• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Intel's dirty trick....or.......Intel's future, ....

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

7keys

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Location
Montreal
Intel's future, ...
Article By: Benoît Leterme
Date: 1-apr-2004

WhAt's going on.

What's going on with Intel? That's the question everybody is asking. Why didn't they switch their Prescott to 64-bit, why is the Extereme Edition the Extreme Expensive edition and why do they keep on throwing Celerons in our face? Although many of us might wonder what the answers are, AMD, in the meanwhile, is winning the race. 64-bit CPU's are taking over the market swiftly. Intel keeps on looking into BTX and other less important stuff (hmm ...). The Itanic or what most call the Titanic has actually hit the iceberg, and it didn't win. Bluetooth got smacked by Wi-Fi.


What we susPect is going on.

We have heard some rumours regarding Intel's plans. Yes Intel has thought this through, regarding what most of you think, because, why would any company play with torches when they can play with matches. We have learned from a source near Intel all recent events around the company and releases are just a cover-up (Thank god, it's finally explained I can hear you say). Because, be honest, why would anybody want to buy a CPU that runs 70°C, or a 2.8Ghz Celeron that gets outperformed by any CPU available on the market. Or even better you go out and buy the Pentium 4 EE and you find out you could have bought an entire setup for the same amount of money ... ouch. No, all this is secretly a trick from Intel.


Intel's TRIck

Intel, as you no doubt have noticed, is loosing ground to AMD, but what nobody knows is Intel is planning on buying AMD. Yes that's right, or it's almost right. Intel already owns a huge chunk of AMD. As most of you know AMD had a rough year. 2003 wasn't really what they had hoped for, so intel took advantage of the situation and bought huge parts of AMD when AMD's stock options were at their lowest point in years. Since AMD started producing high amounts of 64-bit during Q1 of 2004 AMD's stock options have gone throught the roof.


ConcLusion FOr OlL

Well, I'm sure you've all put it together and came to the conclusion yourself. But let me sum it all up: The reason why Intel has introduced these, let's call them less good, cpu's (Either they are too slow (Celeron), too hot(Prescott), too expensive (EE)) is simply because they want everybody to shift to AMD's 64-bit. When everybody has shifted to 64-bit CPU's, Intel will have made a fortune since they own almost 50% of Advanced Micro Devices Inc. When this has happened, Intel will introduce their own 64-bit desktop CPU version. By doing this all the Intel fanboys will once again shift to their favorite brand and Intel will make even more money.
 
Intel won't buy AMD, they can't, there is no way in hell the Federal Trade Commission would ever let that happen. Intel would have a total monopoly on commercial CPU processors and that a incredibly bad thing for society. I mean, think of how much less development there would be due to no competition (i.e slightly faster chips ever few ever once in a while and no more better overclockable steppings).

And you think they throw celerons at us now? You think the prescott is a bad preformer now? I can't imagine what crap they would throw into the market if they had a monopoly.

And the prices.........oh god just think of the prices!!!!

*cringe*




If Intel would be allowed to buy AMD, it would be a sad day for capitalism and us overclockers.
 
you sound like one of the biggest AMD fanboys i have ever seen..dude

sick!


nice april one ;) (if it isnt...find some professional help and/or a rope)

just like the apple guy yelling around that the G5 kicks opteron and itanium ***...


lets laugh and drink on all serious responders :beer:
 
Last edited:
^^ What he said is in fact true. However Intel has no interest in buying AMD.

They gotta keep someone around so that it dosnt become an Anti-trust issue.

However, I think it is very feesable for IBM to buy out AMD from Intel.
 
Its not entirely a scenerio. Intel does in fact own alot of AMD stock.

However the rest is purly speculation. IHMO Intel is just screwing up as usual
 
Stock Doesnt mean you own part of AMD..just a way to make money....dont u think if Intel owned part of AMD Intel would have a 64-bit out already to....dats like sayin we invest in Microsft but it doesnt mean we own part of it because if we did we wouldnt have time to be in these forums
 
Sophisticated said:
Stock Doesnt mean you own part of AMD..just a way to make money....dont u think if Intel owned part of AMD Intel would have a 64-bit out already to....dats like sayin we invest in Microsft but it doesnt mean we own part of it because if we did we wouldnt have time to be in these forums

If you own stock in a company you own part of it. Who ever owns the most stock runs the company.(clift notes version). The reason that people who own microsoft stock have time to be here is because they dont own enough for it to be of any importance to the decision makers. They do however get their votes and thats about it.
 
actually, sophisticated, your wrong. Owning stock is owning part of the company. Once you have magority control (51%) you can usually start making decisions. Unless the founders of amd have a preferred stock controlling option (walmart for example has this as sam wal used it to avoid estate taxes by passing on the only prefered/controling stock shares of the company to his heirs) 51% of common stock in amd will give intel control, HOWEVER when a company goes public they usually keep a certain % of common stock in the company so that things like this will not happen. If the common stock has no voting rights the even a 51% ownership will do intel no good. PLUS, to many mutual funds/institutionary investors own amd stock for it not to be known if they were buying up large chunks. Anybody remember when microsoft bout 13% of apple a few years back??? It was a huge deal in the investment world. If intel owned more that 10% of amd common stock I would be suprised. Look at the fundamentals of amd its a 6billion dollar company with 62% owned by institutions. that leaves 38% for intel and the rest of us to split.


by the way, I am a registered financial advisor
 
I just thought it was a funny article and sure to push some buttons in the Intel fan club.
 
intel would NEVER buy AMD. infact intel needs AMD to be around so Intel does not get slapped with monopoly charges like in some cases for microsoft, GG euro fine.
 
There is Apple Via and IBM making cpu's. There are other options besides Intel and AMD.
 
Intel owns part of AMD. still INTEL does not get to "take" tecnology from AMD. even if INTEL owned a majority of AMD that would still be tricky, they can't just "steal" the A64 tecnology, they remain two different companies.

i believe the financial advisor is wrong, you don't need 51% of a company to run it, you need majority. 25% could be majority if the other 75% is split among 20 owners. the guy who owns the most calls the shots, but some of the others can still unite and vote against his decisions by raising more than 25% under a common banner. 51% is usually recognized as majority since then, no matter who or how many own the rest, nobody can stand in your way.

That aside, Intel doesn't need to buy AMD, that would create a lot of trouble for them. Intel doesn't need to control the market, because Big Daddy owns Intel, AMD, the banks, the oil, and the insurance companies. It's in Big Daddy's interest to look as less monopolic as possible.
Of course this is just a bunch of conspiracy theory, and you'll have to take my word for it since there's no proof. Big Daddy control proof too.

emilio
 
Tazon said:
i believe the financial advisor is wrong, you don't need 51% of a company to run it, you need majority. 25% could be majority if the other 75% is split among 20 owners. the guy who owns the most calls the shots, but some of the others can still unite and vote against his decisions by raising more than 25% under a common banner. 51% is usually recognized as majority since then, no matter who or how many own the rest, nobody can stand in your way.

unfortunately, this is not true. the way it works with stocks is anything over 50% (this includes 50.1%, not just 51%) of the shares owned by any single party constitutes majority ownership, giving that party influence over business decisions and such.



as far as this article goes... its not even a very good april fools joke :rolleyes: but it was worth a chuckle.
 
The story about Intel owning any sizeable amount of AMD stock is entirely a myth - as for the initial April Fools story - well its a bit see through isnt it.
 
Last edited:
7keys said:
There is Apple Via and IBM making cpu's. There are other options besides Intel and AMD.

Apple doesn't make CPUs. PowerPC processors are developed and fabbed jointly between Motorola and IBM...and the Motorolas suck...

Via has been making processors with very weak FPUs for a long time now, and I can't seem to find any C3 processors anywhere.

The mainstream market is Intel and AMD.

Intel would be up to their necks in antitrust trouble if they did buy AMD.

If that 'apple guy' comment was directed at me: I happen to think the Opteron pwns the G5...
 
My point being, Bill Gates kept Apple alive (300M) so he would have another competitive operating system kicking around, If Microsoft can point to Apple as a competitor so can Intel.
 
Difference being is that Microsoft have not bought out any other operating system companies and would not be allowed to. Also as I have pointed out Intel DOES NOT hold any sizeable chunk of AMD.
 
Back