Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[wccftech]Intel Allegedly Playing Dirty To Undercut AMD’s Ryzen

10K views 141 replies 69 participants last post by  mcg75 
#1 ·
Quote:
Intel is allegedly back to playing dirty in a deliberate attempt to cut AMD and its Ryzen CPUs out of the market. Reports alleged that Intel PR is gearing up for a response to Ryzen. With some reports claiming that Intel personnel may have even approached some customers with "incentive rebates" and other special promotions to exclusively use Intel chips. In some cases allegedly urging them to make big buying decisions before they could evaluate competing AMD products.
http://wccftech.com/intel-playing-dirty-undercut-amd-ryzen/
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CULLEN View Post

Intel has been playing dirty for the past decade, I feel morally unable to buy their chips anymore.
Yeah...but they got the best stuff. It's like Nvidia. I'd like to buy them, but when you want the top product... I would have rather gone something other than X99 BW-E but lack of cores and the more limited PCIe and SATA and etc etc of the newer intel chipsets...nah..
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by xSociety View Post

Not having competition is not "playing dirty".
You could argue that they didn't have competition because they played dirty.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Intel is allegedly back to playing dirty in a deliberate attempt to cut AMD and its Ryzen CPUs out of the market. Reports alleged that Intel PR is gearing up for a response to Ryzen. With some reports claiming that Intel personnel may have even approached some customers with "incentive rebates" and other special promotions to exclusively use Intel chips. In some cases allegedly urging them to make big buying decisions before they could evaluate competing AMD products.
rebates aren't playing dirty though.

plus just rebates alone can't help them from AMD's lineup.
e.g. i7-6800K @ $409 vs R7 1700X @ $389

even if they give customers a $100 rebate the overall cost-to-performance is still in favor with AMD.
e.g. i7-6800K @ 309 vs R5 1600X @ $259
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Chakravant
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJRhoades View Post

You could argue that they didn't have competition because they played dirty.
This isn't that far from the truth tbh, as most of us know. (or I hope at least)
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Rookie1337
#11 ·
both have played dirty before, one more than the other...
its just business in the end. these big corporations they don't care about the costumer.
typical capitalism

its the same in the gaming industry nowadays, these triple A teams just become profit driven and there is no one wit passion, just about balancing the financial books and also growing more each year

The ceo job is only to find ways to make more cash
 
#12 ·
How is this playing dirty? Were there under the table bribes, threats, or illegal acts? Are they doing anything that hundreds of companies across the planet don't do? Don't get me wrong, I am so left of center I am anti-capitalist, but even I feel there are much bigger fish to fry. MS is doing much shadier stuff, but I don't hear people saying they are "playing dirty ", just making decisions we don't agree with.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakravant View Post

How is this playing dirty? Were there under the table bribes, threats, or illegal acts? Are they doing anything that hundreds of companies across the planet don't do? Don't get me wrong, I am so left of center I am anti-capitalist, but even I feel there are much bigger fish to fry. MS is doing much shadier stuff, but I don't hear people saying they are "playing dirty ", just making decisions we don't agree with.
US Federal Trade Commission - $1.25 Billion Settlement For "Unfair" & "Deceptive" Conduct

In 2010 Intel settled an investigation by the FTC for $1.25 billion paid to AMD.

Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC stated : "We believe Intel stepped well over the line of aggressive competition on the merits, and engaged in unfair, deceptive and anti-competitive conduct. The sum total of all this anti-competitive conduct unfairly prevented companies from competing, bolstered Intel's monopoly, and harmed consumers by stunting innovation, diminishing quality, and keeping prices higher than they would otherwise be."

The FTC's findings :

The usual complaints we've seen from the EU. Intel rewarded OEMs to not use AMD's processors through various means, such as volume discounts, withholding advertising & R&D money, and threatening OEMs with a low-priority during CPU shortages.

Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel's compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs, our assumption is that this is the specific complaint. To our knowledge this has been resolved for quite some time now.

Intel paid/coerced software and hardware vendors to not support or to limit their support for AMD CPUs. This includes having vendors label their wares as Intel compatible, but not AMD compatible.

False advertising. This includes hiding the compiler changes from developers, misrepresenting benchmark results (such as BAPCo Sysmark) that changed due to those compiler changes, and general misrepresentation of benchmarks as being "real world" when they are not.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcosta View Post

both have played dirty before, one more than the other...
its just business in the end. these big corporations they don't care about the costumer.
typical capitalism

its the same in the gaming industry nowadays, these triple A teams just become profit driven and there is no one wit passion, just about balancing the financial books and also growing more each year

The ceo job is only to find ways to make more cash
When one of the companies has been fined $1b+ in multiple jurisdictions for their practices, it's not "just business". They've done it before and the long term profits largely outweighed the fines and bad press. Why wouldn't they do it again?
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakravant View Post

How is this playing dirty? Were there under the table bribes, threats, or illegal acts? Are they doing anything that hundreds of companies across the planet don't do? Don't get me wrong, I am so left of center I am anti-capitalist, but even I feel there are much bigger fish to fry. MS is doing much shadier stuff, but I don't hear people saying they are "playing dirty ", just making decisions we don't agree with.
It's not just shady, it's illegal under US antitrust law. Heck, Intel lost a lawsuit with AMD over that exact thing a few years ago.

