Hearken back to the original Athlon days when Intel was threatening motherboard vendors like Asus with shortages of Intel chips if and when they decided to manufacture and sell AMD Athlon products...it is right up Intel's alley. Big stink about that at the time. AMD and the public were fortunate enough that the mobo vendors thumbed their noses at Intel as they don't take kindly to threats and coercion (who would?) Still, this apparently amounts to far less than that this go around. Plus, AMD now has written agreements with Intel proscribing them from just that kind of activity. The fact that Intel has already initiated the first round of price cuts is fairly indicative of what Intel thinks, however. The other shoe will drop when the cpus ship, and we'll see if Intel will follow through with more cuts at that time.

I didn't make any crazy claims. Altering programs with a special compiler is not what I am talking about.

The crazy claim you made is that Intel has never requested review guidelines. Skewing graphs and using specially compiled testing software (which was obviously influenced by Intel, because who else would do it?) is effectively the same thing. That's like a burglar saying "I didn't steal anything, I just displaced this object into my possession without asking!"

I'll repeat for the 3rd time, there is no proof of such a review guideline for ryzen from intel.

And as stated before, nobody is suggesting there is proof, it's just merely a justifiable possibility. But for some reason you ignore that and choose to get angry instead.

I forget that people don't understand jokes on the internet.

Right... whenever something doesn't go your way, it's suddenly a joke. How convenient. I'm guessing you're one of those people who pulls a "prank" that causes someone to bleed while saying "just kidding!" as though the damage doesn't matter.

Do you have proof of websites taking bribes from intel recently? or are you just making baseless claims

Do you only remember the last couple of sentences you read at a time? Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you're blowing this way out of proportion and can't back down? As I had already said, if any websites are taking bribes (or as they'd put it, "sponsorships"), they're going to be under an NDA. Intel has been in trouble many times due to being anticompetitive and it isn't in their interest to get more lawsuits involved. It is not within the interest of reviewers to be a whistleblower since nowadays Intel could easily destroy their business.

Skewing graphs is hardly related to the question here.

Skewing graphs is very much so related, as I had already explained.

The thing is that the processor isn't everything. I was so going to buy Ryzen until I saw the X370 chipset specs. Intel Z270 is hands down better, for example some mobos offering 3 Ultra M.2 slots compared to 1 on X370. Or DDR4 4xxx MHz vs 2xxx MHz. And the list goes on... The price of X370 mobos however is the same (in some cases even higher) than Z270 counterparts, even if everybody expected them to be a lot cheaper. Ryzen processors need to better than Intel by a noticeable margin in real world use if I'm going to throw all that other stuff away. Most likely I don't buy anything for a while now.

One of the reasons I ordered the 1800x and all the rest coming with it, is to support AMD

That's kind of you. I'll do the same. The more support AMD gets will probably be of benefit to any cpu purchasers, no matter what brand.

I look and sound ridiculous in videos though hence I never do these.

:) I hope we get to see the smoke coming out of your ears. That would look ridiculously cool! Is there absolute proof Intel is doing something shady? NO. It is possible? YES! Plus I'd be more surprised if Intel was doing nothing shady versus doing something shady. It seems to be the nature of corporations and probably always has been.

From my reading on this, a few of the tech sites said they had the usual intel contacts when AMD announces products...or nothing out of the ordinary.

I liked the comment about nothing out of the ordinary from Intel. That just might infer that shady practices are nothing out of the ordinary for Intel. 🙂

The crazy claim you made is that Intel has never requested review guidelines. Skewing graphs and using specially compiled testing software (which was obviously influenced by Intel, because who else would do it?) is effectively the same thing. That's like a burglar saying "I didn't steal anything, I just displaced this object into my possession without asking!"

See you're going the wrong direction. The two aren't the same. If intel pays X company to include a special compiler and x reviewer doesn't know about it, what is the correlation of intel saying "Only test our products with these programs". Of course neither is right but you're grasping at straws here.

And as stated before, nobody is suggesting there is proof, it's just merely a justifiable possibility. But for some reason you ignore that and choose to get angry instead.

What? angry? Please lol. Why would i be angry? Don't understand what you are getting at. My 2c, don't try to read emotion out of text on a forum, obviously you are total failure at that process. You pointed out your own logical fallacy though. Anyone can make any claim because anything is a possibility.

Right... whenever something doesn't go your way, it's suddenly a joke. How convenient. I'm guessing you're one of those people who pulls a "prank" that causes someone to bleed while saying "just kidding!" as though the damage doesn't matter.

Yeah dude you are super dense. Maybe you should read the first post with the smiley face. If you go to the forums, the title has no ?. That was all the joke was yet you are still going about it even though it has zero importance.

TDo you only remember the last couple of sentences you read at a time? Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you're blowing this way out of proportion and can't back down? As I had already said, if any websites are taking bribes (or as they'd put it, "sponsorships"), they're going to be under an NDA. Intel has been in trouble many times due to being anticompetitive and it isn't in their interest to get more lawsuits involved. It is not within the interest of reviewers to be a whistleblower since nowadays Intel could easily destroy their business. Skewing graphs is very much so related, as I had already explained.

Bold is what matters. This is exactly why the article is clickbait. Why would intel risk an expensive law suit over that. Times have changed. You can't avoid lawsuits from those poor practices. Intel wouldn't risk millions over something that won't affect them at this point of time. Btw AMD is a not white knight. AMD has plenty of poor practices so the fanboyism is the only thing i can see why you are being very defensive. AMD would be doing the exact same thing if intel was in debt and AMD had billions of dollars. Company's priorities are to make money.

