News
 

Bookmark and Share

(10) 

In a recently published official response (1, 2) to the accusations of the Federal Trade Commission, Intel Corp. said that AMD was unsuccessful on the market of commercial desktops and notebooks due to the fact that Intel had fully-integrated platforms, whereas AMD did not. Moreover, according to Intel, even AMD’s high-ranking executives admitted the company’s inabilities to compete.

“If you look at it, with an objective set of eyes, you would never buy AMD. I certainly would never buy AMD for a personal system if wasn’t working here. If I was a decision maker in a Fortune 500 company, I wouldn’t use AMD,” Henry Richard, executive vice president of marketing at AMD from 2002 to 2007, is reported to have said internally, according to Intel.

Besides, claims the world’s largest maker of chips, Mr. Richard described AMD as saddled with a reputation that “we are cheap, less reliable, lower quality consumer type of product”.

According to Intel AMD’s marketing chief called AMD “pathetic” for “selling processors rather than platforms and exposing a partial story, particularly in the commercial segment, that is clearly inferior to Intel’s if we want to be honest with ourselves”. By that, Mr. Richard admitted AMD’s incapability to compete against Intel when it comes to commercial desktops and notebooks.

In fact, one of Intel’s main advantages back in the early- and mid-aughts were fully-integrated platforms that included microprocessors, chipsets and network controllers. It was a lot cheaper for system integrators to utilize complete set of critical components from Intel rather than to validate different components from different suppliers before selling them inside personal computers to business customers, who demanded maximum reliability.

According to Intel, even AMD’s chairman and chief executive officer Hector Ruiz has confessed AMD’s helplessness to fight in the space of mobile computers.

“We were going to not be as competitive in the mobile space, even though we knew that mobile space was going to be critical. [AMD] was late with a competitive product in the mobile space,” Mr. Ruiz is reported to have said.

At last, AMD finally gained its own platforms with the acquisition of ATI Technologies in 2006. At present Advanced Micro Devices can ship all-AMD platforms (that include microprocessor, chipset and graphics adapter) and address different market segments.

It is interesting to note that despite of the fact that AMD did not have its own core-logic sets from 2000 to 2007, its AMD Opteron processors for servers gained significant market share back then, besides, AMD Athlon 64 processors also managed to become rather popular.

Tags: AMD, , Intel, Business, x86, Opteron, Athlon, Core, Pentium

Discussion

Comments currently: 10
Discussion started: 01/13/10 09:25:04 PM
Latest comment: 01/26/10 08:05:06 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-9]

1. 
I have bought AMD systems and even my college uses them. The reason why is they have "equal" quality as Intel systems at a lower total cost. Sure at this time AMD may not have the fastest processors compared to Intel but AMD setups does have equal quality. I would not say the TLB bug was bad for the early K10 cores compared to many bad processor models that Intel had, but Intel never corrected the problem. At least AMD admitted that there is a bug and helped motherboard manufactures to provide a work-around. Sure the work-around lowered performance, but it made the system become reliable. This work-around can be enabled or disabled depending on the user wishes between performance (off) or reliability (on). Like any computer, I did have problems with my AMD systems, but these are related to driver problems and capacitor problems.

I would not say that AMD's marketing is bad. If they were bad, AMD will never be around making 80x86 processors. What AMD's marketing did do is strengthen their competitors by giving an option to motherboard manufactures to select any chip set. This enforced innovations like dual-channel memory like nVidia's nForce2 chip set. Intel's anti-competitive nature did not allow any of their competitors to be included. Sure the competitors can pay Intel's penalty which will force consumers to pay a very, very high price.

BTW, AMD did have core-logic or chip sets back in 2000. Their reliability got hurt with products that are not compatible such as Creative Labs Soundblaster LIVE. Also it is not smart to buy a motherboard with a lot of bells and whistles at that time. AMD Athlon 64 processor became popular because the smart users found out that they were faster, uses less power, and they provide same quality as Intel processors at a lower cost. Pentium 4 and Pentium D could not match the performance of the Athlon 64. Xeon processors had issues competing against an Athlon 64 processor.
0 0 [Posted by: jmurbank  | Date: 01/13/10 09:25:04 PM]
Reply

2. 
The indisputable INTEL advantage over AMD is its economic force and its monopolistic practices.
The 0,5% or 3% of overall Intel performance advantage compared to AMD is nothing for typical customer. Comparing on the total price factor, the AMD based equipment is extremely competitive. Comparing on the pure vendor building block [processor, chipset, graphics controller) AMD clearly outperforms INTEL.
0 0 [Posted by: GregoryStec  | Date: 01/14/10 02:56:50 AM]
Reply

3. 
That is one douche of an executive. AMD is indeed competitive and the Phenom II is an excellent processor, but the moron working for AMD doesn't even try to defend his company.
Hope he loses his job and goes back to flipping burgers.
0 0 [Posted by: Mr. BonBon  | Date: 01/14/10 11:09:26 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Former executive. He left AMD in 2007.

