Intelu izrečena rekordna kazen

tako se dela proti monpolnemu polozaju. kazen je vzgojna in primerna. samo upam da bo ta denar namenjen v koristne namene - recimo izobrazevanje in znanstvene raziskave

Intel haha. Tu so sami cigani!
Niso vredni da jih krava oblizne

Če bi v sloveniji padla podobna tožba bi pa vrjetno firma plačala 1000 evrov pa je to to.

Če bi v sloveniji padla podobna tožba bi pa vrjetno firma plačala 1000 evrov pa je to to.

Slovenski ZPOmK-1 je glede vprašanj konkurence usklajen z evropskim pravom. Zloraba prevladujočega položaja je tudi pri nas sankcionirana s kaznijo do 10 % letnega prometa.

No ja, 939 je bilo res odlično podnožje za tisti čas...

vec casa je bil aktualen s462. Nov Socket A je LGA775. LGA775 je priso ven leta 2004 in trenutno ima 80% trga. 775 nova legenda.

Ne spremljam ravno aktivno naše scene, ampak vsake toliko časa pa le bereš da je nek pritisk s strani varuha konkurence (Jani?), če ne v obliki kazni pa v obliki odvzema kakšnih glasovalnih pravic in podobno.

No ja, 939 je bilo res odlično podnožje za tisti čas...

vec casa je bil aktualen s462. Nov Socket A je LGA775. LGA775 je priso ven leta 2004 in trenutno ima 80% trga. 775 nova legenda.

Se strinjam! Sploh ne moreš pričakovati, da ne bo 775 legendarni naslednik, glede na pestro ponudbo, nizke cene in hitrost!

Intel prodaja 80% zaradi uspešnosti skozi zadnja leta. Dvomim, da je storil kaj nelegalnega.

Ni problem spomin, ampak to da človeka, ki si mnenja ne ustvari z argumeni, ne prepričaš z argumenti. Slepa vera ftw.

vec casa je bil aktualen s462. Nov Socket A je LGA775. LGA775 je priso ven leta 2004 in trenutno ima 80% trga. 775 nova legenda.

Err... Socket A je bil za nazaj in naprej kompatibilen praktično od prvega VIA KT133(A) čipseta pa do zadnjih nForce2 U400 in VIA KT880PRO. Intel-ov Socket T oz. LGA775 je doživel 4 fizične spremembe, ki so onemogočale uporabo novejših procesorjev v starejših ploščah. Lep primer - 915 in 925 nista mogla poganjati dvo-jedrnih Pentium D čipov, čeprav sta bila naslednika, 945 in 955, pravzaprav identična 915 in 925.

Short term memory, eh? . Sicer res, da je LGA775 zdaj na trgu dobrih pet let, ampak pomislimo še enkrat, AM2 oz. AM2+ je na trgu isto časa, pa lahko v stare AM2 plate stlačiš celo najsodobnejši Phenom II (primer ASUS M2N-E in nebroj ostalih) , standard pa je povrhu še vnaprej kompatibilen z AM3.

kazen se bo porabila za vse tiste, ki bi radi svoj intelov mlinček zamenjali z amd.jevim. pa seveda za updejt starih amd.jev tudi.

Na žalost AMD nima nobene tovarne in jih tudi ne dela ;)

Edina konkretna inovacija Intela je HT. Vgrajen memory controler imajo like pol desetletja po tem ko ga je AMD začel vdelovat pri Athlonih 64.
Prava x86-64 desktop podpora je bila tud pri AMD-ju (IA-64 namreč to ni). Prvi so naredil pravi dual core in ne zlepljena dva single cora v dvojedrnika.
Tud v času ko je AMD ves čas močno drezal Intel v kurje oko z AthlonXP in Athlon64 procesorji se tržni delež ni bistveno spremenil. Že tle se je videlo da je neki hudo narobe, ker Intel pa le ni bil tolk superioren, da kr ne bi bilo razlike. Pri grafah se je vedno pokazala precejšnja razlika, ko je ena stran začela na kakršenkoli način dominirat.

Kar pa se tiče veselega ukinjanja x86 licence AMD-ju. Seveda vsi skačete v luft kako lahko Intel na tak način zatre AMD. Pozabljate pa da je x86-64 pri Intelu po AMD-jevi zaslugi. Nič x86-64, nič 64bit procesorjev.
In Intel bi se lahko vrnil v kameno dobo kjer bi sistemi imeli lahko samo < 4GB RAMa. In ravno v obdobju ko je 6GB pri njih postal "a must have". Ironično akjne? Zato na to foro ne upajte oz skrbite preveč.

Ne bi se cudu ce so v ameriki taki dogovori mogoce clo legalni...tko al tko majo 10x bl odprto trgovanje in se drzava ne vtika v vsako bedarijo.
Kazen je taka ker smo verjetn tud v Evropi vsi tok broke kot Amerika sam noce noben tega priznat.
Jst osebno ne bi svojih izdelkov prodajal v trgovini, ki bi ob mojih prodajala se konkurencne....ce bi obstajale trgovine, ki bi bile pripravljene prodajat samo moje.Logicno je da zasluzis vec...in ce je treba za to spet placat se zmer ne vidim problema...konkurenca lahko zarad mene naredi isto.Zato pa mamo marketing....naj laufajo in delajo dogovore.
Denar bo sel pa tko al tko v tri krasne.
Bolj zanimivo bi blo vedet ce gre to v kksna EU sredstva in a se to potem razdeli med clanice...

