Intel gets biggest fine in history, WHY AMD!!

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

AMD couldn't have done any better, WITH OR WITHOUT Intel. AMD sold every damn chip they could make and they often couldn't keep up with market demand! THAT is their own fault, NOTHING to do with Intel.

I want to come back to this point. Intel has been found guilty of anti competitive behaviour in several key markets, and paid a record fine in the UE. Intel is now under investigation in New York, and soon will be under review at the federal level.

Now you are saying that AMD's lack of marketshare have absolutely nothing at all to do with Intel, and it's all self inflicted. By saying that, you are saying that each and every judgment against Intel, and now the investigations in the United States, are completely invalid.

It's unfortunate that you really believe that.

edit - how about looking at it this way. If Intel did not exist, at all. Would total processor shipments drop by 80%, because AMD has absolutely no recourse to produce more than that? Because this is what you are essentially saying.

[Crisler]

Originally Posted by Skynet

Now you are saying that AMD's lack of marketshare have absolutely nothing at all to do with Intel, and it's all self inflicted. By saying that, you are saying that each and every judgment against Intel, and now the investigations in the United States, are completely invalid. .

Seriously dude lay off the koolaid, it is bad for you..

NO ONE has said that I am aware of that Intel did not play a major factor in the position AMD is in right now. I just read earlier today the fil;ing by New York, YIKES!

However AMD needs serious help in marketing and it does play a huge role in AMDs current position. Even people at AMD are agreeing with me, not understanding why the market department is dragging when it should be attacking.

I think Intel will settle out of court and pay a pretty health sum to AMD. However even if Intel stops it's practices tomorrow and AMD gets a healthy budget bump unless they get a marketing campaign that actually works they will be no better off a year later.

I personally WANT AMD to succeed, I think they offer a great value and solid product. For my personal use and family I build nothing but AMD. However I am not so drunk on koolaid that I think AMD can do no wrong. They have to get serious about marketing to gain any real share, even if they win against Intel.

Vision is just another example of the incompetent people working for AMD marketing.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by Crisler

Seriously dude lay off the koolaid, it is bad for you..
NO ONE has said that I am aware of that Intel did not play a major factor in the position AMD is in right now

Do you even read threads before you post?

Originally Posted by moshpit

AMD couldn't have done any better, WITH OR WITHOUT Intel.

[Skynet]

UPDATE: NY AG: Dell Got $6B Through Secret Intel Pact >DELL

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Dell Inc. (DELL) allegedly received billions of dollars in payments over a four-year period to use chips made by Intel Corp. (INTC), payments that sometimes totaled more than the computer maker's reported profits for a fiscal quarter, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday.

Dell, the world's third-biggest computer maker based on shipments, was allegedly paid about $6 billion between February 2002 and January 2007, according to the lawsuit. In one fiscal quarter, the lawsuit says payments from Intel constituted 116% of Dell's reported net income.

The allegations against Intel are part of a lawsuit filed by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The lawsuit alleges Intel paid computer makers to discourage them from using chips made by competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD). Other computer makers alleged to have dealt with Intel include Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) and International Business Machines Corp. (IBM).

The supposed payments raise questions about Dell's health, suggesting the Round Rock, Texas, company relied on subsidies from Intel to maintain its level of profitability. Dell has struggled to cut costs and streamline its operations to catch up with competitors, like H-P. The suit "could impact Dell's profitability," said Shaw Wu, an analyst at Kaufman Brothers.

The lawsuit doesn't specify whether Dell is currently receiving payments similar to the ones alleged. But a footnote says "there is evidence that Intel continues to apply pressure to Dell to minimize AMD's ability to compete effectively."

Dell declined to comment. Intel said it would defend itself. A Hewlett-Packard spokeswoman declined to comment. An AMD representative could not be reached immediately.

An IBM spokesman said the company cooperated with requests for information from the government and the company believes it conducted its business appropriately.

The lawsuit alleges that Dell received more money than any other computer maker.

"In pure dollar terms, Dell was far and away the leader in receiving Intel's largess," the lawsuit says. "Dell understood that the primary purpose of the various 'Intel Funds' was to keep AMD (central processing units) out of Dell computers and servers," it says later.

Under a secret arrangement once-called the "Mother of all Programs," Intel paid Dell a rebate based on the total value of chips the computer maker bought, according to the lawsuit. The percentage of the rebate varied but reached up to 16% as Dell contemplated using AMD products.

