CPU/Mobo Intel's crippling of competitors coming to an end?

P

premsharma695

Disciple
There are many Intel fanboys everywhere keeping the tradition of their Master. Goodluck to those who purchased Intel processors @ double the cost of AMD equivalent just for nothing but in support of their crippling competitors by unjust means. Intel was threatened from the time of success of AMD 690G chipsets onwards, which brought better graphics to common man at lower prices. Thanks to ATI, all were wre fed up of Intel crappy integrated graphics and that too on astronomical prices. Intel was selling shit in the name of Gold. Take a look for youeself:

Intel's crippling of competitors coming to an end?

The recent FTC suit against Intel has garnered quite a bit of attention, and for good reason. When one of the biggest manufacturers of semiconductors is accused of anti-competitive practices people are bound to notice.

While Intel had been accused of such anti-competitive practices by AMD from quite a long time, the latest suit by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has some rather tough allegations. Intel had been accused of stifling the competition by unfair means.

Intel was accused of using the advantage of its dominance to strengthen its monopoly. Using threats and discounts with some of the world's largest computer vendors such as Dell, HP, and IBM, Intel tried to ensure that computer vendors would lean towards shipping more Intel based computers and fewer AMD based ones. They felt threatened by the great advancements in their competitors products -- which were not only better but also cheaper -- and resorted to unfair means of competition.

That is not all though, Intel is also responsible for deliberately sabotaging its competitors' products in an effort to make its processors look superior. As many users of Intel's compilers have been noticing from quite some time, any application compiled using them tend to favor Intel processors. Many have complained, but to no avail, Intel merely sidelines the issue, promising fixes in new versions but not delivering. Intel's compiler have been known to actively look at the CPUID of processors -- which will contain the string "GenuineIntel" for Intel processors -- and will use sub-optimum code in case a non-Intel processor is detected.

Using less optimized code is often essential in order to enable the same application to run on older CPUs which might not provide the features used by the optimization, however the Intel compiler produced code doesn't even check if the processor supports those features, it merely disables them for non-Intel processors. All other compilers such as the ones by Microsoft and the open source GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) all perform such checks.

What is even more troubling is that benchmarks compiled with the Intel Compilers are susceptible to this, and this puts in question the many benchmarks which in recent years have pegged Intel ahead of AMD. Such a disparity was even noticed by Ars Technica in an article comparing VIA Nano and Intel Atom.

The dispute between AMD and Intel has been settled with Intel paying AMD $1.25 billion for a crime they claim they did not commit, and among the terms of the agreement it is quite possible that they would have to fix their compilers once and for all. In the end it is the users of AMD processors who had to suffer from poor performance despite having possibly faster systems. If you're a developer it is probably better to stay away from Intel's compiler in any case.
Click to expand...

Source:
Code: 
http://www.thinkdigit.com/CPUs-and-Motherboards/Intels-crippling-of-competitors-coming-to-an_3880.html
 
Take a look at what? Intel's Compilers are one of the best in the industry and they make them to complement their own processors, not for AMD or any other competitor. Just because AMD and similar competitors ripped x86 architecture from Intel and made processors based on that doesn't mean that they have to support every x86 based clone that their competitors make. Intel probably doesn't even test their compilers with AMD processors. They never mention that their Compiler is optimized for AMD processors. At least in this case I believe that Intel is being victimized. Not only does AMD not have to develop a compiler of their own for their processors, they get Intel to test and support AMD processors at their own expense.

If it is indeed the way things should work, then on the same lines Apple should be forced to make their OS and software work on every x86 and Power PC system out of the box. Semiconductor companies who make compilers for their own micro controllers and microprocessors should be forced to make them compatible with their competitors offerings based on the same architectures.
 
and I thought AMD and intel had a contract or licence to use each other technologies like AMD using intels x86 architecture and intel using AMDs x64.
 
Lord Nemesis said:
Take a look at what? Intel's Compilers are one of the best in the industry and they make them to complement their own processors, not for AMD or any other competitor. Just because AMD and similar competitors ripped x86 architecture from Intel and made processors based on that doesn't mean that they have to support every x86 based clone that their competitors make. Intel probably doesn't even test their compilers with AMD processors. They never mention that their Compiler is optimized for AMD processors. At least in this case I believe that Intel is being victimized. Not only does AMD not have to develop a compiler of their own for their processors, they get Intel to test and support AMD processors at their own expense.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on this. Intel is now forced to develop optimised compilers for its competitors products. I dont particularly like this approach either.

Lord Nemesis said:
If it is indeed the way things should work, then on the same lines Apple should be forced to make their OS and software work on every x86 and Power PC system out of the box. Semiconductor companies who make compilers for their own micro controllers and microprocessors should be forced to make them compatible with their competitors offerings based on the same architectures.
Click to expand...

Intel is using its monopoly in CPU market to push its compiler product. This is seen as an unfair practice by the FTC. If their CPU market share was lesser, their compiler might not be as popular, since its doesnt work well with competitors CPUs, which have a significant market share.

Also, Intel had advertised it as SSE optimised, which is kinda misleading - its SSE optimised only on Intel processors. The court now wants them to make it work as advertised, irrespective of the CPU vendor. Maybe if they had worded their ads more carefully it would have been better.
 
Lord Nemesis said:
because AMD and similar competitors ripped x86 architecture from Intel and made processors based on that doesn't mean that they have to support every x86 based clone
Click to expand...