Dasiravno je konkurencno pravo EU rahlo razlicno od ameriskega antitrustovskega, ne gre pozabit, da se je razvoj pricel ravno v ZDA. Tamkajsnja ureditev zna biti se bolj drakonska kot pri nas. Zgolj za ilustracijo: pri nas primarno prekrsek, tam kaznivo dejanje ..

Sicer se mi zdi Rejzorjev post precejsne pretiravanje in potiskanje Intela v drek ampak se mi ne da prerekat.

Me pa zanima, a x86-64 ni superset x86? Torej da brez x86 tudi x64 ne dela?

Ne bi se cudu ce so v ameriki taki dogovori mogoce clo legalni...tko al tko majo 10x bl odprto trgovanje in se drzava ne vtika v vsako bedarijo.
Kazen je taka ker smo verjetn tud v Evropi vsi tok broke kot Amerika sam noce noben tega priznat.
Jst osebno ne bi svojih izdelkov prodajal v trgovini, ki bi ob mojih prodajala se konkurencne....ce bi obstajale trgovine, ki bi bile pripravljene prodajat samo moje.Logicno je da zasluzis vec...in ce je treba za to spet placat se zmer ne vidim problema...konkurenca lahko zarad mene naredi isto.Zato pa mamo marketing....naj laufajo in delajo dogovore.
Denar bo sel pa tko al tko v tri krasne.
Bolj zanimivo bi blo vedet ce gre to v kksna EU sredstva in a se to potem razdeli med clanice...

Saj kot sem jaz razumel situacijo, take ponudbe/dogovori same po sebi nebi bili tako zelo sporni.
Problem nastane ko veš, da ima intel več kot 70% trga (dominanten položaj).

Probi potem ti svoj produkt, ki ga dela tvoja SP firma, prodat na trgu kjer ima neka firma s preko 70% trga, take dogovore kot jih je imel intel. Pa tudi če je tvoj produkt vsaj 3* bolši v vsakem pogledu in pol cenejši (ne govorim o AMDju, da ne bo kakšnih izpadov)

Bolj trezen pristop k "Primeru Intel":

Target: Intel, and Competition
Team Obama adopts the European model on antitrust.
MAY 14, 2009

The world is returning to the 1970s on most economic policies, so why not antitrust too? Judging by events this week, antitrust enforcement in the U.S. and Europe is in for a major comeback, whether or not consumers benefit.

Yesterday in Brussels, the European Commission imposed a record antitrust fine of $1.45 billion on Intel for the heinous crime of discounting computer chips in its fierce and long-running competition with AMD. Meanwhile on Monday, President Obama's new antitrust chief, Christine Varney, issued a radical revision of the Department of Justice's own antitrust enforcement standards. Ms. Varney's ambition seems to be nothing less than bringing Europe's corporatist approach to competition policy to the U.S. To succeed, she will have to flout or overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent on the limits of U.S. antitrust law.

But Ms. Varney can be sure of a friendly ear in Brussels, which has never let go of the idea that competition is best when there isn't much of it. The Commission's attitude is on full display in the fining of Intel for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market for computer processors. For years, Intel and AMD have been essentially the only game in town for computer CPUs. The Commission's complaint amounts to little more than a whinge that Intel won more of this business than the Commission would prefer.

This is couched in dark-sounding talk about Intel paying computer makers not to buy AMD chips. But remember there is only so much demand and there are only two major market players. So any order won by Intel by offering a discount or a rebate is, by definition, an order lost by AMD. And yet the Commission bizarrely claims that "millions of Europeans" have been harmed by this price war.

Intel has been able to sell enough chips cheaply enough to maintain an overall market share that has hovered between 75% and 80% for years. And those lower prices help drive down the price of a computer, which is good for consumers. A less competitive market for chips, or one in which Intel is barred from offering discounts to its biggest customers, would mean higher consumer prices. The Commission also suggests that Intel may have sold some chips below its cost, but Intel denies this and claims it can prove it if the Commission would deign to consider its evidence.

The Commission is, as ever, more focused on preserving competitor welfare above consumer welfare, and Ms. Varney at Justice seems to be promoting a similar approach. The American left likes to advertise itself as pro-consumer. But the curious reality about the left's view of antitrust in both Europe and America is that it is often used to assist big business by dampening competition. This corporatist notion seems to be that companies should compete, so long as no one really loses. Ms. Varney paid lip service to the dangers of protecting competitors when she criticized the National Industrial Recovery Act, ushered in by FDR during the Great Depression. That odious piece of industrial policy blessed price collusion between big firms in exchange for a commitment to keep people employed and share some of the collusive profits with labor.