The payments were so large that in 2002 Dell stopped considering the introduction of some products using AMD chips when Dell worried that Intel would end about $250 million in payments and give them instead to competitors, according to the lawsuit.

[razor1]

Skynet, even if AMD was to get more marketshare at that time, they wouldn't have had the capacity to sell another 10% marketshare, but agree with you that Intel did shut out AMD with OEM's.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by razor1

Skynet, even if AMD was to get more marketshare at that time, they wouldn't have had the capacity to sell another 10% marketshare, but agree with you that Intel did shut out AMD with OEM's.

Hehehe, oh boy. Yet another one saying it. Hmmmm, Skynet, seems not everybody's memory is as short as yours.

[razor1]

well giving rebates to the point that OEM's got such a good deal with Intel parts, thats shutting out AMD by all means, unfortunatly we don't know how much those rebates were, but I wouldn't be suprised if Intel took almost no profits to minimal profits on thier chips with high volume OEM's.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by razor1

well giving rebates to the point that OEM's got such a good deal with Intel parts, thats shutting out AMD by all means, unfortunatly we don't know how much those rebates were, but I wouldn't be suprised if Intel took almost no profits to minimal profits on thier chips with high volume OEM's.

Not that part. The capacity part. It gets Skynet going.

[razor1]

oh yeah they definitly didn't have the capacity, they were already over 100% capacity at their dreden fab in AMD's haydays.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by razor1

oh yeah they definitly didn't have the capacity, they were already over 100% capacity at their dreden fab in AMD's haydays.

That's one of my major points. While Intel's tactics kept AMD down when AMD wasn't leading the market with highest end performance, when they were, they sold everything they could make. They couldn't keep up with demand at several major points. Which to me says that while Intel's tactics were crap, AMD could overcome those tactics at times with sheer engineering prowess, but then couldn't keep it up each time to capitalize on those victories.

[razor1]

That is true, ya know thats one of the must forgotten part of Intel, thier sheer size with thier fabs is what makes them very formidable. As much technology they have, just thier ability to produce huge amounts of their chips gives them a large advantage against others in any market directly associated with silicon chip production.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

That's one of my major points. While Intel's tactics kept AMD down when AMD wasn't leading the market with highest end performance, when they were, they sold everything they could make. They couldn't keep up with demand at several major points. Which to me says that while Intel's tactics were crap, AMD could overcome those tactics at times with sheer engineering prowess, but then couldn't keep it up each time to capitalize on those victories.

How many times are you going to repeat the same thing over and over again?

I will tell you again because you refuse to get it. AMD didn't care so much about being capacity constrained, they most certainly planned to use that capacity for Opteron. This strategy failed because they were shutout by the likes of Dell, HP, and IBM.

So instead of making extremely high profits on the capacity they had, they made very slim margins producing much lower margin chips. Savvy? Did you read the NY State filing? It goes a very long way to explain exactly what I am talking about. This is not something I am making up, this is not my opinion. This is what happened, backed up by Intel's own words.

Now of course AMD ended up in a situation where they lost the performance crown, and were further forced down the margins chain, just like Intel intended. Hence we have the position AMD is in today. AMD has their own self inflicted wounds, but as you constantly ignore, so does Intel. The difference is, AMD paid dearly for their mistakes because they had no cushion, Intel did not pay for their mistakes.

And I will ask you AGAIN, why did Intel pay out billions to exclude AMD when AMD was capacity constrained? Answer the question please.

[razor1]

come on now both of you have valid points but both are looking at it from a different perspective, no need to go into "STFU", that just makes things very personal, no need for that. Its a good debate keep it goin. Intel I think has paid for thier mistakes and will pay more because of the lawsuits. Intel did what they thought they had to, which damn if they didn't think about the situation they would be in right now, AMD would have gotten more money, they would be in a different situation right now, probably the spin off of the fabs wouldn't have happened, FishKill planet construction would probably have progressed as planned instead it was delayed, but market dynamics as of now, wouldn't have changed much because of Intel's better chips, the OEM's would have shifted back to Intel. So the debt that AMD has incurred in the recent years after buying ATI would have been less to what degree, well thats kinda hard to say, but still they would have had a good amount of debt, I don't think 4 billion dollars would have been wiped out possible only a billion of it would have?

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by razor1

As much technology they have, just thier ability to produce huge amounts of their chips gives them a large advantage against others in any market directly associated with silicon chip production.