And considering he was EVP of Marketing for AMD and how poorly AMD has marketed it's product the past decade I wouldn't be talking if I were him. Doesn't seem like his department helped the company very much.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9764315-37.html
0 0 [Posted by: JonMCC33  | Date: 01/15/10 10:32:56 AM]
Reply

4. 
There are plenty of Fortune 500 companies that use AMD equipment. Yeah it is easier to go and find things made by Intel, but you pay a hefty price. Also im super surprised AMD has not thrown up the fact that Intel's processors have this really bad flaw that a group of independent testers found and submitted to intel back in 2005 and Intel just shoved it under the rug till finally the guys that found it publicly released it. Basically the old fashioned boot sector virus that you couldnt get rid of till you cleared out the MBR could be tweaked to literally insert itself into some protected shared memory space on the CPU. Sure this doesnt sound to bad but no antivirus in the world could fix the problem as guess what the virus would be at an elevated permission level above the OS able to do whatever it wanted to. Since this bug in intel's architecture goes all the way back to the pentium 3 days and is present in every intel cpu since and to date i doubt they have fixed it, means anyone using intel systems is an an inherent risk if someone develops this.

Links to the story:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16606
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1130

Intel is very anti-competitive, just look at what they have done since the Core i7 chips have come out. Do you see ANY mobo not have an intel chipset? No didnt think so. It is a big arse monopoly and Intel is getting away with it.

0 0 [Posted by: daseto  | Date: 01/14/10 12:28:45 PM]
Reply

5. 
Never say never - James Bond
0 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 01/14/10 04:11:00 PM]
Reply

6. 
Well I build both platforms and I remember we wouldn't even touch Intel CPU's when the Athlom MP's and Tyan Tiger boards were out. That particular rig was fast stable and earned 6 years of coin as we connect DSP racks for the audio horsepower, and the CPU's were used but combined w/ the DSP racks were stronger than 4 Intel servers.When AMD started making their own chips recently it appears as though they will be quite stable again.I like AMD and also keep in mind the whiner obviously lost his job so of course he will suck up to Intel. I would milk him for all of the information I could get and lead him on as if you were going to hire him, then dump his ratty ass. Mob rats have more class.
Intel is just sore that it lost the lawsuit. But I actually think the 6 core AMD with integrated graphics will be very competitive. With a strong product like that Larabee will be shelved and AMD has a huge advantage with ATI in their pocket.
0 0 [Posted by: dawman  | Date: 01/15/10 09:12:09 AM]
Reply

7. 
I think AMD has done an amazing job over the years.
They are competing against a massive juggernaut that have massive financial reserves and incredible industry power.

To even still be around given the intensity of the competition, and the financial requirements to push forward - this alone is a great feat.

I used to buy AMD a lot, (I am in IT), but for the last few years I had primarily been purchasing Intel CPUs again due to performance reasons (the performance pendulum swings always..)
AMD has really been making some inroads in unique ways once again in the past year and a bit.
'As built' systems from an office perspective are quite capable and dollar for dollar, the AMD systems are widening the gap in their favor again. I hope to justify bringing more AMD systems back into our environments soon.

I understand and appreciate Intel's desire to control the market as much as they can - it is survival instinct, but I can't help but feel a bit bitter about many of the tactics I have read about.
That and I like to route for the underdog
0 0 [Posted by: martyvdb  | Date: 01/16/10 09:41:44 PM]
Reply

8. 
just shows how AMD became a hero to zero!

AMD has become complacent! It got lucky with the Athlon x64 back in the days of Pentium. Afterwhich they successfully and slowly turned to performance crap and major late releases!

If it were not for ATI division, AMD would probably be shitting on its pants!
0 0 [Posted by: dudde  | Date: 01/17/10 11:42:04 PM]
Reply

9. 
What a Joke! No wonder he is pissed at AMD, he was fired! I certainly think that AMD has the best price to performance ratio and that they are doing a good job making Intel keep the mainstream market non monopolistic even though there seems to be need of more competitive microprocessor companies to break that trend.
0 0 [Posted by: PFX  | Date: 01/26/10 08:05:06 PM]
Reply

[1-9]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Thursday, November 6, 2014

6:48 am | LG’s Unique Ultra-Wide Curved 34” Display Finally Hits the Market. LG 34UC97 Available in the U.S. and the U.K.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

8:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

12:22 pm | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

9:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

6:41 pm | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture