Trivia Tuesday: Intel & AMD, separated at birth

In the late ‘60s, several employees from Fairchild Semiconductor, a pioneer transistor and circuit manufacturer, left to form two companies that would change the tech landscape forever. Gorden E. Moore and Robert Noyce started a company called NM Electronics, focusing on the same markets as Fairchild; semiconductors, SRAMs (static random-access memory), and ROMs.

NM Electronics only lasted about a year before the name got changed to Integrated Electronics – Intel, for short. Just three years after its founding, when Intel introduced the world’s first commercially available microprocessor, the Intel 4004, their reputation was sealed. Not only was it their first big break, but it also heralded the start of a new era.

Intel was founded in Mountain View, California, which is now home to another tech giant, Google (above: Intel co-founders Gordon Moore, of Moore's Law fame, and Robert Noyce, co-inventor of the semiconductor)

Advanced Micro Devices, on the other hand, was founded a year after Intel, in 1969, by a larger group of ex-Fairchild execs, like Jerry Sanders, Ed Turney, John Carey, Sven Simonsen, and Jack Gifford. It took fate a few years to wave the two threads back together, but before long they would end up competing with one another. Ironically, one of AMD’s earliest microprocessors (like Intel, their earliest products had been in other markets), the AM9080, was an unlicensed clone of the Intel 8080. By 1976, the two had agreed to cross-license their patents.

Although you would think that would’ve soured relations between the two chipmakers for good, it actually worked out in Intel’s favor. It would see its first pathway into the consumer market in 1982, when IBM started looking for someone to supply microprocessors for the IBM PC. As it turned out, IBM’s corporate policy was to require at least two sources for its chips. This might’ve been a problem for Intel if AMD hadn’t already ripped off their architecture. The two ended up signing a contract to work together to supply IBM.

Intel’s first yearly revenue was $2,672. Last year, they came in at around $54 billion

Before the PC, microprocessors had been a side business for AMD and Intel. Now they were front and center. Before long the PC market was bigger than IBM, and things weren’t so rosy between AMD and Intel. By the mid-80s AMD felt held back by Intel, while Intel felt that AMD should be grateful for being offered the opportunity to work alongside them. In 1987 Intel terminated parts of their patent licensing agreement, launching the first of a long series of legal battles between the two chipmakers.

Long story short, the two stayed at one another’s throats for the next 20 or so years. AMD even brought an antitrust complaint against Intel before the European Commission in 2000. That’s pretty much the pattern for the next 5 years, actually, and it might not be without reason. In 2008, South Korea fined Intel $25 million for paying Samsung and other Korean OEMs to not use AMD chips. The EU followed suit, with a $1.45 billion fine, and a lawsuit in the US uncovered evidence that Intel was paying off US OEMs, too.

Steve Jobs, shown above with Intel co-founder Robert Noyce, transitioned Apple's Mac line to Intel processors in 2005

It looked like things were about to get nastier than ever, but anticlimactically, the two decided to settle their differences and put their disputes behind them. In hindsight, that was probably a good call, since today the two are facing more competition than ever before.

Mobile devices are encroaching on both firm’s x86 products, and even Intel’s longtime partner, Microsoft, is cozying up with ARM, a less powerful, more efficient architecture. Heck, just yesterday we got wind of a rumor that Apple might be considering moving some of its Mac line over to an ARM architecture. More than ever before, the two might need to watch one another’s back.

Intel’s Architecture Labs designed some of the of the PC’s most ubiquitous technologies, like PCI, USB, and AGP

Having a single architecture that’s used across a variety of systems, even as it is produced by different companies, gives us broad compatibility across systems and the benefits of friendly (and not so friendly) competition. It’d be a shame to lose that to an army of incompatible, proprietary systems, even in the name of better battery life.

If you’re interested in learning more about AMD and Intel, both have some pretty interesting corporate histories on their websites. Heck, if you’re ever in the area, Intel even has a museum at their Santa Clara, California headquarters. And back in 2009, when the two were settling their differences, The Wall Street Journal assembled an interesting timeline of their legal battles.

Intel controls the microprocessor market, but AMD has made significant inroads, too, especially in gaming: in 2006, they acquired ATI Technologies, the company behind the world’s first 3D graphics card (above: AMD's founders and early staff)

And last but not least, there’s one really big elephant in the room that we’re not even gonna think about touching… which is better, AMD, or Intel? Let us know in comments box below!

