wonder if this will give Nvidia the cover to allow them to go back to normal business without fear of the law suit?
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).

Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.

I bought my first MBP in January of 2006, excited about the switch and looking for a laptop. It arrived in March, a CoreDuo 1.83. It was easily fast enough for me to sell my 2.0Ghz DP G5 PowerMac.
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).

Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.


I have a G5 PowerMac, that is just now starting to feel a little old. Not for the speed, but due to applications coming out for Intel only.
The PowerPC G5 was a very powerful processor for its time. Look at these benchmarks from MacWorld. The first is the G5 2.3GHz Dual tests from back in 2005:
SpeedMark4 (bigger is better) - 224
PhotoShop CS2 test (less is better) - :59
Cinema 4D render test (less is better) - 1:13

Here is an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz from last year (note that the software versions are not the same, for whatever difference that might make)
SpeedMark5 - 230
PhotoShop CS3 test - 1:02
Cinema 4D render test - :54

As you can see, these two machines, three years apart, have almost identical performance characteristics for these three tests.

The continued performance of my G5 has made me hesitate to upgrade. My experience with my family's Macs (MacBook and iMac) have not shown any obvious speed differences to me in everyday use. The one issue I am starting to run into is updating purchased software, only to find the upgrade is Intel-only. That frustration will lead me to upgrade my machine in the next year.
post #11 of 53
The AI story implies that Apple will be Exhibit A in the case against Intel. I wonder if that's true. If so, the relationship between the companies could be in for some damage.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I have a G5 PowerMac, that is just now starting to feel a little old. Not for the speed, but due to applications coming out for Intel only.
The PowerPC G5 was a very powerful processor for its time. Look at these benchmarks from MacWorld. The first is the G5 2.3GHz Dual tests from back in 2005:
SpeedMark4 (bigger is better) - 224
PhotoShop CS2 test (less is better) - :59
Cinema 4D render test (less is better) - 1:13

Here is an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz from last year (note that the software versions are not the same, for whatever difference that might make)
SpeedMark5 - 230
PhotoShop CS3 test - 1:02
Cinema 4D render test - :54

As you can see, these two machines, three years apart, have almost identical performance characteristics for these three tests.

The continued performance of my G5 has made me hesitate to upgrade. My experience with my family's Macs (MacBook and iMac) have not shown any obvious speed differences to me in everyday use. The one issue I am starting to run into is updating purchased software, only to find the upgrade is Intel-only. That frustration will lead me to upgrade my machine in the next year.

I would think folks would be all over this. I've had experience with old Motorola chips from my Amiga days. They were impressive chips, but I have nothing recent to judge them by. If these numbers are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt that they are, I'm surprised folks aren't squawking more.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The AI story implies that Apple will be Exhibit A in the case against Intel. I wonder if that's true.

I doubt it. I think this is mainly about Intel vs AMD and Intel's dirty tricks in making sure that Dell, HP et al used almost exclusively Intel CPUs instead of AMD ones. The European Union already has a similar case going against Intel:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8047546.stm

Michael.
post #14 of 53
I hope they sue for billions. Then I hope intel will directly pass those costs on to me, the consumer. Thanks, for protecting me FTC!
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

I doubt it. I think this is mainly about Intel vs AMD and Intel's dirty tricks in making sure that Dell, HP et al used almost exclusively Intel CPUs instead of AMD ones. The European Union already has a similar case going against Intel.

Thanks for the link, but that was the EU's case, this one is from the FTC. Could be similar is some respects, but the laws and the politics in the US are different. Here is the text of the complaint:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf

Haven't read it completely yet, but Apple is mentioned only twice. Still, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the FTC's attention that Apple was until recently a competitor to Intel, but has since abandoned competition to become a customer. If I were an FTC lawyer, I'd sure want to talk to some people at Apple about how that happened.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).

At the time of the switch PPC processors sucked royally. The only time there was a performance advantage was when Alt-Vec could be used. Even then a pathetically slow I/O bus was a big problem. The G5 only slightly resolved these issues and it's integer performance was terrible in comparison to other offerings.

About that integer performance, it is a critical consideration with respect to overall performance. The OS does very little with FP for general house keeping.
Quote:

Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.

I'd say they where very accurate indeed. In fact Apples switch to Intel caused me to take interest again in the hardware. Previous to that I would run Linux on Intel or AMD hardware. Notably the very quick change to Core 2 Duo made a big difference too. For the most part Apples Intel hardware is now a 64 bit platform. That means Apple has very little to worry about as far as backward compatibility goes.