What gives Intel the advantage is economy of scale. It applies to Fabs more than just about any other manufacturing sector. It costs at least 5 billion just for a single modern Fab. To make that fab profitable, it has to produce millions of processors to return the investment.

AMD found this out the hard way, and when they were squeezed of the volume they needed, they could no longer afford to own and continuously update their manufacturing facilities. The GlobalFoundries spin off is a way to get rid of this disadvantage by offering fab capacity to 3rd parties. If AMD did not spin off their Fabs it would have dragged them down into oblivion.

So the bottom line is Intel is not some sort of manufacturing god, but is able to pay for their manufacturing prowess by huge volumes and a near monopoly. If you look at the return for the dollar, AMD is a far, far more efficient company. If Intel was competing on a level playing field, they would have a far harder time dominating. Sooner or later we will find this out in spades.

Intel's monopolistic behaviour will come to an end, it's only a matter of time, the various states and the Feds have had enough and will come down very hard on Intel. Expect a huge punishment against Intel in the next few years.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by razor1

come on now both of you have valid points but both are looking at it from a different perspective, no need to go into "STFU", that just makes things very personal, no need for that. Its a good debate keep it goin.

It's not personal. But repeating the same crap endlessly when confronted with obvious reasons why those points are not valid tends to piss people off. Especially when certain people refuse to read the NY State filing, which has detailed conversations which directly address the points I'm trying to make. And also invalidate the notion that AMD was capacity limited and this is the ONLY reason AMD failed in the marketplace.

And if you doubt that, I will quote this again.

Originally Posted by moshpit

AMD couldn't have done any better, WITH OR WITHOUT Intel.

So there is that same question, WHY did Intel pay out billions when it would have not made any difference? That completely invalidates the argument and proves that AMD was indeed a threat, and their ultimate capacity limitations were not even close enough of an issue, otherwise Intel would have just let AMD shoot themselves in the foot and do nothing.

[razor1]

Originally Posted by Skynet

What gives Intel the advantage is economy of scale. It applies to Fabs more than just about any other manufacturing sector. It costs at least 5 billion just for a single modern Fab. To make that fab profitable, it has to produce millions of processors to return the investment.

AMD found this out the hard way, and when they were squeezed of the volume they needed, they could no longer afford to own and continuously update their manufacturing facilities. The GlobalFoundries spin off is a way to get rid of this disadvantage by offering fab capacity to 3rd parties. If AMD did not spin off their Fabs it would have dragged them down into oblivion.

So the bottom line is Intel is not some sort of manufacturing god, but is able to pay for their manufacturing prowess by huge volumes and a near monopoly. If you look at the return for the dollar, AMD is a far, far more efficient company. If Intel was competing on a level playing field, they would have a far harder time dominating. Sooner or later we will find this out in spades.

Intel's monopolistic behaviour will come to an end, it's only a matter of time, the various states and the Feds have had enough and will come down very hard on Intel. Expect a huge punishment against Intel in the next few years.

I totally agree, but Intel will keep it in the courts until AMD is really hurting, that is a problem. I'm not sure if AMD will get the return they are looking for, if they get a billion or two that would be great, just have to wait and see though.

Originally Posted by Skynet

It's not personal. But repeating the same crap endlessly when confronted with obvious reasons why those points are not valid tends to piss people off. Especially when certain people refuse to read the NY State filing, which has detailed conversations which directly address the points I'm trying to make. And also invalidate the notion that AMD was capacity limited and this is the ONLY reason AMD failed in the marketplace.

Well now you see how I feel with certain members, but anyways, thats pointless to get into.

The NY state filing, AMD was capacity limited when AMD processors were first sold to Dell aswell, they even said it, thats one of the reasons why Dell had to shift some of marketing and sales initiatives back to Intel, but in anycase that wasn't the only reason why AMD failed at that time as you said, but in recent years the performance advantage that Intel has can't be ignored. To Mosphit's points, Intel "Intel Inside" market initiative was very strong, the amount of TV advertisments Intel had done with that, AMD had really no answer for, to me it was almost brainwashing the consumer because thats all they saw.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by razor1

I'm not sure if AMD will get the return they are looking for, if they get a billion or two that would be great, just have to wait and see though.

It will be far beyond that. In the upcoming civil case (spring 2010) AMD could easily net $10 billion, and that number is very conservative. Intel paid out $6 billion to Dell alone. A $15-20 billion award would not surprise me.