Images via AMD, Baseline, Intel, and Wikipedia

Previous Trivia Tuesday articles
Got ideas for future Trivia Tuesday articles? Let us know in the comments section below!

Poll

Intel or AMD?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's Surface Pro pricing leaked on German website

Next Story

Gartner: 1.2 billion smart devices will be sold in 2013

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Witch is better I think is subjective. I have not really used intel since the PIII mostly because of the price. The fact is my FX-8120 and FX-8350 rigs can handle everything I need with power to spare so there is really no need to spend even more money on going intel.

I've never seen that picture of Jobs before! It was great to come across.

If AMD was on par with Intel, I would choose AMD, however, Intel are still far ahead.

Sorry but i will nenver pay hight price for intel when AMD is very good and low price . my AMD is FX 8 core fast like craxy

Hard to say, my last desktop was AMD and I got decent performance, but my current rig is Intel and I get even better performance on the other hand, I also paid more. Intel is the Apple of processors!

I disagree. If Intel was the apple of processors, they would look better but perform worse than AMD processors. They would cost more without giving you anything extra but a designer wrapper.

theignorant1 said,
Hard to say, my last desktop was AMD and I got decent performance, but my current rig is Intel and I get even better performance on the other hand, I also paid more. Intel is the Apple of processors!

It's safe to say that Intel has the lead now in performance, but AMD seems to be very happy in the mid- to low-end market. Their line of APUs are pretty good for the price. I think they'll be a little better once multi-threading gains popularity.

I can't really say which company's processors are better, I'd need CPUs from a similar level to compare. I've used an Athlon X2 4000+ and now I'm using a C2Quad Q6600. A comparison between the two wouldn't really be fair. Intel has a better architecture right now, but AMD are more bang for the buck. As for battery efficiency, I can't give an opinion on than, since I don't use any laptops too heavily, and the ones I've used have always had Intel CPUs.

Better? subjective. Fastest? Intel. Power Efficiency? Intel again. I must give a lot of credit to AMD for their A-Series CPU/GPU I believe they call it APU. It's got a good midgrade processor mixed with good midgrade graphics for about the same price as a good midgrade processor. Add to that the ability to use it in crossfire, and I think it's a very under-estimated product. So, while many will argue that faster and more efficient is a clear winner, the top end is not the top seller usually. In the middle, AMD has a nice shining star.

I"m currently under Core 2 Duo Mobile @ 2.4 GHz from my 4 years old Lappy. It cost me 1500 $ when I bought it.

Now, I know that the next rig I'll be looking is a desktop, which is far way cheaper for encoding videos and handling CS6 suite. I'd take anything: be it AMD or intel.

Same here. Just built my first desktop in 10 years. I went 3770k 4.5ghz with nvidia for cuda cores and CS6 gains are jaw dropping. 1 hour encodes on i7 mobile from 2010 now take 5-10 mins. To be fair I was also running a mobile ATI card which gave no GPU help. For that same $1500, you can now have a dream workstation with a Quadro card!

I voted Intel although historically I have purchased AMD Intel are better for gaming these days imho.
I will probably switch back again to AMD in the future, but for now Intel

Which is better? I think even diehard AMD fans will admit that Intel has faster processors and possibly even admit that Intel's current architecture is better. However, AMD can still compete on price and ultimately who is better will depend on what you're doing and what your budget is.

I do hope AMD can get out of this rut that they're currently in and finally pull something out of the bag, like when they pretty much trounced Intel back in the Clawhammer days.

P.S. Great article, one of my favourite TT's so far!

Kushan said,
Which is better? I think even diehard AMD fans will admit that Intel has faster processors and possibly even admit that Intel's current architecture is better. However, AMD can still compete on price and ultimately who is better will depend on what you're doing and what your budget is.

I do hope AMD can get out of this rut that they're currently in and finally pull something out of the bag, like when they pretty much trounced Intel back in the Clawhammer days.

P.S. Great article, one of my favourite TT's so far!

Yeah it's common knowledge that Intel processors are just more capable with better design but AMD has certainly made some serious headway in the integrated 3D graphics department!!