You may want to look at ur statement. Ripped is not the proper word. They have a technology transfer agreement. The very reason intel CPUs are even competing are becoz of some of AMD technology. So putting it in your way Intel "RIPPED" AMD 64 n others. Conversely there would be NO discussion without X86!!
Although I agree that Holding Intel responsible for its compiler not being optimized for AMD cpu may sound Illogical but you need to look at the context, like highlighted by "Raghunandan" You cant promise moon and deliver candle in every country and expect to make money!!
The main point for FTC case would be unfair trade practices used by Intel, n not compiler.
 
true AMD brought true quads and very fast HYPERTRANSPORt and L3 cache, INTEL COPIED and improved it and is beating AMD from their own baby(which has grown big)

AMD's bulldozer will be SMT, and i bet INTEL will copy that too..
 
Lord Nemesis said:
Take a look at what? Intel's Compilers are one of the best in the industry and they make them to complement their own processors, not for AMD or any other competitor. Just because AMD and similar competitors ripped x86 architecture from Intel and made processors based on that doesn't mean that they have to support every x86 based clone that their competitors make. Intel probably doesn't even test their compilers with AMD processors. They never mention that their Compiler is optimized for AMD processors. At least in this case I believe that Intel is being victimized. Not only does AMD not have to develop a compiler of their own for their processors, they get Intel to test and support AMD processors at their own expense.

If it is indeed the way things should work, then on the same lines Apple should be forced to make their OS and software work on every x86 and Power PC system out of the box. Semiconductor companies who make compilers for their own micro controllers and microprocessors should be forced to make them compatible with their competitors offerings based on the same architectures.
Click to expand...

You fail to understand Sir, The topic is about using dirty methods to enforce monopoly and not about compilers. I mean they paid Dell, Sony & HP for making only Intel based lappy look good by way of configuration and all AMD laptops etc to look bad by configuration. So that cutomer presume them as bad and run away from AMD so that they can sell that crappy intel graphics 945 to G45 stuff at double the cost of AMD-ATI. This is not acceptable. Regarding copying/ripping etc, other members has replied in details.

Intel Atom is already redundant because of AMD Athlon Neo & Neo X2 processor, which are faster than atom as well they consume almost same power as atom is 15 watt & Athlon Neo is 18 watt. More over AMD Athlon Neos are paired with ATI HD2100, HD 3200 or HD 4200, which are way ahead than Intel GMA945 or 946. That is what they pair their atom with. Even if they use G4500, I will prefer ATI HD3200 or HD 4200.

AMD is good for masses and the compitition is very good for consumers. Unfair trade practices or Monopoly is not acceptable, whom ever it may come from. The matter of the fact is that after merger of ATI with AMD, comsumers have benefited a lot. ATI has pruduced some fantasic chips of IGP and that too for masses. By doing so AMD ATI relegated Nvidia in GPU and Intel in CPU merely on price performance ratio.
 
Lord Nemesis said:
Take a look at what? Intel's Compilers are one of the best in the industry and they make them to complement their own processors, not for AMD or any other competitor. Just because AMD and similar competitors ripped x86 architecture from Intel and made processors based on that doesn't mean that they have to support every x86 based clone that their competitors make. Intel probably doesn't even test their compilers with AMD processors. They never mention that their Compiler is optimized for AMD processors. At least in this case I believe that Intel is being victimized. Not only does AMD not have to develop a compiler of their own for their processors, they get Intel to test and support AMD processors at their own expense.

If it is indeed the way things should work, then on the same lines Apple should be forced to make their OS and software work on every x86 and Power PC system out of the box. Semiconductor companies who make compilers for their own micro controllers and microprocessors should be forced to make them compatible with their competitors offerings based on the same architectures.
Click to expand...

Intel isn't obliged to optimise for AMD but they cannot purposefully attempt to degrade performance on an AMD processor. If there is any shred of code in the Intel compiler which maliciously hunts down AMD(and other non-Intel x86 processors) and produces poor code for them on purpose, it's an open and shut antitrust case. Intel is cheating.
/End of discussion IMHO
 
sahilm said:
Intel isn't obliged to optimise for AMD but they cannot purposefully attempt to degrade performance on an AMD processor. If there is any shred of code in the Intel compiler which maliciously hunts down AMD(and other non-Intel x86 processors) and produces poor code for them on purpose, it's an open and shut antitrust case. Intel is cheating.
/End of discussion IMHO
Click to expand...
+1
totally agree.
this is the sole reason Intel proccys are insanely priced, maybe to keep up after paying those manufacturer like Dell, HP and all.

Surely Intel's R&D is really commendable, but their administration and marketing guys are making mockery to the company.
 
sahilm said:
Intel isn't obliged to optimise for AMD but they cannot purposefully attempt to degrade performance on an AMD processor. If there is any shred of code in the Intel compiler which maliciously hunts down AMD(and other non-Intel x86 processors) and produces poor code for them on purpose, it's an open and shut antitrust case. Intel is cheating.
/End of discussion IMHO
Click to expand...

Some more info to help you understand whats happening, in case you didnt read the article or the earlier posts. Heres how their code looks

Code: 
if processor = intel + sse
 do optimised stuff, thats been tested on intel cpus
else
 do regular stuff
endif

Cant say outright that they have hunted down other x86 vendors because of such a code. The "regular stuff" could be extremely poor speed, on purpose. But then who decides that? Intel can always claim that it cant spend that much time/money writing "regular stuff", so that it will run well on competitors CPUs? Also they cant be expected to optimise and test for CPUs from other vendors.

The issue is whether Intel is using its dominance in CPU market to push its compilers. Intels compiler is obviously sub-optimal for AMD CPUs, and wouldnt be selling as much as they do now, if their market share wasnt so high. This is seen as an unfair trade practice, where you use your dominance in one market to increase your share in another.
 
asingh said:
I am confused here..."what Intel compiler is this", that we are talking about...?
Click to expand...

Still no answer, and everyone in this thread is talking about THE COMPILER..?????
 
Back
Top