Some people will think that is crazy, but it will not be that hard to show those kind of numbers are the harm Intel did to AMD. It's easy to prove, just add up the Intel payouts and tell a jury, hey if Intel was willing to dish out that kind of cash, don't you think they believed that is what AMD stood to gain? Even if the jury only believes AMD deserves half that number, it will still be a massive amount.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by razor1

The NY state filing, AMD was capacity limited when AMD processors were first sold to Dell aswell, they even said it...

Correct. AMD was forced to supply Dell with low end crap by the millions. In the filing, Intel calls AMD's gains in server "critical" and did literally everything possible to make sure AMD was not able to get a foothold. It is extraordinary the lengths they went to.

AMD would have otherwise been able to use the capacity for highly profitable parts, something Intel highly relied on.

[razor1]

well we don't know how the money was funnelled to Dell, I'll give you an example that I have seen used (one of jobs a few years ago was a director of produciton in an advertising firm), lets say Dell wants to create an advertsiment, Intel says we want our "Intel inside" logo and ad at the end of the adversiment, first thing we do is look into buy TV space, ok then we look at its going to cost this much for this much space, depending on length, timing of airing of the commercial, then cost of production of the shoot. Intel says ok we have X amount of $ we will give to Dell, since its thier commercial Intel pays extra because Dell will employ the resources to get the commercial made, then Dell pays Y to the advertising firm. Now Intel can actually pay double and still get away with it, because Dell is now acting as a liason or consultant for Intel. This can be done for any adverstising online or traditional. So lets say Dell spent 500 million a year on advertising which is quite possible over a year, advertising agencies tend to get a retainer for an entire year, Intel could have given them a billion.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by razor1

well we don't know how the money was funnelled to Dell....

Yes we do. It was paid to Dell directly. In fact, at one point Intel's payouts to Dell exceed Dell's own quarterly profits. At one point, M. Dell even asked Intel for more money so they could look good on their financials and show a quarter to quarter growth.

M. Dell actually routinely threatened Intel and used AMD as pawn to get more cash. But like I keep saying, it's all there in the filing if anyone cares to ready it.

[razor1]

It doesn't go into exactly how the money was funnelled, it might not have just been given to them, I might be wrong at the end, but the filling doesn't show the money trail so don't think Intel would be stupid enough just to hand them the money. Anyhow, I'm sure that will be uncovered in the trail.

[Skynet]

There is far far too much in the filing to post here, but here are some snippets. Again I can't emphasize this enough. AMD was not NOT so capacity constrained that it did not offer a significant threat to Intel. That is blatantly clear by Intel's extensive actions and efforts to keep the liked of Dell from offering AMD based servers.


104. An internal Intel review recognized that this development could cost Intel dearly
in terms of revenue, noting that, as a result of the introduction of AMD competition in the server
market by HP as well, $250 million in Intel revenue was at risk in 2004.
105. Dell understood that Intel’s reaction would likely be severe if “Dell joins the
AMD exodus.” Specifically, the Dell executive who served as Intel’s informal liaison to Dell
management wrote the following analysis:
If we play this right, we walk away with a 3-year contract that drives
structural Dell advantage in cost, supply, and influence….
PSO/CRB [Paul Ottelini, Intel’s CEO, and Craig Barrett, Intel’s
Chairman] are prepared for jihad if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We
[will] get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel
‘investigates the details’ – there’s no legal/moral/threatening means
for us to apply and avoid this. We’ll also have to bite and scratch to
even hold 50% [of MCP] including a commitment to NOT ship
[AMD-based products] in [the] Corporate [sector].

If we go [with AMD CPUs] in [the] Opti[plex product line], [Intel]
cut[s] [MCP] to <20% and use[s] the added MCP to compete against
us. [Intel has] gamed this out and can clearly withstand a 2-3 year
industry price war to ensure that they lose no market share if Dell
ships AMD.

106. Top Dell and Intel executives met and Intel again agreed on substantial increases
in rebate levels; Dell would now receive a “base” rebate of 11% of its processor purchases from
Intel, up from 7%, for not switching to AMD. In addition, they also agreed on another 3% in
“incremental” or “variable” rebates, for a total of up to 14%. Dell’s lead negotiator estimated
that the “new MCP” would be worth $400 million to Dell over the twelve month period from
April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005. Indeed, around that time, Intel’s payments to Dell started to
reach figures of $100 million per quarter or more.