Wow total scumbags! No respect at all

And this is exactly why these articles are bad. It'll spread like wildfires and people will tell other people that Intel is a scumbag because they're manipulating ryzens launch. If you don't see the problem there well don't even bother responding, there's no hope for you to ever understand. :infinity:

The thing is that the processor isn't everything. I was so going to buy Ryzen until I saw the X370 chipset specs. Intel Z270 is hands down better, for example some mobos offering 3 Ultra M.2 slots compared to 1 on X370. Or DDR4 4xxx MHz vs 2xxx MHz. And the list goes on...

There are AM4 boards out there with 2x M.2 slots. If push comes to shove, why not buy something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Port-NGFF-M-2-B-M-Key-SSD-to-PCI-E-PCI-Express-4X-4Lane-Adapter-Converter-Card-/381724915998?hash=item58e093f91e:g:DpwAAOSwqfNXop6y According to your profile, you only have 1 GPU, 1 sound card, and a full ATX motherboard. Let's assume you also have a NIC, that's 4 expansion slots you have filled, with 3 to spare. Not only would you easily be able to get more M.2 slots, but you might be better off just getting a direct PCIe SSD anyway. As for memory, I highly doubt either the CPUs or chipsets are limited to less than 3000MHz, but, they might use numbers lower than that for stock speeds. Intel chipsets do the same thing. Also, who needs 4000+MHz RAM? Outside of synthetic benchmarks, 3200MHz is pretty much all you'll realistically need.

Ryzen processors need to better than Intel by a noticeable margin in real world use if I'm going to throw all that other stuff away. Most likely I don't buy anything for a while now.

Depends on your definition of "better". For example in term of IPC, you may as well stick with what you have - Ryzen isn't likely to be a whole lot better. If your i5 is handling everything you throw at it, why upgrade? I feel like most people who are buying the 8c/16t models for gaming purposes are wasting their money.

This is the story of the day for sure. Yesterday in the forums somebody asked if we received Intel review guidelines from Intel for the Ryzen review as well. A very curious question, I answered no. An... Intel is Trying to Manipulate AMD Ryzen Launch

nothing shocking here, Im sure all the manufactures of things give reviews do this review sites. except for were is consumer reviews like from amazon/newegg/etc. Either way I am sure intel is sweating

@HeavyHemi I agree.

The two aren't the same. If intel pays X company to include a special compiler and x reviewer doesn't know about it, what is the correlation of intel saying "Only test our products with these programs".

Yes, they are the same. How exactly do you expect the reviewers to willingly decide to use these specially made benchmarks? How do you not realize the huge hole in your logic? But let's say a hardware reviewer is completely oblivious to a tampered benchmark - that doesn't change my point. Somebody is still being paid by Intel to do this. It doesn't have to be the reviewer.

What? angry? Please lol. Why would i be angry? Don't understand what you are getting at. My 2c, don't try to read emotion out of text on a forum, obviously you are total failure at that process.

Perhaps anger isn't the right word, but frustrated or irritable. Let's take a look at your symptoms: * Is quick to anger [or in your case, deflect] during conversations - check * Gets upset easily by mistakes, memory problems, or other difficulties - check * Becomes upset or angered by things that seem trivial - check * Becomes defensive or blames others when things don't go right [such as your "joke"] - check * Snaps at others for no apparent reason [much like your original post] - check * Is argumentative or difficult with others - check * Provokes arguments with others - check * Is bothered easily by others' behaviours - according to you, no * Becomes annoyed by noise or a crowd of people - N/A * Gets upset if rushed or if there is a change in routine - N/A * Is often cranky or moody - seems that way so far Plenty of things I can quote against everything checked. This went from me pointing out a technicality to you questioning my intelligence.

You pointed out your own logical fallacy though. Anyone can make any claim because anything is a possibility.

With all resources currently available to humanity, can you turn yourself invisible at any perceived angle? (the answer is no - therefore, an impossibility). Also, I said "justifiable possibility", meaning, no fairy tale magic, parallel universes, chaos theory, or wishful thinking.

If you go to the forums, the title has no ?. That was all the joke was yet you are still going about it even though it has zero importance.

Keep insisting - it's still not a joke. The point is, the question mark is important, because if you actually paid attention to it you would realize that your arguing is backfiring. Again, the article was questioning Intel's possible actions, it did NOT definitely claim that they are doing anything suspicious, which is what you seem to be getting all riled up about in the first place. If you read things properly, we wouldn't be here.

Bold is what matters. This is exactly why the article is clickbait. Why would intel risk an expensive law suit over that.

Expensive by who's standards? Intel could be sued hundreds of millions of dollars and it would just be a little pinch to them. Intel would rather sacrifice all that money as long as their name isn't tarnished by a company they could single-handedly buy out for the the same lump sum.

Btw AMD is a not white knight. AMD has plenty of poor practices so the fanboyism is the only thing i can see why you are being very defensive. AMD would be doing the exact same thing if intel was in debt and AMD had billions of dollars.

I'm not saying AMD is a white knight, nor did I imply it. This debate has nothing to do with AMD, so any basis you have of me being a fanboy is either misguided or irrelevant. But, I agree - AMD would probably do the same thing in Intel's shoes, in which case I would be siding with Intel. But seeing as you are so adamant to ignore that there is solid evidence of Intel's anti-competitiveness, that's fanboyism to a whole other level.

