I'm dying to hear pluscard spin this one...

"It's your patriotic and holy duty to go buy all the Phenoms you can to keep AMD - without you, there will be only Intel!!!!!111"

smoke and mirrors.

if AMD said things are fine, if AMD said we would be fine with 10% more marketshare would the courts give a crap about them?

of course not.

buying ATI was a bad idea....... lol it's the only positive part of the company at the moment and likely will be the only positive portion of the company for the next 3 years if not longer.

with ATI they can undersell their cpu's while absorbing the cost in the platform and graphics.... AMD's cpu's are currently inferior, the manufacturing processes are inferior, buying ATI changed none of this and AMD never had the resources nor will they likely in the next 10 years to compete directly with Intel in manufacturing...... sad reality forces tough choices.

how many ppl are going to run in circles yelling erroneously that they told us so that ATI is too blame when in reality it was Intel's miscues that handed the performance lead to AMD and it was Intel's miscues that maintained the illusion of AMD's competitiveness....... Intel retook the lead and bounced AMD a full year behind in tech and process in a matter of 18 months...... a full year minimum something AMD will likely never regain until Intel becomes complacent again if ever.

Nvidia may or may not buy AMD in the end...... they couldn't as it stands.... AMD would have to be broken into pieces.... but which pieces have any value and of those pieces who can buy them.........this late in the game is the ATI portion even sellable..... their flash memory isn't worth mention, Intel can't, Nvidia couldn't, IBM likely doesn't want too so that leaves no one worthy of mention or sitting on the resources required..... sticky situation..... technology is terrible and the industry is simply too fickle.

we are all going to get what we deserve in the end which is an Intel monopoly that will crush Nvidia soon after disposing of AMD.

Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but AMD's stock is up big the last couple days: http://www.bigcharts.com/custom/datek-com/datek.asp?expand=int&sid=...&o_symb=amd&symb=amd&x=36&y=18&time=3&compidx=aa...[rts.com]

Whether AMD overpaid for ATI is immaterial. Intel should have bought ATI but they didn't think of it in time. I doubt Intel can buy NVDA. The point is AMD is now delivering a successful platform, and sheer cpu performance is a small part of it. AMD has over 100 design wins for Puma which will be a very successful product for AMD.

Right now, it's all about the antitrust. Intel is facing antitrust investigations in Japan, Korea, the EU, the state of New York, with the AMD civil suit to follow in April 2009. AMD published some of it's evidence and it's incontrovertible - that's what made the stock take off. Intel will be building AMD's next fab, or paying off the debt from the ATI acquisition, whichever way you want to look at it.

My post may sound like speculation today - save it and lets talk in a year.

Plus

An Intel monopoly, now thats a scary thought.

AMD made a terrible mistake, not only in overpaying for ATI, but also in not working with one of their best partners: NVIDIA.

This suit was filed back in 2005 when AMD was on top of the game. What happened now is not what the suit is about. Had AMD gain more marketshare back when A64 was the top dog, they would've had more money to put into K10. I'm not saying AMD themselves aren't to blame, but ATI purchase is crucial in their long-term survival.

Those of you now laughing at AMD will have their grey cells working again by the time AMD is gone - when Intel's prices will rocket up the sky. I know it's an old song that is played over and over again but those of us who owned a "pc" back in the 80s know what this will meen: 25 MHz increases every 6 to 8 months combined with prices that will double or tripple today's easily will not be fun. And with also ATI gone NVIDIA will rethink their aggressive pricing too. The shrinking pc-games market will do the rest.

Perhaps microsoft should buy AMD not Yahoo. =)

And do that threat buying thing then at the last minute walks away... Do it again! I like it!

Ars Technica's article is a little more in-depth. It also includes a response by Intel over the accusations.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080507-amd-intels-misdeeds-k...

AMD needs to start making better processors. A long time has passed since the first Core 2 Duo processors were released by Intel and AMD still hasn't released anything competitive.

If I'm on a tight budget I'd still much rather buy a computer based on a Pentium E2160 just to have an upgrade-path to an E8x00 or Q9x00, rather than spend it on a cheaper AMD-equivalent. I just checked and in fact the E2160 with the cheapest available motherboard is €10 cheaper than an X2 4400+ with the cheapest available motherboard!

That said, my next gfxcard is going to be an AMD/ATI just because I can easily slap on an identical one in the future and use Crossfire since my Intel motherboard has no SLI-support.

Sadly, I need twice as much income to survive.

AMD's ATI buy was a very poor executive decision, and executed as if by MBA novices.
They followed up this bad decision by yet another very bad decision to fully integrate the two companies under the same umbella when AMD itself was full of leaky holes.
Than they manage to lose all of their real executive talent that actually had real skill sets while retaining those who are no more then corporate politicians.
It wouldn't matter if AMD tripled their marketshare. Their present management would do the only thing they do best, find a way to mess it up.

If AMD fails, it will be no one's fault but their poor management. I expect their next step will be to break the company up and sell off the pieces to private equity investors.
The AMD name will live on, but as a totally different entity, perhaps for the best.

AMD needs to fix their processor line if anything. I know ever so often Intel and AMD trade places on who has the fastest, but AMD has been taking their time.

Their Quad cores suck, and their Triple cores are a joke. Even as a hardware enthusiast the Intel's over clock better too.

AMD's argument don't really hold any water... Via is also an x86 supplier but they're not losing nearly as much money as AMD and it looks like Via is in the mist of a huge comeback.

I think the AMD lawsuit is pretty disgraceful.

Whitewash things as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is that AMD has set a precedent for its own behavior that Intel has never set, which makes the prospect of an Intel monopoly sweeter than the prospect of an AMD monopoly.

:| DAAMIT!
</troll>

I'm always rooting for the underdog, but if AMD ends up tanking, it sure as hell wasn't intel's fault. Intel has executed flawlessly, while AMD makes one puzzling move after the other. Here we are, going on 2 years after the ATi buyout, AMD is still struggling while the best platform for their CPUs is made by nVidia. Bravo, Hector!

steps needed for AMD to be successful

step 1: fire Hector Ruiz
step 2: everything else will fall into place

At least here in mexico amd is way better choice than intel, intel cpus and mobos are 30% more expesive than amd ones, and for most people that have a tight budget to buy a pc amd is perfect, maybe amd should focus its market to the basic and middle pc user, many people dont need a bulldozer to crack a nut, they only need a nutcracker...

It's Amd's fault for buying ATi at a rip-off price.

look at the bright side, nv now has a chance to acquire them. and blaming it on intel for a lousy cpu turnout isnt gonna make things better.

The ATI purchase was just folly and they don't have the balls to admit it.

Also, ..."When we screw up as we did in 2007, we expect Intel to only support 80% of the market"