Intel gets fined $1.45 billion dollars by the EU

In a ruling that will surely rock the anti-trust lawyer's socks off, Intel has been fined a massive $1.45 billion dollars by the EU for "anti-competitive practices". This far exceeds the $497 million dollar fine Microsoft received back in 2004.

The basis of the anti-trust case that was started after AMD filed complaints to the EU in 2000, 2003 and 2006 is that Intel was giving hidden rebates to the major producers of computers if they would only use Intel products.

The EU also told Intel to stop all illegal business practices immediately insinuating that the practices are still going on.

This landmark ruling shows that the EU will not tolerate any sort of anti-trust practices that hurt consumers or keep prices inflated artificially. Intel will has said that the ruling was unjust and that they will appeal.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Inside Microsoft's home of the future [Video]

Next Story

France passes anti-piracy law

114 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I had a worker from Intel in class who talked about this. All he did was give a 'We are better then them' and when he was asked about the hidden rebates he said nothing and went back to the 'We are better then them'.

The EU put the fine up from what they fined Microsoft because they are in "hard times" (with the world wide recession). This and the microsoft fine are purely just "Revenue Raising" that's all it is !!!!
Has this case been looked at in the US ? The answer is ....NO !!!!
REVENUE RAISING !

Caveman-ugh said,
The EU put the fine up from what they fined Microsoft because they are in "hard times" (with the world wide recession). This and the microsoft fine are purely just "Revenue Raising" that's all it is !!!!
Has this case been looked at in the US ? The answer is ....NO !!!!
REVENUE RAISING !

Actually theres an ongoing investigation in the US that started last year (regarding intel + antitrust). But I guess its common practice nowadays for people to spout nonsense without doing their research first.

Caveman-ugh said,
There is a lot of difference between "still" carrying out an investigation and fining someone $1.45 billion don't you think ?

Intel has already been found guilty and been fined in both Japan and Korea. Now EU, and one would expect next should be the US (although considering the track record of the US justice when it comes to big corporations and falling to the pressure of lobbies, I wouldn't place may bets on it).

This kind of stuff Intel was doing is putting AMD/ATI out of business, and if you think intel is better, let me remind you if it wasn't for AMD we would still be running single core pentiums.

Blatant copy/paste from anand:

"The report doesn't list the specific OEMs, but we know it was NEC, Lenovo (and for some of the time, IBM), HP, Dell, and Acer. The retailer was Media Markt."

Way to go Media Markt and all those high-caliber OEMs.

Harbinger said,
Blatant copy/paste from anand:

"The report doesn't list the specific OEMs, but we know it was NEC, Lenovo (and for some of the time, IBM), HP, Dell, and Acer. The retailer was Media Markt."

Way to go Media Markt and all those high-caliber OEMs.

Any of us in europe can confirm that we haven't seen a SINGLE amd computer on media markt in YEARS.

What's with the whole Intel vs. AMD arguments? Sure, Intel offers superior products; however, you have to pay a premium for it. Right now, AMD's got compatibility on their side. Their AM3 CPUs are compatible with AM2+ motherboards despite offering inferior performance. You can't say the same for Intel's LGA 1366 socket in terms of compatibility. Anyway, if Intel did this then they certainly deserve the fine. They spend much more on R&D than AMD and they had to resort to using hidden rebates. It's quite pathetic.

Gladiatorus said,
Intel did bad, AMD got hurt, and the EU keeps the money? This doesn't seem logical to me.

AMD stated they didn't want any of the money.

The basis of the anti-trust case that was started after AMD filed complaints to the EU in 2000, 2003 and 2006 is that Intel was giving hidden rebates to the major producers of computers if they would only use Intel products.

While I dont want to say much but this is called aggressive marketing, most of the companies big or small use this technique to secure deals or what not. Allot of EU based companies (especially in Fashion Merchandizing & Life Style) are doing the same else where to grab the bigger market share.

-ANiMaL- said,
While I dont want to say much but this is called aggressive marketing, most of the companies big or small use this technique to secure deals or what not. Allot of EU based companies (especially in Fashion Merchandizing & Life Style) are doing the same else where to grab the bigger market share.

Why are a lot of people seeing this as a Europe vs America thing? The EU has fined bigass european companies before too. It has nothing to do with where the company is from, but whether illegal practices are being performed on the EU market. And what intel did (if anyone CARES to read the bloody articles) deserves punishment.

-ANiMaL- said,
While I dont want to say much but this is called aggressive marketing, most of the companies big or small use this technique to secure deals or what not. Allot of EU based companies (especially in Fashion Merchandizing & Life Style) are doing the same else where to grab the bigger market share.

I'm not sure you understand what happened here.

"Intel: Heya Hewlett, whats up"
"HP: All good, you?"
"Intel: Fine. Listen, if you stop selling PCs with AMD's cpus you're gonna get mine cheaper"
"HP: Woot!"

Thats illegal.

Wallmart al ready have stores in the UK

I think tha biggest problem AMD have is their persieved reliability, in the days of the p3 the company i worked for built computers, around 1000 per year 80% of them were AMD. On the release of the Athlon we noted a sharp fall in the reliability and about 3 months in we had 100% fail on the AMD cpus, AMD insisted that we were using substandard colers until it was pointed out that we only used retail versions of the cpu that came with a cooler, they then claimed bad main board,ram etc, we only used Abit mainboards and Samsung ram. the final straw came when a cpu arrived with 3 pins loose in the still sealed box and amd refused to uphold the warranty and replace the cpu.

Also in 2003 we approached apple to enquire about becoming a service agent for them as the closest being over 100 miles away and were told we could be an agent but only if we stopped supporting wintel machines.

Excellent, so I guess I can expect to pay more for my next Intel processor, I still won't buy an AMD chip unless they increase performance.

All those people saying that AMD chips suck most likely have very short memory span.

I wonder what you guys where using back in ~2002. Willamettes/Northwoods or Thoroughbreds/Bartons?
How about 2004? Presshots or Athlons?

If you answered yes to either question above I feel bad for you. I'm sure you still have some of that awesome RDRAM gathering dust.

i'm confused. why is it illegal to give a monetary incentive to one of your resellers for only selling your product? it benefits the manufacturer, its obviously benefiting the reseller. if AMD cant make a product or provide the same value as Intel, thats none of my damned business.

these claims that it creates a monopoly or provides less options to the consumer is whack. AMD still exists, its still selling processors. most consumers are idiots anyway when it comes to computers, they dont care either way. those who do, build their own computers.

i cant believe so many people are happy to hear that a governmental body has injected itself into the business practices of two privately owned companies because a competitor is putting up a fuss that it cant compete because it sucks at making chips at a good value.

Nose Nuggets said,
i'm confused. why is it illegal to give a monetary incentive to one of your resellers for only selling your product? it benefits the manufacturer, its obviously benefiting the reseller. if AMD cant make a product or provide the same value as Intel, thats none of my damned business. .

Well, it is (your business) if a monopoly (i.e. a company with an unscalable market share) ensures that any competitor (no matter how small) is effectively walled out of the market by abusing it's dominant position to do so. The end of result of that is higher prices and less innovation - it's your competitors that force you to bring out better product and keep your prices down - remove that and what's the incentive? You can charge what you like.
Anti-competative law exists for this very reason - it's there to protect the consumer.

Yeah, I share your confusion. I thought it was common practice to give special rates to clients that agreed to use you exclusively. The business I work for gets prices on office supplies on the grounds that we do NOT, under any circumstance, buy from another supplier.

It can get a little inconvenient at times when all you want is some GD printer toner and you have to go through hell because it isn't order week, but I never considered it unjust--just a result of my company being thrifty.

Nose Nuggets said,
i'm confused. why is it illegal to give a monetary incentive to one of your resellers for only selling your product? it benefits the manufacturer, its obviously benefiting the reseller. if AMD cant make a product or provide the same value as Intel, thats none of my damned business.

these claims that it creates a monopoly or provides less options to the consumer is whack. AMD still exists, its still selling processors. most consumers are idiots anyway when it comes to computers, they dont care either way. those who do, build their own computers.

i cant believe so many people are happy to hear that a governmental body has injected itself into the business practices of two privately owned companies because a competitor is putting up a fuss that it cant compete because it sucks at making chips at a good value.

If you could go to a store and have BOTH being sold there , i doubt the consumers that you refer as idiots would bought only Intel , they would go for the cheapest ( well some would )

On a free market what Intel did/does its illegal

Nose Nuggets said,
i'm confused. why is it illegal to give a monetary incentive to one of your resellers for only selling your product? it benefits the manufacturer, its obviously benefiting the reseller. if AMD cant make a product or provide the same value as Intel, thats none of my damned business.

these claims that it creates a monopoly or provides less options to the consumer is whack. AMD still exists, its still selling processors. most consumers are idiots anyway when it comes to computers, they dont care either way. those who do, build their own computers.

i cant believe so many people are happy to hear that a governmental body has injected itself into the business practices of two privately owned companies because a competitor is putting up a fuss that it cant compete because it sucks at making chips at a good value.