107. One of the reasons that Dell remained unwilling to offer AMD-based products
was that Dell’s quarterly profit margins had become dependent on Intel’s payments. A
comparison of Dell’s reported net income with the rebates it received from Intel for some
quarterly periods show that, by 2004, the rebate payments amounted to more than a third of
Dell’s earnings. For the 3 month period between August and October of 2004, Dell received
approximately $304 million in rebates from Intel and reported income of $846 million, so that
the rebates amounted to 36% of net income. Thereafter, the proportion of rebates to net income
rose steeply. In 2006, Dell received approximately $1.9 billion in rebates from Dell, and in two
quarterly periods of that year, rebate payments exceeded reported net income. From February to
April of 2006, rebates ($805 million) amounted to 104% of net income ($776 million). The
following 3 months, between May and July of 2006, the proportion was even higher, 116%
($554 million of rebates and $480 million in net income).

116. On December 6, 2004, Intel’s Otellini emailed Intel’s Dell account representative
about his concern that Dell would defect to AMD: “I had the analysts dinner tonight. One of the
analysts … said he talked with Kevin [Rollins] today and Kevin told him it was ‘inevitable’ that
Dell would use Opteron…” The next day, the Intel executive promptly forwarded this email on
to Dell’s lead negotiator with a plea for help in securing “incremental support” for Dell. Hours
later, Dell’s lead negotiator emailed back that Michael Dell was on board: “Sitting in the car
right next to msd [Michael Dell] as I type. He’s aligned. I’ll get with kbr [Kevin Rollins] when I
return. I’m positive that incremental mcp will get kbr aligned.…”
117. Later in the day, Intel’s negotiator wrote that “we’ve made a lot of progress in the
last couple of months – you guys had a ton to do w/it!! … I’m struggling finding the incremental
meet comp exposure .... I need some help here …”. Dell’s lead negotiator emailed back: “This is
really easy. MSD [Michael Dell] wants $400M more. I’ve been trying to figure out the
structure…”

120. As the AMD threat to Intel’s dominance increased in the server sphere, Intel set
up a Abid bucket@ program at Dell, through which Intel subsidized below-cost bids by Dell when
it was bidding against competitors selling AMD-based computers and servers to large businesses
or other “enterprise” customers. The purpose of the program was to stop AMD from
successfully placing its products in trend-setting enterprise accounts.

121. Intel closely supervised and tightly controlled Dell’s use of the bid bucket funds.
Intel demanded and received detailed quarterly tracking reports from Dell on how the bid
buckets were used, including follow-up on wins and losses.

123. As Dell found itself losing more and more of these bids – even with bid bucket
subsidies – in January 2005, Intel gave Dell “a verbal OK to remove any discounting
restrictions” on bids against Opteron servers. In other words, Intel was now actively
encouraging below-cost transactions in order to keep AMD out of the key enterprise market. In
accordance with Intel’s instruction, Dell sent new guidelines to Dell’s “Centers of Competence”
or “COCs” (i.e., regional offices), dispensing with the limits, but also instructing the COCs that
they “MUST … [w]ork proactively with Intel to respond to and win those deals.”



One of the most amazing aspects is “a verbal OK to remove any discounting
restrictions” in the server space. This is what I am talking about, Intel knew they had to keep AMD from gaining traction here.


This stuff just goes on and on. Clearly Intel didn't just sit back while assuring themselves that AMD couldn't produce enough chips to hurt them. They were extremely concerned and threatened.

[Someotherdude]

FTC expect to build a case against Intel. Looks like the Feds are jumping into the fray.

David Balto, a former policy director at the FTC and currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Computerworld that the FTC has been working long and hard on a case against Intel. He contends the FTC probably will seek an injunction against the company, and that there's a good chance it would come in the next few months.

[Crisler]

Originally Posted by Skynet

It will be far beyond that. In the upcoming civil case (spring 2010) AMD could easily net $10 billion, and that number is very conservative. Intel paid out $6 billion to Dell alone. A $15-20 billion award would not surprise me. .

I agree it will be a sizeable payout for Intel but then what. If AMD gives the money to their idiot marketing team then they will be no better off than they are now.

[caveman-jim]

To those of you claiming capacity constrainst meant no difference if Intel was anti-competitive or not; would AMD be constrained if they'd had the revenue from high margin server and workstation parts coming in and invested that in foundaries and design? Would they not have grown to become larger, more productive, and better in every way?