It's also more significant in the chip industry, as the R&D that revenue pays for is absolutely vital.

Yeah, M$ is basically the devil, but much of what they do is technically/barely legal.

I don't have much faith in this WCCF article though
tongue.gif
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphic View Post

US Federal Trade Commission - $1.25 Billion Settlement For "Unfair" & "Deceptive" Conduct

In 2010 Intel settled an investigation by the FTC for $1.25 billion paid to AMD.

Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC stated : "We believe Intel stepped well over the line of aggressive competition on the merits, and engaged in unfair, deceptive and anti-competitive conduct. The sum total of all this anti-competitive conduct unfairly prevented companies from competing, bolstered Intel's monopoly, and harmed consumers by stunting innovation, diminishing quality, and keeping prices higher than they would otherwise be."

The FTC's findings :

The usual complaints we've seen from the EU. Intel rewarded OEMs to not use AMD's processors through various means, such as volume discounts, withholding advertising & R&D money, and threatening OEMs with a low-priority during CPU shortages.

Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel's compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs, our assumption is that this is the specific complaint. To our knowledge this has been resolved for quite some time now.

Intel paid/coerced software and hardware vendors to not support or to limit their support for AMD CPUs. This includes having vendors label their wares as Intel compatible, but not AMD compatible.

False advertising. This includes hiding the compiler changes from developers, misrepresenting benchmark results (such as BAPCo Sysmark) that changed due to those compiler changes, and general misrepresentation of benchmarks as being "real world" when they are not.
That was over half a decade ago. Where is the evidence this is happening in 2017?

Also, as a result of the settlement, Intel was not found guilty. An annoying end run to be sure, but an important distinction from a legal standpoint.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyHemi View Post

Yeah...but they got the best stuff. It's like Nvidia. I'd like to buy them, but when you want the top product... I would have rather gone something other than X99 BW-E but lack of cores and the more limited PCIe and SATA and etc etc of the newer intel chipsets...nah..
You're completely missing the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xSociety View Post

Not having competition is not "playing dirty".
Without competition, that i7 you've got there could be $10,000. If you're unable to understand that gauging the competition and nearly forcing them to bankruptcy by playing illegal tactics is bad for not just AMD but for you as well, then there is no helping you.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucethemoose View Post

It's not just shady, it's illegal under US antitrust law. Heck, Intel lost a lawsuit with AMD over that exact thing a few years ago.

It's also more significant in the chip industry, as the R&D that revenue pays for is absolutely vital.

Yeah, M$ is basically the devil, but much of what they do is technically/barely legal.

I don't have much faith in this WCCF article though
tongue.gif
No, they didn't lose a lawsuit with AMD. They settled. Settling is not an admission of guilt. What anti-trust practices are they violating today?
 
#19 ·
I was friends with a local PC shop store manager back in ~2005 that would regularly get Intel reps to offer "incentives" to offer only Intel CPUs in their prebuilts. Threatened to limit their supply due to delivery shipments favoring exclusive partners and all sorts of shadyness.

If Ryzen actual does become a sucess like it seems may happen, I could see them reverting to similar "gray area" strong arm tactics.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakravant View Post

No, they didn't lose a lawsuit with AMD. They settled. Settling is not an admission of guilt. What anti-trust practices are they violating today?
No admission of guilt - true. So out of the kindness of their heart, Intel accepted a 1.25 Billion fine for no reason? Also 2014 https://www.extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-with-1-45-billion-fine-in-europe-for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd Intel did nothing wrong there either?
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakravant View Post

No, they didn't lose a lawsuit with AMD. They settled. Settling is not an admission of guilt. What anti-trust practices are they violating today?
It may not be a legal admission of guilt, no, but it's certainly a tacit one. Lawyers cost, but not to the point that paying $1B+ is a palatable option by contrast.

Most of us aren't lawyers. As a consumer the legal minutiae is absolutely irrelevant to me. The practical effects of Intel's actions resulted in a less appealing marketplace from a consumer standpoint. As a lay observer, their eating more than a billion USD in fines is a tacit admission of these tactics. Businesses are free to operate solely for shareholders or to operate for the benefit of all stakeholders. The former will be more popular with investors, but I cannot fathom why they'd be defended by any consumer.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakravant View Post

That was over half a decade ago. Where is the evidence this is happening in 2017?

Also, as a result of the settlement, Intel was not found guilty. An annoying end run to be sure, but an important distinction from a legal standpoint.
Hah, "half a decade ago" into "I demand evidence of it happening in the last 60 days."
 
#23 ·
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top