Intel Caught Cheating, Gets a Slap on the Wrist 14 Years Later

[Mattk50]

You just said they linked to a gizmodo article...

 

just pointing out that gizmodo is gawker, AKA kotaku. Same company, many of the same people involved. Probaby worse than this site i've never heard of people don;t seem to like.

 

Why dont you guys like it by the way? i will ignore posts that just say hurr this website but if you don't explain your position there's no chance i'll agree with you.

 

[mr moose]

 

Let's not blame or claim the Intel compiler nerfing AMD's performance

 

Regardless of whether AMDs chips were good or not,  Intel did nerf the compiler for AMD chips, that is a fact:

 

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/mannerisms/computers/intel-skewed-compilers-to-slow-2009-12/

[Swndlr]

if this is true, then they have to pay $15 to every single person who bought this cpu? wtf, am i reading this wrong or is this some bs source?

[mr moose]

if this is true, then they have to pay $15 to every single person who bought this cpu? wtf, am i reading this wrong or is this some bs source?

 

It wouldn't be the first time a company has been forced to pay each consumer a token amount for misrepresenting their product.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/maker-nutella-settles-consumers-healthy-food-claims-article-1.1067882

I believe each consumer is entitled to $4 if they have a receipt.

[Swndlr]

It wouldn't be the first time a company has been forced to pay each consumer a token amount for misrepresenting their product.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/maker-nutella-settles-consumers-healthy-food-claims-article-1.1067882

I believe each consumer is entitled to $4 if they have a receipt.

over nutella tho lelelel

[mr moose]

over nutella tho lelelel

 

Yeah, I don't know who should be punished, ferrero for claiming it's a health food or the consumers for believing it.  :blink: 

[TechFan@ic]

Regardless of whether AMDs chips were good or not,  Intel did nerf the compiler for AMD chips, that is a fact:

 

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/mannerisms/computers/intel-skewed-compilers-to-slow-2009-12/

Some folks on this forum aren't worth your keycaps.

 

Yeah, I don't know who should be punished, ferrero for claiming it's a health food or the consumers for believing it.  :blink:

Both.

 

[dalekphalm]

Can we ban the WCCF reaction posts? They add absolutely nothing to the conversation. You don't like the source? Take a second to find a better one and post it rather than trying to look cool for bashing and derailing a thread...

Yeah seriously these WCCF memes are starting to piss me off. Unless WCCF is banned as a news source, I'm going to start reporting every single WCCF meme post I find.

 

It's essentially trolling, and the worst part is: some of these meme posts don't even say a single thing about the thread topic. It's so annoying.

 

On Topic: Good. People, you have to remember, the US court system can take a LONGGGGGGGG time, plus you can be sure that Intel fought this every step of the way, with most likely multiple appeals on their behalf.

 

To those complaining that AMD has done the same thing and Intel never sued over it: Well for one thing, Intel never needed to sue over it. Intel has the larger market share, and there's little threat from AMD at the moment. Plus, just because AMD did something wrong, does not give Intel the right to also do something wrong. This isn't playground rules, this is modern corporate ethics. We should be holding all corporations accountable, including both Intel AND AMD.

[Faa]

Regardless of whether AMDs chips were good or not,  Intel did nerf the compiler for AMD chips, that is a fact:

 

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/mannerisms/computers/intel-skewed-compilers-to-slow-2009-12/

First it were the benchmarks, now it's the compiler? Accusing of x is not in any way a proof; http://sharikou.blogspot.be/2009/12/ftc-accuses-intel-of-rigging-benchmarks.html

As far as I know the reason Intel got a 1 billion fine;

The FTC charges Intel with: ‘Carrying out its anti-competitive 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.’ 

That's the only proof they managed to find.

 

 

Some folks on this forum aren't worth your keycaps.

Says the guy who's biased enough to include one of the 5000 BF4/FC3 benchmarks where Intel didn't win in your AMD vs intel thread that was supposed to be objective. To most of the people you recommended the 8320 with your teksyndicate video's as source they came later back asking for an upgrade and admitting after the upgrade a 4670K was in every way superior.

[patrickjp93]

Regardless of whether AMDs chips were good or not,  Intel did nerf the compiler for AMD chips, that is a fact:

 

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/mannerisms/computers/intel-skewed-compilers-to-slow-2009-12/

It's hardly a nerf. Intel could not and cannot account for all of AMD's exotic instructions or tune a compiler for them without all specs related to them. If AMD provides that it essentially reveals their entire hand to their biggest competitor. All Intel can do is optimize based on the instructions AMD has licensed per chip from them. It's the same reason the Intel compiler beats Clang and GCC into the floor. Intel knows more about its own architecture than anyone.

[yoloswag9000]

It's hardly a nerf. Intel could not and cannot account for all of AMD's exotic instructions or tune a compiler for them without all specs related to them. If AMD provides that it essentially reveals their entire hand to their biggest competitor. All Intel can do is optimize based on the instructions AMD has licensed per chip from them. It's the same reason the Intel compiler beats Clang and GCC into the floor. Intel knows more about its own architecture than anyone.

http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/26569_APM_v51.pdf ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[patrickjp93]

http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/26569_APM_v51.pdf ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's less than useless if you don't know the clock cycle count for each instruction, or the paradigm for AMD's implementation of Out of Order Processing, their pipeline, and all the other things which actually make some instructions fly faster than others under certain workloads. 

 

Not to be a dick, but if it was that easy I could write my own compiler superior to GCC in a week.

 

Also, Intel's compiler still allows you to compile for AM64 architecture today, but with a big flashing disclaimer saying it cannot optimize well for that architecture due to too many unknowns. Back then when more than half of AMD's instruction set was a total mystery you couldn't fault Intel for not wanting to avoid Cinebench crashing because of their inability to account for every variant of AMD's chips.

[GodSpoon]

OMG a forum member with his own mind. Brother!

MIND? WHATS THAT 

 

This is an odd post on their part though, I don't see much on it anywhere else...

[yoloswag9000]

That's less than useless if you don't know the clock cycle count for each instruction, or the paradigm for AMD's implementation of Out of Order Processing, their pipeline, and all the other things which actually make some instructions fly faster than others under certain workloads. 

 

Not to be a dick, but if it was that easy I could write my own compiler superior to GCC in a week.

 

Also, Intel's compiler still allows you to compile for AM64 architecture today, but with a big flashing disclaimer saying it cannot optimize well for that architecture due to too many unknowns. Back then when more than half of AMD's instruction set was a total mystery you couldn't fault Intel for not wanting to avoid Cinebench crashing because of their inability to account for every variant of AMD's chips.

 

http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/SOG_16h_52128_PUB_Rev1_1.pdf -> http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/AMD64_16h_InstrLatency_1.1.xlsx  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[thebennyboy]

Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive. Why are people arguing? Oh wait, it's linustechtips 

[dalekphalm]

Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive. Why are people arguing? Oh wait, it's linustechtips 

As far as I'm concerned, they should both be held accountable for any anti-competitive actions. I guess some people disagree with that notion

[yoloswag9000]

Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive. Why are people arguing? Oh wait, it's linustechtips 

 

Yeah… right. That's why AMD basically won every legal battle with Intel since 1992. That's also why an Attorny General (yes, the government, not AMD) filed a lawsuit against Intel for anti-competetive behavior (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/04/what-did-cuomo-find-in-intels-emails/).

 

You're either uninformed or delusional if you claim that Intel is not an anti-competetive company.

[dalekphalm]

Yeah… right. That's why AMD basically won every legal battle with Intel since 1992. That's also why an Attorny General (yes, the government, not AMD) filed a lawsuit against Intel for anti-competetive behavior (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/04/what-did-cuomo-find-in-intels-emails/).

 

You're either uninformed or delusional if you claim that Intel is not an anti-competetive company.

What? How did you go from "Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive"

 

to "claim that Intel is not an anti-competetive company"?

 

How did you manage that leap of logic? Just because Intel is MORE anti-competitive, doesn't mean AMD isn't also.

 

Furthermore, just because AMD has done some anti-competitive actions, does not make Intel innocent either. Your last sentence there literally makes no sense. He STRAIGHT UP SAID INTEL HAS DONE ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIONS!

 

Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive. Why are people arguing? Oh wait, it's linustechtips 

[thebennyboy]

Yeah… right. That's why AMD basically won every legal battle with Intel since 1992. That's also why an Attorny General (yes, the government, not AMD) filed a lawsuit against Intel for anti-competetive behavior (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/04/what-did-cuomo-find-in-intels-emails/).

 

You're either uninformed or delusional if you claim that Intel is not an anti-competetive company.

 

What? I'm "uninformed and delusional" yet in my previous post i said: Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive.

 

Where did i say Intel's never done anything anti-competitive?

 

EDIT: Please read my post again, you clearly didn't read it properly.

[yoloswag9000]

What? How did you go from "Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive"

 

to "claim that Intel is not an anti-competetive company"?

 

How did you manage that leap of logic? Just because Intel is MORE anti-competitive, doesn't mean AMD isn't also.

 

Furthermore, just because AMD has done some anti-competitive actions, does not make Intel innocent either. Your last sentence there literally makes no sense. He STRAIGHT UP SAID INTEL HAS DONE ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIONS!

Point is, if the state and competitors file a lawsuit because of anti-competitive behavior, the company probably is anti-competitive.

If neither the state nor competitors file lawsuits because of anit-competitive behavor, the company probably isn't anti-competitive.

[yoloswag9000]

What? I'm "uninformed and delusional" yet in my previous post i said: Both AMD and Intel have done things which are anti-competetive.

 

Where did i say Intel's never done anything anti-competitive?

 

EDIT: Please read my post again, you clearly didn't read it properly.

I didn't say that you are uninformed and delusionalm, I said that if somebody would say that Intel is not anti-competitive he would be uninformed and delusional. You obviously didn't.