In any event the biggest joke, for outsiders, where Apples benchmarks. It was rather pathetic the way the G5 benchmarks where gobbled up by the Mac users. Worst was that Apple did publish the integer benchmarks but nobody seemed to really notice or cared. The RDF was string back then.


Dave
post #17 of 53
AMD's CPUs can't compete with Intel's on a price/performance basis, today. But prior to Core2Duo, Athlon wiped the floor with Pentium forcing Intel to compete using price incentives. The FTC is lodging this case 6 years too late IMHO and that negates the case's validity.

On another note I expect Intel will buy nVidia in 2010.
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

At the time of the switch PPC processors sucked royally. The only time there was a performance advantage was when Alt-Vec could be used. Even then a pathetically slow I/O bus was a big problem. The G5 only slightly resolved these issues and it's integer performance was terrible in comparison to other offerings.

About that integer performance, it is a critical consideration with respect to overall performance. The OS does very little with FP for general house keeping.


I'd say they where very accurate indeed. In fact Apples switch to Intel caused me to take interest again in the hardware. Previous to that I would run Linux on Intel or AMD hardware. Notably the very quick change to Core 2 Duo made a big difference too. For the most part Apples Intel hardware is now a 64 bit platform. That means Apple has very little to worry about as far as backward compatibility goes.

In any event the biggest joke, for outsiders, where Apples benchmarks. It was rather pathetic the way the G5 benchmarks where gobbled up by the Mac users. Worst was that Apple did publish the integer benchmarks but nobody seemed to really notice or cared. The RDF was string back then.


Dave

So were the PowerPC benchmarks inflated somehow? I just recall seeing a comparison of basic boot speed. One with Intel and the other on legacy hardware. The Intel blew the legacy away. It didn't show day to to use however (understandable as that would be like watching paint peel via a youtube video , and I haven't seen any direct benchmark comparisons other than what was posted in here.

I'm genuinely curious.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

AMD's CPUs can't compete with Intel's on a price/performance basis, today. But prior to Core2Duo, Athlon wiped the floor with Pentium forcing Intel to compete using price incentives. The FTC is lodging this case 6 years too late IMHO and that negates the case's validity.

On another note I expect Intel will buy nVidia in 2010.

I have to agree here. A lot of damage has already been done. Are there any viable competitors left besides AMD? Hopefully it's not too late. Looks at what happened when AMD stepped in. Intel had to shit or get out of the house and everyone benefited.

Disappointing as to what's going on with nVidia.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

AMD's CPUs can't compete with Intel's on a price/performance basis, today. But prior to Core2Duo, Athlon wiped the floor with Pentium forcing Intel to compete using price incentives. The FTC is lodging this case 6 years too late IMHO and that negates the case's validity.

On another note I expect Intel will buy nVidia in 2010.

I don't expect Intel to buy nVidia. I don't know why but I just don't.

The Core2Duo shook up AMD's world, but they are recovering. AMD is finally on the same 45 nm process as Intel (although Intel is close to another die shrink). AMD spinning off its fabrication to Abu Dhabi investors was also an excellent move. They are finally turning a profit.

I would disagree that right now Intel is winning all fronts on price/performance. AMD's acquisition of ATi is starting to pay off, and its processor/GPU power management in notebooks is pretty decent.

Also, AMD is still an excellent low cost solution. AMD will let you keep your same socket for much longer than Intel. Their on die memory controllers were an advantage until Nehalem, and soon AMD will be placing GPUs on die as well, something that Intel can't touch.

The thing about AMD is that they have to pick and choose their battles of where to compete.

It's also nice that ATi happens to be kicking the pants off nVidia right now.

As far as this lawsuit, it's absolutely merited and at the very least I predict that Intel will have a very large settlement on their hands. Their tactics during the Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4 days had to be illegal.

Really the only reason to buy Intel is if you are shopping the very high end. I'm guessing their server chips are still much better as well, but AMD's price and socket compatibility advantage is still there.

Your average Joe computer user can't tell the difference between a cheaper AMD and a more expensive Intel.



Yeah, okay, I am ranting and coming off as quite an AMD fan. That was intended
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

I have a G5 PowerMac, that is just now starting to feel a little old. Not for the speed, but due to applications coming out for Intel only.
The PowerPC G5 was a very powerful processor for its time. Look at these benchmarks from MacWorld. The first is the G5 2.3GHz Dual tests from back in 2005:
SpeedMark4 (bigger is better) - 224
PhotoShop CS2 test (less is better) - :59
Cinema 4D render test (less is better) - 1:13

Here is an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz from last year (note that the software versions are not the same, for whatever difference that might make)
SpeedMark5 - 230
PhotoShop CS3 test - 1:02
Cinema 4D render test - :54

As you can see, these two machines, three years apart, have almost identical performance characteristics for these three tests.