Yes, they are the same. How exactly do you expect the reviewers to willingly decide to use these specially made benchmarks? How do you not realize the huge hole in your logic? But let's say a hardware reviewer is completely oblivious to a tampered benchmark - that doesn't change my point. Somebody is still being paid by Intel to do this. It doesn't have to be the reviewer.

What intel did is not the question or the fact that they did wrong. I said, explicitly, how does tampered benchmark programs = the same thing as Intel telling review websites what to use and not to use for comparing their products to competitors. This is assuming the reviewer is oblivious to the fact that these benchmarks are tampered with. I do not know if they knew or not. Intel " here x website, review our product with whatever benchmarks you want" Review website happens to use commonly used benchmarks that are modified. X review site does not know of the several modified benchmarks. That is not the same thing as Intel saying use this and not this or that. They are both poor practices but saying because they modified programs 12 years ago makes it a justifiable reason to post a click bait article saying they are doing something now? Anyways, if you're still going to say they are the same thing then we are both talking about different things.

Perhaps anger isn't the right word, but frustrated or irritable. Let's take a look at your symptoms: * Is quick to anger [or in your case, deflect] during conversations - check * Gets upset easily by mistakes, memory problems, or other difficulties - check * Becomes upset or angered by things that seem trivial - check * Becomes defensive or blames others when things don't go right [such as your "joke"] - check * Snaps at others for no apparent reason [much like your original post] - check * Is argumentative or difficult with others - check * Provokes arguments with others - check * Is bothered easily by others' behaviours - according to you, no * Becomes annoyed by noise or a crowd of people - N/A * Gets upset if rushed or if there is a change in routine - N/A * Is often cranky or moody - seems that way so far Plenty of things I can quote against everything checked. This went from me pointing out a technicality to you questioning my intelligence.

Too many straws you're trying to grasp at. Point is, you can't read my mood from the internet lol Unless you are some kind of wizard, you can't. 🙂 Pretty level-headed and someone posting on the internet isn't going to make me angry, frustrated, moody or whatever else you want to tell yourself. But here you are again making another pointless response.

With all resources currently available to humanity, can you turn yourself invisible at any perceived angle? (the answer is no - therefore, an impossibility). Also, I said "justifiable possibility", meaning, no fairy tale magic, parallel universes, chaos theory, or wishful thinking. Keep insisting - it's still not a joke. The point is, the question mark is important, because if you actually paid attention to it you would realize that your arguing is backfiring. Again, the article was questioning Intel's possible actions, it did NOT definitely claim that they are doing anything suspicious, which is what you seem to be getting all riled up about in the first place. If you read things properly, we wouldn't be here.

Uh are you trying to be dense on purpose? I quoted the Forum title not the article title. You said i was blind and i told you to scroll up to see what I was looking at with a 🙂 and I even showed a picture of where there is no punctuation. You are arguing over nothing, just digging a hole getting nowhere. Hemi already pointed out the wrong part of the title regardless. Anyways the title has nothing to do with it, it's the whole point of the article. Questioning the source yet making a baseless claim in the same sentence is enough reason to not post the article at all.

Expensive by who's standards? Intel could be sued hundreds of millions of dollars and it would just be a little pinch to them. Intel would rather sacrifice all that money as long as their name isn't tarnished by a company they could single-handedly buy out for the the same lump sum.

They would have lost more money from a lawsuit than they would in sales from Ryzen. Ryzen won't have any affect on them in the short term, it will take consecutive years of Ryzen like products for it to really matter. Which is why the claim that theycould because of their previous track record is illogical.

I'm not saying AMD is a white knight, nor did I imply it. This debate has nothing to do with AMD, so any basis you have of me being a fanboy is either misguided or irrelevant. But, I agree - AMD would probably do the same thing in Intel's shoes, in which case I would be siding with Intel. But seeing as you are so adamant to ignore that there is solid evidence of Intel's anti-competitiveness, that's fanboyism to a whole other level.

I'm not ignoring or denying anything wrong intel has done. I'm not defending anyone, I would have a similar response to any article like this regardless of who or what it was about. So you are right, it has nothing do with intel or amd. The problem is the article itself. and I'm calling fanboyism due to the fact that you are defending these baseless accusations without proof. I don't care who it's about, doesn't make it right. I'll give an example of AMDs last CPU release of BD. Made (false) claims of how their CPU was faster(or as fast) as intel's 6 cores, they even made a video showing it off in games in comparison. Of course after reviews showed up they revoked their previous statements and removed those videos to hide the fact of their wrong doing. Anyways the point of that is that justifiably means we shouldn't be making false accusations of intel since they both have bad track records. But I guess you still don't get why it's wrong so moving on.

This could be fake. I mean the whole "intel-reach-out" thing. If intel is not scared, then why they did this. This is a stupid thing to do, a rookie mistake. Intel is not a rookie. Wrong press. On the other side, if intel is really scared, then they must lower most their high end cpu and motherboard chipset prizes prizes. Which they did, but with a little bit. We should wait for the first tests to emerge from the internet, not just guru3d's tests, but many tests. Also we should know this, the competition between them will benefit to us. Mostly to our budget. The true hardcore intel or amd fans will always buy their favorite brand.

Your skepticism is solid and logical and for the most part I find it agreeable. I also completely agree that it is very wise to check multiple sources; I usually check at least 3, more if the results seem inconsistent. However given Intel's history, it will be interesting to see if some "reputable" sites seem to favor one brand over the other compared to the average. That implies Intel would be the offender, but considering AMD's desperation, they could just as well pull the same thing. Even the fancy packaging of that unboxing is an easy way to give a strong first impression.

What intel did is not the question or the fact that they did wrong.

I'm aware, but history repeats itself. Intel didn't get their power by being generous, welcoming, and forgiving.

I said, explicitly, how does tampered benchmark programs = the same thing as Intel telling review websites what to use and not to use for comparing their products to competitors. This is assuming the reviewer is oblivious to the fact that these benchmarks are tampered with. I do not know if they knew or not.

I can't spell it out for you any clearer - if the reviewer doesn't know the test was tampered with, Intel still influenced somebody to tamper with the test. Intel may not have told the website to use the test but the test is still chose and Intel knows it, so they're indirectly influencing the reviewers.

They are both poor practices but saying because they modified programs 12 years ago makes it a justifiable reason to post a click bait article saying they are doing something now?

You are really hung up on 2005. As I stated before, many of Intel's anticompetitive practices were done after 2005. Meddling with benchmarks is just one of many things that they influenced.

Pretty level-headed and someone posting on the internet isn't going to make me angry, frustrated, moody or whatever else you want to tell yourself. But here you are again making another pointless response.

If you were level-headed you would've been a lot more civilized about all of this. But on the note of pointless responses, what does that say about yourself?

I quoted the Forum title not the article title. You said i was blind and i told you to scroll up to see what I was looking at with a 🙂 and I even showed a picture of where there is no punctuation. You are arguing over nothing, just digging a hole getting nowhere.

I'm aware you're referring to the forum title, but the fact of the matter is the article title has the question mark and you're choosing to ignore that, because it's convenient for your own argument. You're the one getting upset over the article content, so if you considered the article's title, you should realize it is you digging yourself into the hole.

Questioning the source yet making a baseless claim in the same sentence is enough reason to not post the article at all.

And yet, you seem to happily ignore that HH said to take the source with a grain of salt, which just makes your ranting pointless.

They would have lost more money from a lawsuit than they would in sales from Ryzen. Ryzen won't have any affect on them in the short term, it will take consecutive years of Ryzen like products for it to really matter. Which is why the claim that theycould because of their previous track record is illogical.

I agree, but note that I did not mention anything about Intel gaining sales from all of this. I've explicitly mentioned that Intel doesn't care about AMD's sales. You have a knack for ranting about things that aren't said or implied.

I'm not ignoring or denying anything wrong intel has done.

Yes, you are. Just in your last post, you dismissed evidence from 12 years ago. You conveniently ignored all the other recent activity I mentioned too.

and I'm calling fanboyism due to the fact that you are defending these baseless accusations without proof. I don't care who it's about, doesn't make it right.

You JUST said you aren't ignoring anything, and then you immediately said "baseless accusations"... What I'm accusing Intel of is in hard facts that have already happened, even in the past few years. I am not accusing Intel of anything else, but, I am saying it isn't unrealistic for Intel to influence reviewers in some way.

I'll give an example of AMDs last CPU release of BD. Made (false) claims of how their CPU was faster(or as fast) as intel's 6 cores, they even made a video showing it off in games in comparison.

Wow, backpedaling on your own statements again. You just said ""it has nothing to do with intel or amd" and "I'm not defending anyone" yet here you are ranting about something AMD did. I'm aware AMD made these false claims - it doesn't relate or contribute to this discussion, so stop changing the subject.

Anyways the point of that is that justifiably means we shouldn't be making false accusations of intel since they both have bad track records. But I guess you still don't get why it's wrong so moving on.

So by your logic, if a murderer's psychological stability cannot be questioned then a rapist's shouldn't be either? It doesn't matter who did what wrong - if both did something equally wrong, both deserve equal treatment, but, neither of them should be let free; their actions don't negate each other. Again, nobody is making any accusations, that's all in YOUR head. The difference between Intel and AMD is Intel is the one who has repeatedly been sued for, declared as, and accused of being anticompetitive. AMD meanwhile is pretty much just known for false advertisement and mooching off others' success. I get what's wrong, but the fact of the matter is you created a problem that doesn't exist.

I get what's wrong, but the fact of the matter is you created a problem that doesn't exist.

facepalm.jpg

Wow total scumbags! No respect at all

This is a problem. Read the title, not the article(which many do). But i guess that's beyond your comprehension so I'll leave it there.

Wow total scumbags! No respect at all

You are correct. Those scumbag sites spreading this false bs about intel is ridiculous. I have no respect for those fanboi sites that spread bs like that. If it was true sites like Guru3d and Anandtech would have gotten the same email. That is why I come here where the actual review will be honest.

Ryan Shrout from PC Perspective said AMD/Nvidia both do the same thing when competitor products are released.

"In my 17 years covering hardware this happens with every major product release, including CPU and GPU." "Just happens to be the first time AMD has had a relevant consumer processor in a very long time." "NVIDIA calls to talk their perceived advantages before a new AMD GPU release and vice versa. Even on MBs. No harm if the media is competent."

So even if this story ends up being true - seems like it's standard industry practice and AMD does it as well.

This is a problem. Read the title, not the article(which many do). But i guess that's beyond your comprehension so I'll leave it there.

Do you see the entirety of the article contents in the forum? No. People are not reading the article in the forums, so the forum title is nothing to go by. Besides, pointing it out is just a joke, right? So why do you keep bringing it up as though it supports your point? Arrogance at it's finest.

I should've kept my mouth shut.

