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

AMD vs. Intel Antitrust lawsuit

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
companies are meant to succeed and they are meant to fail...its not supposed to be pretty...its just how things are...what about intel and mac...is amd whining about that too...id sue intel for that too.


what the hell would they do if these were the days of socket 7.........
 
Last edited:
ok, here is something to chew on. should VIA join AMD in said law suit? VIA has never had a cpu in a Dell computer either or any other brand for that matter... You dont see VIA sueing people....
 
Via has chipsets in computers, and cpus in Asus eeePCs. IBM power pc cpus haven't been in anything other than video game consoles since Apple went Intel. I think IBM would be a better candidate for joining AMD.
 
Why doesn't Apple use IBM, AMD, or VIA cpus? Because Intel probably told Steve Jobs that Apple could only use Intel cpus if they agreed to not use anything else. I doubt Apple just decided one day that they would stop using IBM processors and start using Intel processors. They were probably persuaded to do so.
 
Via has chipsets in computers, and cpus in Asus eeePCs. IBM power pc cpus haven't been in anything other than video game consoles since Apple went Intel. I think IBM would be a better candidate for joining AMD.

ok but this isnt about chipset's is it? if you want they couldnt go by that either. as at one time for there high end gaming rig the pc did have the ATI 3200 CF chipset on it. IBM removed it self from selling cpus, VIA bought what IBM didnt want, Cyrix. if you want to get a bit pick what is now Freescale also made powerPC cpus that were in macs.

@Post 46
it has been pointed out by APPLE followers that powerpc cpu's couldnt make the clock speeds like intel or amd. it was also rumored many time apple would have gone with AMD. Apple choose not to use AMD cause they couldnt meet Apple's demand, that simple.
 
lol poor pc companies getting a knife in the back by intel to use their stuff...in the end they all choose to use what they want and we all know it...everyone is gonna do the cheapest and most profitable thing possible...its part of business...intel sticking it to apple...taht is a bit much to believe.....why would intel wait till now to do it...
 
@post 46
it has been pointed out by APPLE followers that powerpc cpu's couldnt make the clock speeds like intel or amd. it was also rumored many time apple would have gone with AMD. Apple choose not to use AMD cause they couldnt meet Apple's demand, that simple.

I agree with you about the powerpc cpus being slow. I have used macs with powerpc and Intel cpus. I don't agree with you that it was that simple. We see the final product, not what goes on behind the scenes.
 
juane you do see whats going on AMD is plain to see their supply issues. please dont act blindly to them... im not playing side you have to be realsict here, if one company can not keep up with suppling you the number of parts per month. would you not go to someone else that can?
 
I agree 100% with evilsizer...and why would mac reconfigure there whole os becaue intel threatened them. Amd is just crying for help.
 
some of you all are crazy, twist the stories around, make comparisons that really don't make too much sense. whatever underhanded deeds intel did to under cut AMD (if it's true) will only hurt your pocketbook in the end.
 
ferraris cost morethan fords......and amd undercuts itself.....i mean come on....x3 phenom...desperate attempt
 
what does that mean?

humans wear shoes, and caterpillars have many legs.

It means that there are other processor companies. Not just Intel and AMD. If AMD went out of business tomorrow (actually they might :p ) there would not be an Intel monopoly. IBM, Via, Motorola, someone else would step up to the plate, maybe even TSMC, but there is no chance of us having just a single CPU company.

To the person who thought my '3 scenarios' were indeed different, read it again. All 3 amount to the same thing.
 
im willing to take a hit in my pocketbook for intel if the quality is superior
That would be the problem. If they have no one to compete against, why do research and development? It just costs money.

Then we would be stuck with what we have now for the next 5 years. While that wouldn't be bad (force programmers to better optimize their code *cough*crytek*cough*), it would certainly hinder what a computer could do :-/
 
im willing to take a hit in my pocketbook for intel if the quality is superior

That would be the problem. If they have no one to compete against, why do research and development? It just costs money.

Then we would be stuck with what we have now for the next 5 years. While that wouldn't be bad (force programmers to better optimize their code *cough*crytek*cough*), it would certainly hinder what a computer could do :-/

I bought my E6750 when it was first released. I paid $230 or so. I could have paid $35 for a crappy AMD processor. I wanted a better performer. I 'take a hit in my pocketbook' for the better performance. Yes, I could have bought a Geo or Hyundai or something, but I want a better car. Does that mean Uncle Sam should be telling Bentley they can't make such good cars?
 
yah but losing amd wouldnt kill everything...ibm, via, and motorola are still there and they arent crying about intel.....intel must have forgot to stick the knife to microsoft and sony on thier current console cpu's....i WOULD LOVE to have cell cpu in my computer.
 
Back