I hate to sound this way but the compiler in and of itself is one issue. A compiler that is generic is fine and a compiler that takes advantage of AMD is also fine. The entire problem is this:
The FTC’s administrative complaint charges that Intel carried out its anticompetitive campaign using threats and rewards aimed at the world’s largest computer manufacturers, including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM, to coerce them not to buy rival computer CPU chips. Intel also used this practice, known as exclusive or restrictive dealing, to prevent computer makers from marketing any machines with non-Intel computer chips.
In addition, allegedly, Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as a compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors’ CPU chips. Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors’ CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were due largely or entirely to Intel’s compiler design.
Having succeeded in slowing adoption of competing CPU chips over the past decade until it could catch up to competitors like Advanced Micro Devices, Intel allegedly once again finds itself falling behind the competition – this time in the critical market for graphics processing units, commonly known as GPUs, as well as some other related markets. These products have lessened the need for CPUs, and therefore pose a threat to Intel’s monopoly power.
Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Intel’s anticompetitive tactics violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition, and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Critically, unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant. The complaint also alleges that Intel engaged in illegal monopolization, attempted monopolization and monopoly maintenance, also in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm
Now if the entire article is read then the entire crux of the issue becomes understandable. As to the compiler? It is advertised as:
Drive rapid development and winning performance with these suites of compilers and performance libraries
Intel® Professional Edition Compilers include advanced optimization features, multithreading capabilities, and support for Intel® processors and compatible processors. They also provide highly optimized performance libraries for creating multithreaded applications.
Now a good lawyer and a jury who actually has full comprehension may find no fault with this as it is good business. ie. why would Ford make a powerstroke disel turbo that would fit Chevrolet? Same thing there is nothing wrong with the compiler and I have no love for Intel either.
Is AMD 100% Intel compatible? No, absolutely not, they have not been since the 486! All Intel has to do is prove this and it should take care of this part of the case.
are the same thing on whatever CPU they happen to be resident on, are they not?