There is an editorial from the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, written in 2011, which explains all the nasty ways that Intel has gotten to be in the position they're currently. This is not strictly related to the news of today, but I wouldn't put it past them in any sense. It's written from a tech lawyer's perspective, it's full of links and it contains the whole story of the matter. I'll paste it in the spoiler below for anyone who can't open the link. I seriously recommend everyone (and especially The Senate) to read it. [spoiler]

Intel and the x86 Architecture: A Legal Perspective Greg*Tang passed away suddenly on February 7, 2011. *He will be greatly missed by everyone at Harvard Law School. *In his memory, we are republishing his Digest Comment from last semester. - The Digest Staff Intel and the x86 Architecture: A Legal Perspective Written by Greg Tang Edited by Ian Wildgoose Brown Intel, the*world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, owes its global leadership position to its x86 microprocessors. Intel and its main competitor, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), command*80.4% and 11.5% of the microprocessor market, respectively. In other words, over 90% of the world’s computers have brains that only understand the x86 instruction set for translating software instructions into computer functioning. Consequently, most computer programs support, if not exclusively, x86 microprocessors. The fact that AMD is their sole surviving competitor in the x86 microprocessor industry is testament to the success of Intel’s aggressive business and legal tactics: the market for almost any other computer hardware component is certain to have a multitude of competitors from around the globe. Throughout its history, Intel constantly has explored the outer frontiers of the high-tech industry’s legal landscape as it asserted its market dominance, particularly when threatened by competition, and repeatedly has been forced to adjust its strategy when the courts found that it pushed too far. By zealously pursuing this strategy against AMD, Intel has kept AMD at a distant second place in the microprocessor market, despite AMD often offering superior products at lower prices. But Intel occasionally gets in trouble for its liberal use of business and legal force towards AMD. In the last two years, Intel saw the end to several high-profile antitrust cases that it had been tangled up in for years. In May 2009,*the European Commission fined Intel a record 1.06 billion Euros for abusing its dominant market position. On November 12, 2009,*Intel settled all outstanding antitrust and patent cross-licensing disputes with rival AMD for $1.25 billion. And more recently in August 2010,*Intel settled its antitrust case with the FTC by agreeing to*several broad restrictions on its relationship with computer manufacturers and its competitors. But Intel’s legal strategy of “trial and error” stems from the company’s formative years, which coincided with the advent of the personal computer. The Early Years: The Birth of x86 and the IBM PC In the early 1980’s, two of the computer industry’s most influential pioneers were undergoing major transformation. Intel withdrew itself from the computer memory-chip industry and reinvented itself as a microprocessor manufacturer; and IBM made its foray into personal computers after years of denying the mainframe’s inevitable death. IBM’s PC development team*broke from the company’s tradition of developing complete solutions in-house by deciding to outsource most of the parts and components for its first model. At a time when the microprocessor market was still crowded with a panoply of competing architectures, IBM selected Intel’s 8086 processor as the “brain” of its computer. However, IBM required that Intel find a second-source supplier because production had to be guaranteed and it was too risky to rely on a single company as the sole source of its chips.*See*Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars: The Battle to Own the World’s Technology 134 (1994). Intel approached Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), a startup chipmaker that was*founded by fellow Fairchild Semiconductor alumni. The companies signed a technology exchange agreement in 1982, which the Ninth Circuit described as, “in effect, a reciprocal second sourcing agreement: if one party wanted to market parts the other party had developed, it could offer parts that it had developed in exchange.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 909, 910 (9th Cir. 1993)*. The IBM PC was an enormous success. The IBM PC platform*captured a third of the personal computer market between 1981 and 1984, in part because of “IBM PC–Compatible” clones by manufacturers such as Compaq. IBM tolerated the clones because it was still nervous from the*antitrust lawsuit that the DOJ had filed against it in 1969, which did not end until 1982. IBM created the PC platform in a way that allowed Intel and Microsoft, IBM’s licensors for the PC’s microprocessor and operating system, to sell those same parts to other computer manufacturers for use in their products. The only thing that was required to build a machine that was 100% compatible with the IBM PC was a reverse-engineered version of a chip in the PC called the BIOS ROM, which contains*low-level software used to interface between the hardware and the operating system.*Compaq first successfully developed such a chip in 1982, and Phoenix Technologies subsequently made one*available to all other clone manufacturers in 1984.*IBM’s goal was to get as many players to participate in the market for personal computers as possible, and so it did not pursue any legal action against these reverse-engineered “clones”—preferring to compete on the merits of their version of the PC. Intel abided by IBM’s second-source requirement as long as IBM was its main source of business. In accordance with their technology exchange agreement, Intel and AMD amended their contract in 1984 to allow AMD to be a second-source for the successive generations of the “x86” processor architecture (the successors to the 8086: the 80186 and 80286) in exchange for substantial royalties to Intel. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 885 P.2d 994, 997–98 (Cal. 1994). But market conditions were changing.*By the end of 1986, IBM had lost control of the PC platform to the clone manufacturers.*More people were buying clones than were buying IBM PCs. Intel acted on this market trend: Compaq’s 1986*Deskpro 386 was the first personal computer released with Intel’s*386 microprocessor. With IBM’s influence declining and a*“gang” of clone manufacturers eager to buy up their latest and greatest chips, Intel had little reason to continue adhering to the second-source agreement that had been mandated by IBM and, thereby, share its success with AMD. Intel Breaks Up with AMD As personal computer sales exploded, the different participants in the IBM PC ecosystem became uncomfortable with the alliances they previously had formed. IBM felt threatened by the clones’ increased market power, and responded by surrounding their latest revision of the PC platform, the Micro Channel Architecture,*with high legal fences. Similarly, AMD threatened Intel when it released the Am286 in 1983,*offering twice the speed of Intel’s 80286 at a lower price. Intel responded by trying to wall AMD out for the next generation of x86 processors. Recognizing the phenomenal growth in the PC clone market, Intel saw an opportunity to exclude AMD and keep to itself the impending exponential increase in PC sales. Intel refused to consider any of AMD’s products in exchange for rights to produce Intel’s 80386 microprocessor, which was released in 1985. As a result, AMD claimed that Intel had breached their technology exchange contract, and petitioned for arbitration in 1987. The arbitration took four and a half years and included three hundred and fifty-five days of hearings. While the arbitrator found that Intel was not obligated to transfer every new product to AMD or accept any of AMD’s products, he also decided that Intel had breached an implied covenant of good faith to make the relationship work.*Id.*at 1013. But this legal strategy paid off for Intel. By refusing to give AMD a license to the 386 and leaving the issue tied up in a lengthy arbitration, Intel excluded AMD during a critical period of growth in the personal computer market, during which the PC platform’s market share*grew from 55% in 1986 to 84% in 1990; leaving Apple’s Macintosh at a distant second place with just 6%. Without access to Intel’s technical specifications, AMD took over five years to reverse-engineer the 80386, which was substantially more complicated than and contained almost*ten times as many transistors as the 8086. Intel Sues Everyone for Everything Intel did not stop at frustrating its agreement with AMD to defend its turf in the x86 processor industry; it began to pursue legal action against all threats to its market share. Intel had been actively purging the microprocessor market of other manufacturers of x86-compatible processors. Intel had unleashed its legal arsenal on companies that did not have an x86 license and cloned Intel’s chips through reverse engineering, alleging copyright and patent infringement. This expansive litigation activity from the late 1980s to the early 1990s marked the beginning of Intel’s “trial and error” strategy: launch legal attacks against competitors, and when the courts gave Intel lemons, make lemonade by exploring alternative legal and business tactics to hinder the competition. Just as the engineers at Phoenix Technologies had done with the BIOS ROM in the IBM PC, so Cyrix and NEC reverse-engineered Intel’s x86 microprocessors using a*“clean room” design process in which one team of engineers observed the chip’s external, functional behavior and wrote technical specifications, and another team designed a functionally equivalent clone based on those specifications. The main purpose of the “clean room” approach was to avoid charges of illegally copying the reverse-engineered chip’s design; the goal was to design a 100% compatible product without examining the contents of the chip. Instead of trying to argue against the “clean room” defense in a copyright action, Intel*sued Cyrix for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The district court ruled in favor of Cyrix, however, in 1992. It also engaged in what Cyrix termed a “patent extortion scheme.” Intel held a patent for the technology on computer motherboards that linked x86 microprocessors with main memory, which Intel claimed covered any computer with an x86 chip. To stop computer manufacturers from using Cyrix’s x86 clones, Intel threatened to demand a $25-per-computer license fee for the memory controller patent should they switch microprocessor vendors from Intel to Cyrix. Intel believed it had a stronger case for copyright infringement against NEC. A software engineer at NEC had studied the “microcode” of the Intel 8086 and 8088 microprocessors before the reverse-engineering process. This distinguishing fact made it unclear whether similar microcode found in the NEC’s V20 and V30 chips was illegally copied from the 8086 and the 8088. NEC Corp. v. Intel Corp., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1177, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (“A microcode consists of a series of instructions that tell a microprocessor which of its thousands of transistors to actuate in order to perform the tasks directed by the macroinstruction set.”). In 1989,*the Northern District of California found that the microcode was copyrightable, but also found that it was possible to duplicate the functions of a chip without infringing on the copyright. The court ruled that NEC’s microcode was sufficiently different from Intel’s, such that it did not infringe. Despite losing to NEC, Intel remained optimistic about the ruling, as*it also meant that the 386’s microcode was copyrighted. Intel hoped that copyright protection would stop AMD from releasing its version of the 386, the*Am386. Accordingly, in 1991, Intel sought to enjoin AMD from releasing the Am386 in the Northern District of California based on the*NECcase.*Intel v. AMD, 12 F.3d at 911;*NEC, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1189. Intel reiterated its stance on its licensing agreement with AMD: “each proposed second-source agreement was to be the subject of combative bargaining with no continuing obligations from episode to episode.”*AMD v. Intel, 885 P.2d at 997. Intel sought an injunction against AMD’s release of the Am386; however, any injunctive relief depended on the ongoing 1987 arbitration’s outcome, since the arbitration would decide whether AMD should be awarded a license to the 80386. Because the district court was required to stay Intel’s copyright action against AMD pending the outcome of Intel’s appeal of the*1992 arbitration award to the Superior Court of California, the Am386 effectively survived the injunction.*Intel v. AMD, 12 F.3d at 910. The Am386 became a commercial success; not only was it faster than the Intel 80386 that it was based on, it was*almost as fast as Intel’s newest 486 microprocessor but at a lower price. Desperate to keep the Am386 off the market, Intel even sued AMD for trademark infringement of the “386” name, but failed to prove that such a simple numerical combination was not generic. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 1292, 1293 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Since deciding to go solo with the 80386 in 1985, Intel made it obvious that it would explore every last legal action available to keep AMD out of the x86 microprocessor business. When one litigation stalled or was lost, Intel simply sued on different grounds in an attempt to exhaust AMD’s legal resources. Intel’s legal battle with AMD became a perpetual drain on resources for both parties. By 1994, Intel had navigated the arbitration along its long journey up to the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court awarded AMD “a permanent, nonexclusive and royalty-free license to any Intel intellectual property embodied in the Am386” and “a two-year extension of certain patent and copyright licenses*.