Is the artificial market cap not entirely to blame for holding back AMD as a cash-limited underfunded concern in the red?

[razor1]

Originally Posted by Skynet

There is far far too much in the filing to post here, but here are some snippets. Again I can't emphasize this enough. AMD was not NOT so capacity constrained that it did not offer a significant threat to Intel. That is blatantly clear by Intel's extensive actions and efforts to keep the liked of Dell from offering AMD based servers.

................

One of the most amazing aspects is “a verbal OK to remove any discounting
restrictions” in the server space. This is what I am talking about, Intel knew they had to keep AMD from gaining traction here.


This stuff just goes on and on. Clearly Intel didn't just sit back while assuring themselves that AMD couldn't produce enough chips to hurt them. They were extremely concerned and threatened.

Well even with Intel's pay off of OEM's, AMD has to contruct a case that shows how much damages were incurred because of it, which is difficult, its not going to be the exact amount of Intel's pay off, at the time, AMD if they win, won't be able to say it the pay off equals the damage done.

[Corum Jhaelen Irsei]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

To those of you claiming capacity constrainst meant no difference if Intel was anti-competitive or not; would AMD be constrained if they'd had the revenue from high margin server and workstation parts coming in and invested that in foundaries and design? Would they not have grown to become larger, more productive, and better in every way?

Is the artificial market cap not entirely to blame for holding back AMD as a cash-limited underfunded concern in the red?

Nope, it is all AMD's fault. They suck and Intel rules. Just because AMD had the fastest and most cost efficeint chip on the market, but no OEMs would move to them is pure coincedence. If you can not tell this is sarcasm, you need to see a doctor.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

To those of you claiming capacity constrainst meant no difference if Intel was anti-competitive or not; would AMD be constrained if they'd had the revenue from high margin server and workstation parts coming in and invested that in foundaries and design? Would they not have grown to become larger, more productive, and better in every way?

Is the artificial market cap not entirely to blame for holding back AMD as a cash-limited underfunded concern in the red?

Give it up. NOBODY claimed it was the ONLY reason. But it IS a fact, AMD failed to meet demand on MANY occasions and only an incredibly short memory, or intentionally pretending it didn't happen at the WORST times possible could think what you said. They couldn't keep up with demand, how could they have made more money during those times? Intel's nastiness did nothing to save the Pentium 4 from the Athlon X2. The Athlon X2 directly drove Netburst out of the market. You'd have to be blind to not see that. AMD couldn't hardly make enough of those and shortages popped up non-stop until Conroe came out. Those are facts I'd love to see you deny.

[caveman-jim]

The point you are missing Mosh, is not that I'm denying your facts (which I haven't) but the reason behind why the facts are facts in the first place.

If Intel had not acted in the anti-competitive manner they did, would AMD have money troubles, capacity constraints and a resource starved enterprise? That's the crux of the argument, and the answer is 'no' - see Intel's behaviour as evidence when AMD did have a class leading product.

AMD couldn't hardly make enough of those and shortages popped up non-stop until Conroe came out

Why couldn't they make enough? Because they couldn't get enough revenue to expand their fabs. Why couldn't get get enough revenue? Because they couldn't sell enough high margin products (i.e. server variants) to fund it. Why couldn't they sell enough high margin products? Because intel artificially enforced a market cap on AMD, so AMD had to sell low margin products to sell what they could make.

This is the reason behind the lawsuits around the world. Intel didn't stop AMD from making enough procs, they made it so they couldn't increase marketshare and so stopped the companies growth compared to a free, open market condition.

If you can't see that, you should give it up.

[moshpit]

I see your point. It' a chicken or the egg issue though on that way of looking at it. They have periods of selling every CPU they can make, and periods where surplus is on the point of downing them. I've always contended AMD's biggest enemy is itself because of mismanagment in it's quarter to quarter choices of how much stock to have on hand.

But I truley contend that those periods have been more based on merit of design and market acceptance then Intel's manipulations. When AMD has released chips that truley outshine Intel's, AMD hasn't been able to keep up with demand. When Intel technology catches up or outruns AMD, Intel's other nasty tricks snow ball the situation even worse on AMD.

I could compromise and say that AMD and Intel are equally AMD's own worst enemies, but I won't buy that Intel has ever been AMD's true worst enemy. I've watched AMD sabotage itself too damned many times now to think Intel is totally to blame for all of AMD's troubles.