INTEL OEMs "are now allowed" to buy AMD CPUs

mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
edited July 2005 in Science & Tech
If they are now allowed, then that implies that they were NOT allowed before.
The wire claims that Intel has told its OEMs they "are now allowed" to buy AMD microprocessors.

Is this true? First it would imply that Intel told its OEMs they weren't allowed to buy AMD microprocessors in the first place, so making the whole antitrust legal cafuffle in the US redundant. And demonstrating a certain gutlessness on behalf of the OEMs.
Source: The Inquirer

Comments

  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited July 2005
    What's a "cafuffle"? :scratch:
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited July 2005
    GHoosdum wrote:
    What's a "cafuffle"? :scratch:
    A misspelling of a word that can be spelled any way other than the one they used ;D:
    Dictionary.com wrote:
    Definition: disorder, commotion; also written curfuffle, kerfuffle, gefuffle
    To be honest I thought they were just making words up, since it sounds so awesome. But apparently it's a real word! I definitely have to remember to use this one... :D
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited July 2005
    ahh How big of Intel lol
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited July 2005
    Perfect timing. If this doesn't have AMD's lawyers grinning from ear-to-ear I don't know what would.
  • TheBaronTheBaron Austin, TX
    edited July 2005
    I question the truth behind this report
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited July 2005
    I don't.
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited July 2005
    I question anything the inquirer reports.

    However this kind of legal action is not free and I really think that AMD supporters are going to pay for this in the form of higher processor prices, which we are already seeing in the market place. I like AMD but using this to make up for a crappy global marketing scheme and such is kinda lame. If you want a partnership with a company like dell, find a smaller company and help build them up...
  • TheBaronTheBaron Austin, TX
    edited July 2005
    It just sounds rather sensationalist is all I'm saying
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited July 2005
    Have you guys noticed that AMD's market share has been decreasing from its peak in the XP days, pretty much proportionally to their price increases? It must be all Intel's fault! While I prefer AMD CPUs for many reasons, I'd love to see Intel's strong-arm tactics come to an end... but I don't think that Intel's marketing methods have nearly as much to do with AMD's current situation as AMD's changing pricing structure does.
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited July 2005
    Price price price.. I wanna go 64 but just can't justify spending double the price of a mother board for a good cpu. I may just sit another upgrade year out untill the cheaper chips yeild better overclocking potential.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited July 2005
    AMD has been increasing their server market share from what I have seen.
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited July 2005
    mmonnin... I think you hit the nail on the head.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited July 2005
    mmonnin wrote:
    AMD has been increasing their server market share from what I have seen.

    So maybe they should couple their current market strategy for servers with their previous strategy in desktop chips... :thumbsup:
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited July 2005
    Their server market has been growing because they are the only ones with 64-bit support(Dual CPUs and the first with single CPUs), the only ones with true support for more than 4GB of RAM(Dual CPUs), and the only ones with a Dual Core solution(single or MP).

    Intel can match AMD in some of those areas with their Pentium lineup but they are far behind in their server lineup.
Sign In or Register to comment.