The continued performance of my G5 has made me hesitate to upgrade. My experience with my family's Macs (MacBook and iMac) have not shown any obvious speed differences to me in everyday use. The one issue I am starting to run into is updating purchased software, only to find the upgrade is Intel-only. That frustration will lead me to upgrade my machine in the next year.

Sorry but the reason for the switch wasn't benchmarks as much as it was efficiency. That iMac you benchmarked probably uses 1/3 or less the power of the G5, and the PPC chip was hitting a ceiling so that the yearly gains were getting less & less.

If anything these tests you present appear to confirm that there isn't really a chip advantage for the PPC, that the Intel chip really can accomplish the same level of performance. Both are 64bit chips, one is 2.3GHz Dual & the other 2.4GHz Dual. A 2.4GHz Xeon and a 2.4GHz Core2 are going to have some big performance differences too, just like our Xeon PC servers can blow the pants off even a higher clocked Desktop computer.

In summary, that really wasn't a good comparison, age really isn't a factor when you're talking about raw specs of 2 computers.
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

Sorry but the reason for the switch wasn't benchmarks as much as it was efficiency. That iMac you benchmarked probably uses 1/3 or less the power of the G5, and the PPC chip was hitting a ceiling so that the yearly gains were getting less & less.

If anything these tests you present appear to confirm that there isn't really a chip advantage for the PPC, that the Intel chip really can accomplish the same level of performance. Both are 64bit chips, one is 2.3GHz Dual & the other 2.4GHz Dual. A 2.4GHz Xeon and a 2.4GHz Core2 are going to have some big performance differences too, just like our Xeon PC servers can blow the pants off even a higher clocked Desktop computer.

In summary, that really wasn't a good comparison, age really isn't a factor when you're talking about raw specs of 2 computers.

I was about to point out that I could cook an egg on my G5. Thanks for bringing that up. Moving from PPC was the best thing Apple could have done.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Agreed. This isn't some random lawsuit from some disgruntled manufacturer. They said they would be cracking down on anti-competitive practices. I'm still waiting/hoping for the bomb to drop on the telecommunications industry.

I'm quite shocked there hasn't been a big push to prevent locking phones to a specific career. If that isn't anti-competitive I really don't know what is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were)... Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.

I started my Mac journey (well, post-Apple IIe, etc.) this decade with an iBook G3, then went on to Powerbook G4, PowerMac G4, PowerMac G5, Macbook Core Duo, Macbook Core 2 Duo, now MacBook Core 2 Duo Penryn. Basically during the Pentium 3 (which was okay) and the Pentium 4 (which was a fiasco) you saw G3 and G4 laptops and desktops do quite alright. The PowerMac G5 and iMac G5 were actually competitive with the Intels and AMDs at the time, not least because the OS and software (usually "multimedia" ones) were appropriately optimised for it.

But the G5 was a hot, hot chip (as in temperature) and there was no way they could get it into a laptop. While the shift to laptops was beginning Apple was saddled with the G4 which also had some problems like not being able to have better clock speeds. Dual G4s and Dual G5s were the temporary solution Apple used to deliver a computer with real performance. The "dual cores" of that era. However, dual CPUs only worked in desktops, and the fastest Dual G5s had to use *liquid cooling*.

At the end of the day IBM and Motorola or whoever simply had no deliverable roadmap for Apple, switching to Intel is a huge part of how Apple is successful today. Particularly how they have moved to fast, cooler-running laptop CPUs (which with the Core 2 pretty much edged out AMD). The Core was hot and about comparable to G4s or lower-G5s, but the Core 2 and Xeon based on that pretty much sealed the deal in really kicking G4 and G5 butt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I wonder if this will give Nvidia the cover to allow them to go back to normal business without fear of the law suit?

Nvidia is in some serious doo-doo. They've suspended chipset sales, hence probably suspended development to some degree, of all of Intel's latest and greatest in 2010, namely Lynnfield, Clarkdale, Arrandale. I don't think Nvidia is going to go back into normal business, they just don't want to have all this legal stuff hanging over their heads. Even in the mid-to-higher-end GPU space they're not interested in competing until this Fermi next-gen GPU comes out, which is supposed to be primarily targeted to high-performance/cluster computing, according to Nvidia.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I was about to point out that I could cook an egg on my G5. Thanks for bringing that up. Moving from PPC was the best thing Apple could have done.

I would also say that anyone that encoded DVD's, movies, or did any FCP/iMovie work recognizes the speed improvements.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

Yeah, okay, I am ranting and coming off as quite an AMD fan. That was intended

Well, in the desktop space AMD's performance is more than good enough for even enthusiasts and gamers. For about 3/4 the price of an Intel you get similar performance, very roughly.

ATI GPUs hit a home run now with the 5-series, and prior to this the 4-series was highly competitive with Nvidia.

The only weak point is the mobile CPUs. AMD has not got the edge there.

In terms of bang-per-buck, as it stands here at the end of 2009,

GPU (desktop) ~ more likely AMD-ATI
GPU (laptop) ~ Nvidia or AMD-ATI, however ATI's 5-series 40nm, looks strong
CPU (desktop) ~ AMD
CPU (laptop) ~ Intel (more towards performance-per-watt advantages, pricing not so big a factor)
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

So were the PowerPC benchmarks inflated somehow? I just recall seeing a comparison of basic boot speed. One with Intel and the other on legacy hardware. The Intel blew the legacy away. It didn't show day to to use however (understandable as that would be like watching paint peel via a youtube video , and I haven't seen any direct benchmark comparisons other than what was posted in here.

I'm genuinely curious.

Well, a huge part of the PC vs Mac "war" back then was PowerPC vs Intel. It went on and on and on. It depended on what you were doing, whether you were a "creative pro" or not, what the clockspeeds were, and so on. Then factor in price, different OS, codebase, and you had quite the free-for-all. These days it is slightly different where the PC vs Mac "war" centres around OS ease-of-use, security, design, price and "brand"... since the hardware is more or less the same. And in terms of the components being the same, Apple has done a remarkable job in differentiating the Mac from the competition.
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Well, a huge part of the PC vs Mac "war" back then was PowerPC vs Intel. It went on and on and on. It depended on what you were doing, whether you were a "creative pro" or not, what the clockspeeds were, and so on. Then factor in price, different OS, codebase, and you had quite the free-for-all. These days it is slightly different where the PC vs Mac "war" centres around OS ease-of-use, security, design, price and "brand"... since the hardware is more or less the same. And in terms of the components being the same, Apple has done a remarkable job in differentiating the Mac from the competition.

I apologize for hijacking this thread somewhat

Thanks for the info. The Amiga guy in me was curious how good the chips were before they were tossed.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I guess Intel wanted to get a little too serious. I felt like playing nice with NVidia would have kept them out of trouble but maybe not. Geez, I bet there are some puckered hind-ends at Intel.

Well, 2010 will see what I'd be calling Intel's bundleGate. Bundling a rubbish GPU part with highly desired CPU (Arrandale and Clarkdale having 45nm Intel integrated GPU on-chip with the CPU).

This is nasty. Forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers into accepting this GPU and hence dissuading them from AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated or discrete graphics.

If this isn't part of the lawsuit already, boy I hope it would it be "added in" as soon as possible.

You have a great 32nm CPU in the form of Arrandale and Clarkdale, but Intel is *forcing* this known-to-be-very-poorly-performing, less-power-efficient (since it is 45nm) part up your kazoo.

Rumours are Apple is saying NO to this, they want the CPU without the GPU, and I'm sure Apple isn't the only one.

I really hope bundleGate starts getting picked up by regulatory bodies, desktop and laptop manufacturers, and the media.
post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I apologize for hijacking this thread somewhat

Thanks for the info. The Amiga guy in me was curious how good the chips were before they were tossed.

No worries. It's not so off topic. Before "I'm a PC"... There was... the Pentium Snail (Google it )
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Well, 2010 will see what I'd be calling Intel's bundleGate. Bundling a rubbish GPU part with highly desired CPU (Arrandale and Clarkdale having 45nm Intel integrated GPU on-chip with the CPU).

This is nasty. Forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers into accepting this GPU and hence dissuading them from AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated or discrete graphics.

If this isn't part of the lawsuit already, boy I hope it would it be "added in" as soon as possible.

You have a great 32nm CPU in the form of Arrandale and Clarkdale, but Intel is *forcing* this known-to-be-very-poorly-performing, less-power-efficient (since it is 45nm) part up your kazoo.