Well, lets see, when you include the fact that they used these incentives to prevent a competitor from selling chips or forcing retailers to delay the release of a product, or else t hey wont get the great discount, that's pretty much illegal. Its not like Intel was just giving them a really good discount on their chips. And using such tactics does make you monopolistic. Based on most of the comments I think a lot of people simply glance at the article and assume too much. I really wish people would read the text of the article, maybe even research the history of this issue before commenting. Intel may make a good chip but doesn't make them the good guy.

Apparently what intel did goes beyond "exclusivity deals". First of all, let's not forget that at some point,during the first 6 years of the decade, AMD kicked intel's ass.

There are certain incentives that go beyond good competitive practice. I've read that intel even threatened certain retailers/manufacturers that if they kept selling AMD, they would delay deliveries of the most demanded intel processors. How can you compete against that when you know intel sells a lot? As a retailer/manufacturer you can't risk to NOT be able to sell intel, since that means your customers will look for them somewhere else. That's abusing the dominant position. It's not simple exclusivity deals.

The ignorance in the comments here are beyond belief. Nobody seems to have read what happened, and I'm tired of reading the whole "there goes EU stealing money again from american companie". When the truth is, EU has fined other companies (european and otherwise) for price fixing and cartels, and intels practices went beyond legality.

Guess Walmart will never be moving to Europe.

Basically I look at this as Intel out pricing their competitors. Sure there was an incentive to sell Intel only chips but money is money. I used to buy AMD chips before the Core 2 was introduced but I mean now there should not be any argument of why people are using Intel chips now.

It goes to show how little people know when they say AMD make crap compared to Intel, as people have said, when this complaint was filed AMD had a far better product than Intel, which imo makes this allot worse.

SIE said,
It goes to show how little people know when they say AMD make crap compared to Intel, as people have said, when this complaint was filed AMD had a far better product than Intel, which imo makes this allot worse.

That's true - we forget we have AMD to thank for kicking Intel up the posterior in the days of the P4 - and that their offerings now (whilst not being the top dog performer on the market) actually represent good value / performance ratio.

For the record i've got 2 AMD X2 systems, two core 2 systems, two celeron-m systems and an atom.

dangel said,
That's true - we forget we have AMD to thank for kicking Intel up the posterior in the days of the P4 - and that their offerings now (whilst not being the top dog performer on the market) actually represent good value / performance ratio.

For the record i've got 2 AMD X2 systems, two core 2 systems, two celeron-m systems and an atom.

And don't forget AMD was the company behind the x64 instruction set for desktop chips (Intel's licensing this technology too). I think in the next couple of years we'll see the real benefits of that technology (and in 2002 the Athlon XP 2000+ was awesome!).

How in the world did they burn through their Microsoft money so fast?

Slow down, EU, or you will run out of American companies to go after for money... and then what? You will have to look for real jobs? Horrors!

C_Guy said,
How in the world did they burn through their Microsoft money so fast?

Slow down, EU, or you will run out of American companies to go after for money... and then what? You will have to look for real jobs? Horrors!


Considering how much money Intel make in Europe shows how stupid that comment is and for reference, they are also under investigation in Japan, South Korea and the United States for the same reasons.

SIE said,

Considering how much money Intel make in Europe shows how stupid that comment is and for reference, they are also under investigation in Japan, South Korea and the United States for the same reasons.

Ah.. but you're missing his real agenda - it's only OK for America to sue an American company, regardless of which market they're actually doing business in (or the laws that exist therein). Or perhaps the suggestion is that these laws are only applied to non-EU based companies?

dangel said,
Or perhaps the suggestion is that these laws are only applied to non-EU based companies?

Then go check previous fines to EU companies for similar issues

C_Guy said,
How in the world did they burn through their Microsoft money so fast?

Slow down, EU, or you will run out of American companies to go after for money... and then what? You will have to look for real jobs? Horrors!


Ya know, for most of the other cases I've read about the EU fining American companies, I'd agree with this. I try to look at things in a case-by-case basis.

The evidence seems pretty strong against Intel. I don't know what was said in the court room, but if they're guilty (the Eu seems to think they are)... I'm glad they have to pay.

Think about this- what if Intel had not bribed retailers to keep AMD out of the game? What if AMD would have sold more chips, made more money and in-turn built better chips that today would beat the i7? I can't see parallel realities, but the loss of potential sales for AMD for sure hit them in the wallet. The sales didn't go to AMD, so they went to Intel... who used that money to have much faster chips today.

Just another way to look at this situation.

supernova_00 said,
*applauds* Now if only the US would grow some balls and also investigate Intel. Too bad the money doesn't go to AMD though.

goes to EU Cartel

C_Guy said,
The only criminal here is the EU. They need to find a new source of revenue, this is just beyond pathetic.

It's interesting that on one thread (france new anti piracy) you're all Mr Righteous - but on this one, when an monopolist has been convicted of serious anti-competative behaviour you're siding with them. The fact is Intel broke the law for several years - and yet that's OK by you?

No, Intel BRIBED companies to stop selling AMD chips. That would be illegal.

The EU were upholding the law. That would be illegal.

dangel said,
It's interesting that on one thread (france new anti piracy) you're all Mr Righteous - but on this one, when an monopolist has been convicted of serious anti-competative behaviour you're siding with them. The fact is Intel broke the law for several years - and yet that's OK by you?

Someone got owned?

I know that some of you think that AMD has made poor chips and they have. But if you don't have enough money to develop / research then sometimes you will put out merchandise quicker. If your competitor wasn't playing dirty then you would have more money to keep in the game. 3dfx was a company that just ran out of money b/c they didn't do enough research and bet on one way to go. So that is great. I just hope that AMD get's to see some of that money they are just 1 1/2 years behind Intel in quite a few area's. I am a AMD & Intel stock holder so I want the best for both companies. In fact AMD has Intel beat in several different ways such as the processor memory controller that they licensed it from Nvidia which they are having disagreements about since Intel isn't letting them use there patent's to my understanding. So way to go AMD good job in winning this battle now they will need to fight it here in the US b/c I know for awhile it was difficult also to order from Dell a AMD laptop and Dell was scared for reasons that Intel might back off and not give the better deals to them. So there might be a lesser argument in the states about this but definitely an argument about 4 - 5 years ago.

It almsot sounds like you want us to feel sympathy for AMD because they don't have as much R&D money as Intel. No, sorry. That is not a valid excuse.

I'll still buy Intel, other than for a short period of time, Intel has had the better product AND price for the performance, this "fine" changes nothing about that, they are the best and AMD isn't

That depends on how you look at this. AMD has almost always been the least expensive CPU of the two. If you're on a tight budget and you need a computer... AMD will be the cheapest route.

JamesWeb said,
Does the EU ever fine anyone but technology companies?

Sure, but you wouldn't expect news about fines on Roche Holding AG, Total SA or British Airways to be posted on Neowin.

AMD does suck now but iirc between 2000 and 2006 they had better products than intel at a cheaper price for much of that time.

I think Intel is just better at marketing themselves.. I think it boils down to the comfort level ppl have with intel.. Im guessing prity similar to the Windows vs Mac OS nonsense!

NoLiMiT06 said,
Well if AMD did not suck I am sure the companies would have choose them over Intel...

Does AMD really suck?

Their chipset has a much longer lifespan that intel's. Core 2 owners had to ditch almost everything inside their box to get on X58. AM3 cpus work on AM2+, and the time frame launch of AM3 saw the dramatic drop in price of DDR3 RAM.

So what if Core i7 beats the Phenom II, there's nothing the Phenom can't do well that an i7 can.

NoLiMiT06 said,
Well if AMD did not suck I am sure the companies would have choose them over Intel...


what AMD needs is another gem like Athlon X2 when Intel was still making P4. Athlon X2 really changed the market for AMD, but after C2D hit AMD simply can't make decent chip to beat Intel best offering.

Ez8 said,
Does AMD really suck?

Their chipset has a much longer lifespan that intel's. Core 2 owners had to ditch almost everything inside their box to get on X58. AM3 cpus work on AM2+, and the time frame launch of AM3 saw the dramatic drop in price of DDR3 RAM.

So what if Core i7 beats the Phenom II, there's nothing the Phenom can't do well that an i7 can.


The longer lifespan thing... what about people that bought the AMD socket 754 ?

nekrosoft13 said,
what AMD needs is another gem like Athlon X2 when Intel was still making P4. Athlon X2 really changed the market for AMD, but after C2D hit AMD simply can't make decent chip to beat Intel best offering.


AMD needs to bring out the 8 core CPU for the AM3 socket.

Ez8 said,
Does AMD really suck?

Their chipset has a much longer lifespan that intel's. Core 2 owners had to ditch almost everything inside their box to get on X58. AM3 cpus work on AM2+, and the time frame launch of AM3 saw the dramatic drop in price of DDR3 RAM.

So what if Core i7 beats the Phenom II, there's nothing the Phenom can't do well that an i7 can.

Really? That wasn't what was going through my mind when I got my Socket 939 motherboard and CPU. Few months later... Socket AM2 is here, and S939 CPUs were almost gone from the shelves.

rm20010 said,


Really? That wasn't what was going through my mind when I got my Socket 939 motherboard and CPU. Few months later... Socket AM2 is here, and S939 CPUs were almost gone from the shelves.


AM2 was not released months after 939. Years, not months.

For many people though that was still only a single upgrade cycle.

Really both companies are no more or less "upgrade friendly" or "safe" and theyve both changed their socket layouts many a time over the past decade. I wouldn't recommend either based on their future support for the same motherboard to be honest unless your getting in right at the start of a new socket revision.

Hell even when they do retain the same socket many times the MOBO's won't support later revisions.

loople said,
Who gets the cash (if it is ever paid)?

Lawyers, Investigators peoples who's time was wasted by Intel having to look into this massive mess.

Serves them right if what was unveiled is true. :-/ The sort of stuff that makes me feel a bit bad for purchasing Intel in the past. I do want a healthy competition in this market, after all.

Jugalator said,
Serves them right if what was unveiled is true. :-/ The sort of stuff that makes me feel a bit bad for purchasing Intel in the past. I do want a healthy competition in this market, after all.


Exactly right!

4tehlulz said,
Obligatory "Stop doing business in the EU" post

i hope you have enough mental abilities to understand that EU is too big of a market for any international corporation to ignore?

This time it is something real (as oposed to microsoft's fine over.. IE? media player? ) . Everytime this subject gets posted in neowin, I say the same: for some obscure reason, media markt, one hell of a PC retailer, doesnt carry computers with AMD processors AT ALL. I knew there was something shady. They didnt even sell apple computers until they came equipped with intels. And back in the day when those AMDs owned intel (during the pentium IV era and before core and core2 came out), you know there was good money in selling AMD, they still didnt sell it.

While I'll agree that Intel doesn't play nice, if anti-trust lawmakers want to increase competition, handing out potentially crippling fines isn't the way to go. I think this is just a poorly thought out punishment, and it won't necessarily affect consumers positively.

Well deserved? Intel has earned my money by being the best deal, period. Why sue them for being good?

This is about as goddamn deserving as Microsoft being sued for including IE.

NimrodUK said,
excellent well deserved for once... Good job EU :D

Did you two (recon and dimithrak) even READ what's happening? 'Being the best deal' has nothing to do with anything here. Paying off retailers and manufacturers (especially during those years in which intel was NOT the best deal) hurt competence and limited the choice of the consumers.

Julius Caro said,
Did you two (recon and dimithrak) even READ what's happening? 'Being the best deal' has nothing to do with anything here. Paying off retailers and manufacturers (especially during those years in which intel was NOT the best deal) hurt competence and limited the choice of the consumers.

When the only other "competition" is a company that puts out shoddy pieces of crap, I could care less who Intel has to pay off.

VIVIsectVI said,
When the only other "competition" is a company that puts out shoddy pieces of crap, I could care less who Intel has to pay off.



The intelligence of that comment....or the lack there of speaks volumes :-/

cryptic said,
The intelligence of that comment....or the lack there of speaks volumes :-/

Why should I care? Aside from all the idealistic BS that gets spewed. I wouldn't buy an AMD processor, nor purchase a system with one in it. Their products have been perpetually getting crappier since the launch of the Athlon days. So other than negligible price variations that may go on with Intel procs based on their marketshare, who cares?

So this means that sony needs to be brought up on anti-trust charges for buying off the movie studios to be bluray only, right?

VIVIsectVI said,
Why should I care? Aside from all the idealistic BS that gets spewed. I wouldn't buy an AMD processor, nor purchase a system with one in it. Their products have been perpetually getting crappier since the launch of the Athlon days. So other than negligible price variations that may go on with Intel procs based on their marketshare, who cares?

Cause a monopoly is always bad news, no matter how you look at it.

(snipped)

The only reason you bought Intel is because there is no other choice. Why is there no other choice? Because Intel is a monopoly and is involved in anti-competitive business practices.