But in her speech, Ms. Varney tries to cast this anticompetitive act as a form of deregulation. In fact, the NIRA was regulation of the worst sort, protecting competitors from competitive harm in the name of some greater good. True deregulation aims at greater competition, while European (and Rooseveltian) corporatism dampens it. This historical obfuscation allows Ms. Varney to argue that it would be good for competition to adopt something like Europe's "abuse of dominant position" standard in place of the consumer-harm test that currently prevails in the U.S.

Europe's Intel case makes the importance of these different tests very clear. By any reasonable application of a consumer-harm test, the antitrust claim that Intel is driving down prices -- and so making computers less expensive -- would be laughed out of U.S. court. The only harm here is to a competitor that can't match Intel's prices. And even at that, AMD isn't exactly going out of business. At times its market share for consumer desktop CPUs has been as high as 50%, and at its most successful the upper bound has been determined as much by AMD's own manufacturing capacity as by Intel's behavior.

When she announced the judgment against Intel Wednesday, European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes praised Ms. Varney's new approach to antitrust. And no wonder. Regulators love company, and European regulators in particular love it when their American counterparts help them hamstring the most efficient U.S. companies. Why President Obama should want to punish U.S. multinationals is harder to figure since his political success hangs on economic recovery and a revival in business profits and hiring. But perhaps we should conclude that this is merely one more example of the ways in which this Administration is seeking to remake American capitalism in the image of Continental Europe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242263...

@mtosev:

Ja, ma nemoj, imam sam eno takšno ploščo doma - ASRock 775i65GV. Zdaj pa te nekaj vprašam - si slučajno kdaj poganjal Conroea na i865? Mizerija, malodane se P4 bolje obnese. Pa še nekaj - vse te eksotične rešitve, ko so Conroe ali celo Penryn (Wolf/York) + AGP + DDR1/DDR2, so plod izključno enega proizvajalca - ASRock in nikakor niso stalnica, da bi človek rekel: "glejte, York dela i865".

V bistvu niti nima veze, kateri čipset so uporabili. Hec je v reviziji samega Socket T-ja. ASRock 775i65GV, ali nemara 4CoreVSTA sta plošči, ki je izšla vzporedno z izidom platforme P965, torej uporabljajo tazadnjo revizijo socket T-ja. Saj obstaja cel kup LGA775 + i865 plat, pa le ASRockova poganja Pentiume D in Core 2 čipe? Zakaj le

AMD-jeve AM2 plate pa znajo poganjati najnovejši AM3 čip, kot je X3-720 Black Edition ali celo X4 955 BE. Zato torej moj argument, da če bo katerikoli socket postal novi socket-A, bo to verjetno familija AM2->AM2+->AM3.

velike inovacije ima AMD. posebej ko so izdali Phenom CPUje in so nekaterim znizali HTT da se manj grejejo. inovativno in nateg kupca hkrati. bravo AMD.

izkljucno en proizvajalec ane? http://www.newegg.com/product/product.a...

squngy, s čim se ne strinjaš? AMD hoče, da bi bil Intel manj učinkovit in da bi držal cene gor.

Še pomnite, tovariši, po kaki ceni so bili Athlon64 procesorji v letih 2003-2005? Ali res hočete, da bi se Intel držal nazaj?

By any reasonable application of a consumer-harm test, the antitrust claim that Intel is driving down prices -- and so making computers less expensive -- would be laughed out of U.S. court.

Bistri, wsj trdi, da so sporni 'popusti prodajalcem'.

Verjetno le niso na tekocem. Naklepno.

@brane

proci so delali pocasneje, ker so jim HTT znizali.

Daj mi en pameten primer. Jaz na svojem 9950 lahko spustim HTT na pol, pa tega ne bom opazil.

Glede tiste ECS plate, mtosev. You failed to read my post (again... se sploh čudim?). Plata sploh ne podpira Core 2 čipov.

@brane se od amdja: http://techreport.com/articles.x/13741/2

priporocam ogled. linka o HTT performancu zal nisem naso tak da ga ne morem dat.

Ne vem, ali se delaš neumnega ali pač si:
1) tista plata sploh ne podpira Core 2;
2) plate, ki podpirajo Core 2 in so opremljene s čipseti, starejšimi od P965, so plate, ki so izšle sočasno/pozneje kot P965 plate, tako da niso na trgu od leta 2004, ko je izšla prva revizija LGA775.
3) ergo, ne moreš govoriti o nadgradljivosti plate na Core 2 (ne glede na star čipset - slednji v tem primeru v bistvu skorajda nima veze s procesorjem), če je izšla po izidu procesorjev Core 2, kar pa lahko rečeš recimo za AM2.

In kaj ima TLB errata veze s HTTjem? Bože mili. Sicer pa, roko na srce, vsi procesorji imajo tudi po nekaj sto TLB errat, tale na K10 je pač ob določenih pogojih sesula sistem, kar pravzaprav ni opazil nihče. Big deal, prvi Pentium je imel še hujše, tudi Core 2 jih ima cel kup, pa so praktično nezaznavne.