Granted, I didn't really finish the post you referenced. I hope my clearification in the last post makes sense.

[nicholaswillems]

I have a pc with a pentium 4 somewhere. Does this mean I can get $15?

[mr moose]

 

First it were the benchmarks, now it's the compiler? Accusing of x is not in any way a proof; http://sharikou.blogspot.be/2009/12/ftc-accuses-intel-of-rigging-benchmarks.html

As far as I know the reason Intel got a 1 billion fine;

The FTC charges Intel with: ‘Carrying out its anti-competitive 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.’ 

That's the only proof they managed to find.

 

 

Says the guy who's biased enough to include one of the 5000 BF4/FC3 benchmarks where Intel didn't win in your AMD vs intel thread that was supposed to be objective. To most of the people you recommended the 8320 with your teksyndicate video's as source they came later back asking for an upgrade and admitting after the upgrade a 4670K was in every way superior.

 

 

Not the first or last of anything, It was always the case that Intel nerfed the compiler and the anti competitive behaviour with pc vendors is a separate incidence. Proof below.

 

It's hardly a nerf. Intel could not and cannot account for all of AMD's exotic instructions or tune a compiler for them without all specs related to them. If AMD provides that it essentially reveals their entire hand to their biggest competitor. All Intel can do is optimize based on the instructions AMD has licensed per chip from them. It's the same reason the Intel compiler beats Clang and GCC into the floor. Intel knows more about its own architecture than anyone.

 

There is plenty of information on it around the net, it's was not because they refused to account for "exotic" AMD instructions, the code actually looked at the vendor ID string and intentionally ran the slowest code for non Intel chips.

 

 

 

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2009/12/17/why-the-ftc-lawsuit-against-intel-has-substance/

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.shtml

http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_quot_Cripple_AMD_quot_Function_from_Compiler_

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1567108/intel-compiler-cripples-code-amd-via-chips

 

"However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string," Fog details, "If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."

 

 

by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement! There's more on that here [print version - the regular one won't load for me].

 

 

 

The FTC even forced Intel to change it:

 

Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

 

1. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
2. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
3. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

 

 

It is a fact that the compiler intentionally crippled non Intel CPUs, this is not disputable but cold hard reality.

 

I really don't know nor understand why anyone would try to argue this didn't happen. 

[dalekphalm]

Point is, if the state and competitors file a lawsuit because of anti-competitive behavior, the company probably is anti-competitive.

If neither the state nor competitors file lawsuits because of anit-competitive behavor, the company probably isn't anti-competitive.

Yes, that's possible, but not the only possibility. For example, If AMD was acting anti-competitively, Intel would likely look at it from a business perspective. What do they stand to gain by suing AMD if they win, and will that offset the cost of going to court? Intel may have just decided "fuck it, we wouldn't make back enough to justify it".

 

Not saying this is the case, but it's certainly possible.

 

I didn't say that you are uninformed and delusionalm, I said that if somebody would say that Intel is not anti-competitive he would be uninformed and delusional. You obviously didn't.

Granted, I didn't really finish the post you referenced. I hope my clearification in the last post makes sense.

Your statement literally made no sense by quoting him. As a stand-alone statement, then sure, yeah, good point. But by quoting him, you just made your statement incredibly confusing. Whether you intended it or not, your statement reads like you are IMPLYING HEAVILY that he is delusional.

 

 

- useless snip that does nothing to contribute to the conversation -

Cut that shit out unless you have something to add besides a troll post. I'm reporting every single WCCF meme I see these days, as they add zero to the discussion.

 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand, so if you'd like to join the discussion, that would be kickass.

[yoloswag9000]

Yes, that's possible, but not the only possibility. For example, If AMD was acting anti-competitively, Intel would likely look at it from a business perspective. What do they stand to gain by suing AMD if they win, and will that offset the cost of going to court? Intel may have just decided "fuck it, we wouldn't make back enough to justify it".

 

Not saying this is the case, but it's certainly possible.

 

If you have hard evidence, the court will rule in your favor and the losing party has to pay all cost produced by the legal disupte plus whatever the court sees fitting for punishment/compensation. From a money perspective there is no reason not to sue if you have hard evidence. Except if the other party has something on you and will use it if you sue them but that stuff is basically unknown to us which makes everything about it speculative.

 

So, yes, I agree with you, what you can however say is that there is a good possiblity that AMD is generally not anti-competitive.

 

When we're simply looking at the hard facts we have you can clearly see a history anti-competitive, quasi-monopoly abusing behavior on Intels part (at least that's what the court said) and none of it on AMDs part. This is not hard evidence (what actually is? the definition of the word can be stretched and like most words are relative) that it actually was and/or is happening, it only shows that the courts in a few different countries thought so.

 

Another fact you have to consider is the market share, the sales and profits. This is not a joke, Intels net income is more than 21.000% more than AMDs (pretty interesting visualization on wolfram alpha http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=amd+vs+intel+profit&lk=4&num=1). There is no freaking way that AMD is even maniging to do anything anti-competitive, they simply don't have the money to do that.