*.*. related to the Am386.”*AMD v. Intel, 885 P.2d at 998–99. However, this result left several outstanding lawsuits unresolved, including*a 1991 antitrust suit that AMD had brought against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The two companies had battled each other in court for seven years and had spent over $100 million when*they finally settled all remaining lawsuits in 1995. AMD received a perpetual license to the microcode found in Intel’s 386 and 486, but also*agreed to not copy any other Intel microcode. Instead, AMD would develop its own chips in the future. Neither side was happy with this outcome. AMD had missed out on substantial profits during the Intel litigation.*AMD had a difficult time securing financing from lenders to build new fabrication plants to keep up with demand. This physical plant handicap meant that AMD*struggled for years to keep up with*Intel’s multi-billion dollar investments in manufacturing facilities. On the other hand, Intel was forced to let AMD remain in the x86 microprocessor industry. AMD had proven*time and*time again to be a formidable opponent,*despite being a much smaller company. Furthermore, the computer industry had converged on the x86 architecture, based on the*number of computers using x86 microprocessors. Even an industry giant like Intel would not be able to force the computer industry to switch to*a new instruction set architecture allowing it to abandon the x86 and AMD. Intel had no choice but to continue competing with AMD in order to maintain its leadership in the microprocessor market. Intel Gets Sneaky After settling all of its legal disputes with AMD in 1995, Intel had to compete on the merits of their products and encountered fierce competition from AMD. AMD frequently led Intel in introducing new technologies. AMD produced the world’s*first x86 processor reaching 1 GHz,*64-bit x86 processor,*dual-core x86 processor, and*x86 processor with an integrated memory controller (a major bottleneck if implemented as a separate chip on the motherboard, which Intel continued to do*until recently).*AMD often beat Intelin computer performance benchmarks. Accordingly, AMD gained significant market share in retail computer sales (beating Intel with 52.5% of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores for Q4 2005) and in the lucrative server-chip market (snagging 48% of the high-end multi-core server market in 2006; a market segment that Intel was still dominating in 2003). Intel therefore turned to other tactics to minimize AMD’s gains in x86 market share. Intel’s most targeted approach to address its performance disadvantage was to provide software developers with*a compiler that would optimize their code to perform better on Intel microprocessors. In itself, the Intel compiler was a fair way for Intel to increase its products’ computational performance: Intel was simply lending its resources to help developers squeeze more performance out of their programs. But Intel made the compiler compatible with AMD processors as well, thereby encouraging widespread adoption of its compiler and effectively planting*a Trojan horse in the software industry. A common method to optimize code for a microprocessor is to exploit the microprocessor’s performance-enhancing features and special instructions, called “extensions.” Since the 1995 settlement, Intel had introduced*several extensions to the x86 instruction set to expand its multimedia capabilities, of which many were*also supported by AMD. Naturally, if the Intel compiler was compatible with AMD microprocessors, one would expect it to take advantage of the multimedia extensions in any microprocessor that supported them, be it Intel or AMD. However, Intel designed the compiler to first check the vendor ID found in a computer’s microprocessor, and*only enabled the extensions if it was an Intel chip. Since many software vendors would compile their programs just once with the Intel compiler, their applications performed better on Intel chips, but only because the multimedia features were artificially disabled for AMD chips. But AMD’s performance lead was often too great to be overcome by compiler optimizations, and so Intel also turned to leveraging its immense bargaining power against computer manufacturers to maintain its leadership position. Despite losing considerable market share to AMD, Intel held on to*a commanding lead by exerting its influence on computer manufacturers. Most famous was the “Intel Inside” co-branding program, in which*Intel gave “market-development funds” to computer manufacturers if they highlighted the Intel brand on their products. But “Intel Inside” was not nearly as controversial as Intel’s practice of paying “loyalty rebates” to computer manufacturers for not using AMD chips. On the surface, Intel’s loyalty rebate programs appeared to be innocent volume or bundled discounts. Courts had struggled to apply section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to the issue of bundled discounts, as it was*hard to distinguish harmless discounts from loyalty rebates provided for the sole purpose of acquiring or maintaining monopoly power. But by taking into consideration the market conditions at the time and the nature of Intel’s relationship with the computer manufacturers, the monopolistic intent underlying Intel’s actions is noticeable. Thecommoditization of the PC market had severely impacted the profit margins of computer manufacturers, leaving their hopes of meeting quarterly earnings targets*at the mercy of Intel’s loyalty rebates. In*internal emails at major computer manufacturers, company executives were clearly distressed by the risk of losing such rebates, and most importantly, profitability, if they adopted AMD chips—or, as one Dell executive poignantly put it, Intel was*“prepared for ‘jihad’ if Dell joins the AMD exodus.” Indeed, AMD’s biggest barrier in*breaking 25% in overall x86 market share was its failure to court Dell, the biggest U.S. computer manufacturer. Dell was for a long time an exclusive Intel customer, but actually had been quite eager to use AMD’s chips.*In an e-mail to Intel’s CEO in 2005, Michael Dell wrote, “None of the current benchmarks and reviews say that Intel based systems are better than AMD. We are losing the hearts, minds and wallets of our best customers.” Intel was quick to address Dell’s concerns. Intel’s CEO,*Paul Otellini, replied, “[W]e are transferring over $1B per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This [should be] more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues.” Soon after,*Dell’s CEO Kevin Rollins announced that Dell had “made no plans to begin using” AMD chips, which*Otellini described as “the best friend money can buy.” But as AMD saw its market share*vanish inexplicably in certain markets, Intel attracted the attention of regulatory bodies worldwide. While trying to maintain its lead in the x86 processor market, Intel once again tried to test the legal boundaries with its aggressive business tactics, but ultimately wandered too far and faced competition law’s wrath.