I usually don't say "where there's smoke, there's fire," but since this isn't going away, it appears AMD (especially seeing my earlier post on news from Bill Fleckstein) has at least some basis for it's claims, as there is sufficient corroboration from people, so it's not just 'circumstantial' evidence. Man, I hate this 'step on anyone you can' and 'run over people if you can' approach.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...712&ID=4957079

I wouldn't be wondered. Most companies that rule the market (like Intel did for a very long time) have done something fishy to push their company in the right direction. I really would not be wondered if that where the case here as welll.

And if it's the case, I hope that this will lead to a healthier competition (eventually to better products and lower prices).

I certainly hope it does, because I have been very impressed with the AMD CPUs I've had, although they've only been a 1 Ghz Athlon and a 1.8 Ghz Duron. Both had better Front Side Buses than their Intel counterparts.

That was also when I bought only AMD CPUs.

As Dee-ehn said, market leaders with dominating market share always do some things to maintain market share. Walmart, Samsung, GM, Boeing, Sony, Intel, Microsoft, who doesn't? Once the three largest US TV stations, CBS, NBC, and ABC (is that right?), no more have that much power due to competitions from all sides. What can stop Intel from doing such things is not government or legal adjustments, but new technologies leading to a situation where monopoly doesn't work anymore. Samsung continues to "fix" DRAM price but I don't think it'll be easy to "release" DRAM prices even if the US government charges 50% tax on Samsung DRAM chips (which will only increase price and suppress the whole industry which just delays everything which works hardly in favor of free trade at all, usually to the very opposite.) South Korean government interferes a lot in telecommunications, especially with internet broadband and mobile phone markets. Their official excuse is to prevent monopoly that makes competition impossible. So they say they are working for consumers. However, what they actually do is to make it illegal to lower prices and offer more value. It helps monopoly, not consumers. Both SK and Samsung have earned great profits.

Intel's monoply or near-monopoly was possible not because Intel was bad and immoral but because all the competitors like Cyrix, Rise, Motorola, Alpha (DEC), Mitsubishi, Samsung, and many others gave up (after investing millions to billions of US dollars) leaving AMD and VIA only for PC CPU market. They stopped thanks to that competiting against Intel by lowering prices while offering faster clock speeds. That didn't help anyone but Intel's stock holders.

I'm curious how this AMD vs Intel fight will end.

Such fights existed 10 years ago as well. AMD was also there. Apple was once the main rival.

Um.... thanks for telling us... I guess.

Down with evil inside!

"Once the three largest US TV stations, CBS, NBC, and ABC (is that right?), no more have that much power due to competitions from all sides."

The only true competition to CBS/NBC/ABC was FOXNews, and the only reason it could compete with them and take a 'bite' out of the former 'kings' reach is not because they came on the scene and solely 'competed,' but because the owner of FOXNews had sufficient $$$ and personal connections to keep his enterprise afloat and thereby weather the 'muscle' from CBS/NBC/ABC by getting at least as much airtime as the major networks. Had he not had the foundation he established, nor sufficient $$$ and connections, FOXNews would not have succeeded strictly based on fairer and more far-reaching reporting; on that basis alone, it would have failed miserably and not be around today. Also, had FOX in general not been able to show and demonstrate the unfair tactics used against it by the other networks (and therefore show how under-handed they were) in sufficient quantity, few people would have found out the truth of what the 'big 3' tried to do to FOX. Human nature is inherently lazy and at best, only 10% at the most ever investigate things to find out the truth; the other 90% only responds if the work is done for them and they are shown why.

As human beings, we like to think the 'underdog' can always win. However, if the 'underdog' has no way to make 'the playing field level' or can't compete on the same terms, the underdog will not succeed and soon disappear. The record of human history is even when people have spoken the truth and there was a controlling power (i.e., the Spanish Inquisition), they could only have their voice heard for a brief moment in time, but were quickly silenced. The fact is, unless one has sufficient connections, money and backing, it does not matter how wonderful a truth or product is one might invent; it will not succeed unless there is sufficient resources at hand to make sure people know about it, be aware of why it's better, and be able to 'break into the market' and consequently outmanuver the competition.

That's very vague. It's technologies that helped the three big TV stations to have trio-poly. It's also technologies that destroyed it. GM and Exxon can't destroy Samsung's leadership in DRAM market regardless of their hundreds of billions of $$$ to invest on whatever they choose.

People and companies will buy more AMD products if AMD offers more value for the same $$$ than Intel. Only technological breakthrough change the the level of equation. I bought some Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs for their performance and energy efficiency, not because AMD or Intel was immoral or moral or political connections or whatever. Yonah for instance is going to be based on 65nm manufacturing processes and will have 2MB shared L2 cache. Such innovations that require long-term investment and sound corporate strategies have helped Intel to grow steadily for the last 30 years or so. You can't do that just by bribing senators and presidents.