Intel probably spends 10x on research in comparison to what AMD can afford. If AMD had the same revenue stream, it would probably produce better processors.

$1.45 billion -- well deserved.

C�bra said,
(snipped)

The only reason you bought Intel is because there is no other choice. Why is there no other choice? Because Intel is a monopoly and is involved in anti-competitive business practices.

Intel probably spends 10x on research in comparison to what AMD can afford. If AMD had the same revenue stream, it would probably produce better processors.

$1.45 billion -- well deserved.

I had no choice? I guess the AMD section of Newegg must be a figment of the collective imagination.

(snipped) If the tables were turned, AMD would be doing the exact same things, and jacking up their prices when they had the superior product and mindshare....which they did.

It doesn't matter what "Company A" and "Company B" are called.

If you're involved in anti-competitive practices, you will get pwned.

Again, AMD cannot compete with Intel because Intel is offering incentives (read "bribes") to go with them. Not forgetting that Intel got lucky with the x86 architecture, which costs money for other processor designers/manufacturers to use.

---

LOL, Intel got double pwned:

"AMD licensed its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64 (formerly EM64T). AMD's design replaced earlier attempts by Intel to design its own x86-64 extensions which had been referred to as IA-32e. As Intel licenses AMD the right to use the original x86 architecture (upon which AMD's x86-64 is based), these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing them back to the now-obsolete 32-bit x86 architecture. The last processors Intel manufactured which did not use AMD's x86-64 design were early versions of the desktop Pentium 4 "Prescott", introduced in February 2004, and mobile Intel Core introduced in January 2006."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

Wow, let's grow up, shall we? AMD could have that much to spend too if it was as successful in the marketplace as Intel. But they make a product that few people prefer to Intel. $1.45 billion is just the EU desperate for cash. It is not "deserved" in any conceivable way.

stokhli said,
So this means that sony needs to be brought up on anti-trust charges for buying off the movie studios to be bluray only, right?

No. And why even go there...?

stokhli said,
So this means that sony needs to be brought up on anti-trust charges for buying off the movie studios to be bluray only, right?

I firmly believe this will happen one day...

C_Guy said,
$1.45 billion is just the EU desperate for cash. It is not "deserved" in any conceivable way.

Heh, and then you go talking about growing up XD

Fines could have been up to the 10% of their global annual revenue, if they were desperate for money they could have easily have gone for that instead of settling with half of it.

The wintel couple getting a spanking seems to produce some sore feelings around here, no matter how well deserved it is

cryptic said,
The intelligence of that comment....or the lack there of speaks volumes :-/


+1

I've only used AMD processors and although I agree Intel make some nice chips to me AMD has always been the best "deal". I have never had issues with their "shoddy piece of crap" processors and all dedicated servers that we use are Opteron-based and we absolutely love the performance and cost savings / month.

Obry said,
+1

I've only used AMD processors and although I agree Intel make some nice chips to me AMD has always been the best "deal". I have never had issues with their "shoddy piece of crap" processors and all dedicated servers that we use are Opteron-based and we absolutely love the performance and cost savings / month.

So, in other words, you don't know any different because you've never used anything but AMD? Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. As someone who slogged thru the mediocre 486/5x86/K6/K6-2 era, all the way up through the decent Athlon series, then back down to their current cludge, I can tell you, with AMD, there has been far more bad than good.

Wow I started one hell of an arguement. Point of my original post was that I bought a Core 2 Quad for 170$. There was no phenom II in that price range at the time, and AMD motherboard costed a bit more for exactly what I was looking for. I got a better deal with Intel than I could AMD. I go with what's best for both my computer and my rig. What more is there to it? I bought Intel because I wanted to.

As for Intel playing dirty, I cannot argue with that.

stokhli said,
So this means that sony needs to be brought up on anti-trust charges for buying off the movie studios to be bluray only, right?

Ohh I thought because it was better than hd dvd ....NOT

Recon415 said,
Well deserved? Intel has earned my money by being the best deal, period. Why sue them for being good?

This is about as goddamn deserving as Microsoft being sued for including IE.


Intel got to where they are, just like Microsoft got to where they are, by making shady deals and strong armed tactics.

iamwhoiam said,

Intel got to where they are, just like Microsoft got to where they are, by making shady deals and strong armed tactics.

Which does nothing to change the fact that, as a private home user, both Microsoft and Intel make the best product for my money, in comparison to their competition.