*By launching its own antitrust lawsuit andscouring the world for regulators who would agree to prosecute Intel, AMD succeeded in urging charges and fines against Intel fromJapan, Korea and the*European Commission; as well as*antitrust charges from the FTC and the*New York Attorney General. There was even a*SEC investigation into the symbiotic*relationship between Dell and Intel. The dollar amounts involved at the conclusion of the legal brouhaha surrounding Intel’s anticompetitive pricing practices were astronomical: Intel was*fined 1.06 billion Euros by the European Commission for abusing its dominant market position, and*settled its U.S. antitrust litigation with AMD for $1.25 billion. These rulings and settlements found many of Intel’s actions to be illegal and prohibited Intel from continuing such practices. Intel’ssettlement with the FTC was the broadest resolution. Intel agreed not to use threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper the competition in the sale of microprocessors, and also to stop deceiving computer makers about the performance of non-Intel microprocessors through its compiler hacks. As a strategy to stave off and delay AMD’s growth, however, Intel’s tactics*left AMD in serious financial trouble and even forced AMD to*spin off its manufacturing division in 2009. Moreover, Intel*recaptured the x86 performance crown in 2006 when it released the Core 2 Duo microprocessor. Since then, AMD has not been able to respond with a competitive product in the high performance, high profit margin market. Intel and the Future of x86 The latest threat to Intel’s dominance in the microprocessor market is the*shift towards tablet computers like the Apple iPad.*Intel has already addressed market demands for low power devices by capitalizing on the netbook trend from 2007 to 2009 with its power-efficient*Atom processor, but netbook sales have suffered due to the*rising popularity of tablets. Having missed the first wave of tablet devices, Intel has*devised an attack plan that will give it control over both hardware and the operating system and applications, in hopes of maintaining its market share in the microprocessor market as*PC microprocessor sales slow. Instead of relying on its long-time partner, Microsoft, Intel has followed its own software strategy in its entry into the tablet market. In February 2010,*Intel announced that it was partnering with Nokia to create a mobile operating system called MeeGo to compete with Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android. As an open-source software project, MeeGo has garnered considerable support because of itsrelative vendor neutrality. But to attract the*thousands of app developers from iOS and Android, MeeGo will need a better app store infrastructure than Nokia’s Ovi, which*many developers have criticized.*Intel therefore announced its AppUp store at the Consumer Electronics Show in January, and has since*signed on numerous retail partners, including Best Buy. Intel has openly encouraged companies from across the computer industry,*including AMD, to participate in its tablet initiative. However, Intel’s advocacy of the*Trusted Computing Initiative and*recent acquisition of anti-virus software-maker, McAfee, has raised*concerns of vendor lock-in. Critics fear that building anti-virus functionality into the microprocessor will turn the computer market ecosystem into a “walled garden,” requiring all software to come from a single source (AppUp) and be signed by a trusted authority (McAfee). The likelihood of such a scenario depends on whether*growing computer security concerns will push computer users and the industry towards appliance-style devices, meaning those with functionalities entirely dictated by the manufacturer, and sacrifice “generativity”—as*Professor Zittrain has warned in his book,*The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. The closed, tethered*Apple iPad currently dominates the tablet market at 95% market share. It is therefore likely that Intel can similarly appeal to consumers with an appliance-style device offering significantly superior computer security. But trusted computing remains a controversial proposal for solving computer security problems.*Critics have cited risks of anticompetitive and anticonsumer behavior, as well as the risk that a trusted hardware manufacturer could secretly implement backdoor access to private user information. Even if it succeeded in locking out other vendors with its secure walled garden, Intel may find itself within the gray area of potentially anti-competitive product bundling. If the bundling is implemented such that most tablets are equipped with Intel processors and ship pre-installed with MeeGo and AppUp, and most software applications are only accessible through AppUp and must run on a trusted Intel platform, Intel will likely have to answer antitrust concerns similar to those that arose from*Microsoft’s bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with Windows.

[/spoiler]

This isn't the only time Intel has done anything shady like this. There was a lawsuit involving one of the Pentium 4's benchmark results where people got money from it if they bought the CPU in question.

Do you see the entirety of the article contents in the forum? No. People are not reading the article in the forums, so the forum title is nothing to go by. Besides, pointing it out is just a joke, right? So why do you keep bringing it up as though it supports your point? Arrogance at it's finest.

What? What i just said had a nothing do with any previous jokes. I pointed out the fact that he only read the title of the article and posted a comment about scumbag intel without even reading the article story. That's the issue. Sorry dude but talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Okay, but that's just another rehash of the same material from the past. That it's a editorial from Harvard, doesn't change that it is from the past.

You look to the past to see what to expect from the future. If you do not expect what has been the past to be the future, you are a fool. Simple fact of the matter is Intel's past is riddled with shadyness, have they turned a new leaf and from this point on will not be involved with that shadyness? Possibly, but i wouldn't bet on it, as the past states that is very unlikely. If your significant other keeps cheating on you and has a past that you know of where they cheated on other people to, do you get up every day expecting that to no longer be the reality?