Rumours are Apple is saying NO to this, they want the CPU without the GPU, and I'm sure Apple isn't the only one.

I really hope bundleGate starts getting picked up by regulatory bodies, desktop and laptop manufacturers, and the media.

+1. Let's see how the patent suit works out with nVidia. Hopefully Intel cannot stop them from making their GPU's. It will be a real defeat for consumers.
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

+1. Let's see how the patent suit works out with nVidia. Hopefully Intel cannot stop them from making their GPU's. It will be a real defeat for consumers.

Yeah, hopefully Intel won't stop Nvidia making a wider range of GPUs though with bundleGate they are discouraging laptop and desktop makers from using Nvidia or AMD-ATI GPUs.

The problem is the chipset as well. Nvidia can't make chipsets for Arrandale and Clarkdale, and they can't make chipsets with Integrated GPUs like the impressive 9400M or Ion.

Essentially with bundleGate Nvidia and ATI can't have an integrated GPU because there's an Intel integrated GPU already, so Intel has basically totally locked out anyone else in the entire mid-to-low-end PC market.

Now that I think of it, it is absolutely insane that nobody has really picked up, especially in the media, on Intel's tactics here, besides maybe the FTC or others who are already on Intel's case for various other things.

With bundleGate, Intel in 2010 has basically locked everything in. Intel CPU, Intel GPU*, Intel chipset.

*Yes, you could have a discrete GPU but that market, especially for laptops, is relatively rather small. Also, many laptop makers who might have considered having a better GPU would look at the situation and say, well, even if it is a poorer GPU, it's already there, I'm not going to lose profits by having a discrete GPU, I'll just take Intel's.

The probably one good quote from the new Star Wars movies, is "So This Is How Liberty Dies...With Thunderous Applause"... Today (Thursday) Intel will release Core i3, i5, i7 Arrandale and Clarkdale details, according to some news sources. January and CES will be big celebrations of the benefits of those CPUs and what it means for the PC market. There will be much celebrations and applause. While choice of chipset and integrated GPU dies.
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I'm quite shocked there hasn't been a big push to prevent locking phones to a specific career. If that isn't anti-competitive I really don't know what is.

If that isn't a straight line...

No, that's not anticompetitive, so long as the market is competitive.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

If that isn't a straight line...
No, that's not anticompetitive, so long as the market is competitive.

Yeah, I suppose locking the iPhone to ATT reduces the appeal of the iPhone because people don't like ATT so locking in this case is "de-competitive"... Or something like that LOL.
post #34 of 53
The actual FTC wording on GPUs is very, very interesting... I am not sure why some people say this FTC thing is too little too late, looks like they have been well clued in on the latest GPU movements...


"As it did in the CPU markets, Intel recognized the threat posed by GPUs and GP GPU computing and its technological inferiority in these markets and has taken a number of anticompetitive measures to combat it. These tactics include, among others, deception relating to competitors’ efforts to enable their GPUs to interoperate with Intel’s newest CPUs; adopting a new policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs; establishing various barriers to interoperability; degrading certain connections between GPUs and CPUs; making misleading statements to industry participants about the readiness of Intel’s GPUs; and unlawful bundling or tying of Intel’s GPUs with its CPUs resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products. "


"23. Intel adopted these anticompetitive business practices when the GPU began to emerge as a potential challenge to Intel’s monopoly over CPUs. Intel’s refusal to allow Nvidia, AMD, and Via to interoperate freely ... with its CPUs, chipsets, and related connections is an unfair method of competition and an unfair practice.

24. Intel also has bundled the price of its CPU and chipset with integrated graphics to foreclose Nvidia in some market segments*, resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate measure of cost. "

*Remember, this even before Arrandale and Clarkdale come into play...!
post #35 of 53
In fact, this FTC thing is not just about trying to fight Intel on the CPU side, they're saying, hang on, the GPU thing is now the big deal as well...

"Intel Holds a Monopoly in the Relevant CPU Markets and It is Likely to Obtain a Monopoly in the Relevant GPU Markets"

"26. These and other anticompetitive practices by Intel since 1999 allowed it to maintain its monopoly position in the relevant CPU markets and will create a dangerous possibility that Intel will obtain a monopoly in the relevant GPU markets. As a result, consumers today have fewer choices of CPU and GPU manufacturers than they had a decade ago, and fewer than they would have had absent this conduct."
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The AI story implies that Apple will be Exhibit A in the case against Intel. I wonder if that's true. If so, the relationship between the companies could be in for some damage.

I don't think Apple will reveal much details even if Apple is unhappy about the relationship... Since it would mean Apple would have to disclose how it negotiates with suppliers and obtains components.

I wonder if with bundleGate the relationship between the companies is getting worse... That an Apple's seeming refusal to adopt Atom in any way, shape or form, at this stage.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

FTC statement:

making misleading statements to industry participants about the readiness of Intels GPUs"



I'm not an expert on CPUs/GPUs, but I'll comment anyway. I would tie in the delayed Larrabee as being quite a problem for Intel because of all the PR Intel did regarding Larrabee. It's more than just an embarrassing technical failure, IMO. It has real legal implications.

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I agree with some of your post, but from what I saw of general usage, the Mac got MUCH faster when they did the switch. It was before my time, but the videos are all over youtube (or they were).

Anyone who's long in the tooth want to chime in? I'm curious if the reports were true.

I shudder when I read my post done on the phone which am doing again.


Speed does matter now and when the duo core came out AMD had nothing to fight back with.

I was implying in 1999 megahertz did NOT matter. Ppc and amd had better perfeormance. Intel needed one full one gigahertz in clock speed just to match AMD.

When the duo core came out it was blazing and now speed DOES matter.
You see, we went from a megahertz myth to it no longer being a myth.
Example on a G5 and AMD Athlon 1ghz, intel needed 2.0 gigahertz just to have the same bench marks. Even though at the time, I don't know what apple had in 1999, but probably G3 but would do certain PRO creative things faster and AMD turned some mac heads into PC users as AMD was doing blazzing speeds. What they would do is have emagics Logic, a G3/4 and AMD PCs running gigastudio, one if the first largest sample companys and would run the macs and pcs together for huge musical projects.

Gigastudio only stayed PC only but every composer in town had that plus Acid, which a head houncho from this loop software Acid left and created GarageBand.

Anyway, speed and core now matter again. It went from mattering in the early 90s to not mattering in the late 90s and then the duo core came out with that and that ended that war. Intel would slash their prices down so far, their stock fell and was reffered to as the price wars between amd and intel. But AMD did a good thing, for a while anyway. They kept the prices down and Apple saw that the ppc was going nowhere and switched when cores and speed started to matter again. But sadly, the top of the line Cpu is very expensive. During the price wars, except for server chips, no CPU was more than ~$3-400.00. That's 3 to 4 hindered. Now since there is nothing to compete with intel, they charge what they want so unti AMD comes up with something, we pay.

I sour like to one day see AMD come up with something astonishing , have Apple but them grin. Apple was one of the first to join AMDs hyperconsotom or some other spelling. Lol.

Nite.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertP View Post

I'm not an expert on CPUs/GPUs, but I'll comment anyway. I would tie in the delayed Larrabee as being quite a problem for Intel because of all the PR Intel did regarding Larrabee. It's more than just an embarrassing technical failure, IMO. It has real legal implications.

In the context of the FTC, and similar allegations perhaps to come, most definitely there are implications. You have a point there. What was Larrabee supposed to do, actually? There was supposed to be retail part or something, by now, right? (Which was cancelled) Also, was it promised that Larrabee would make its way into an Intel Integrated Graphic part? What future development of Larrabee is now promised? Is this misleading?

Larrabee itself could be considered in negative light since it's based around x86, as I understand, rather than conventional GPU-like architecture.
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

...I sour like to one day see AMD come up with something astonishing , have Apple but them grin. Apple was one of the first to join AMDs hyperconsotom or some other spelling. Lol.

Nite.

Hypertransport Consortium. AMD was the primary push behind this and Apple was involved in "The IBM CPC925 and CPC945 PowerPC 970 northbridges, as co-designed and used by Apple in the Power Mac G5" (Wikipedia).

Anyways check this out as well in the FTC document. Intel is alleged to have been anticompetitive with regard to USB and HDCP:

"92. Intel’s course of anticompetitive and unfair conduct extends to its control of industry standards to hinder innovation by its CPU competitors and to maintain its monopoly power in the CPU markets. Using its dominant CPU position, Intel has manipulated the content and timing of many industry standards to advantage its own products and prevent competitors from introducing standards-compliant products prior to product introduction by Intel. Two examples of such anticompetitive conduct relate to the Universal Serial Bus host controller specification and the High Definition Content Protection (“HDCP”) standard for use in DisplayPort connections between computers and display devices such as monitors and televisions... Intel’s conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances Intel’s monopoly power in CPUs."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FTC sues Intel over alleged anticompetitive tactics