AMD and Intel have had their differences. And by differences, we mean Intel engaging in anti-competitive actions that they’ve been found guilty of in the European Union.

But all of this was supposed to come to a close last month, when AMD and Intel buried the hatchet and made up for past offenses. In return for some cash, some good behavior out of Intel, and for Intel to stop trying to block the Global Foundries deal, AMD would drop all of their civil and regulatory complaints against Intel. And that would be the end of Intel’s legal problems with various governments, right? No, as it turns out that’s wrong.

The catalyst for Intel’s legal woes (besides their own actions, obviously) has been AMD complaining to various regulatory boards about anti-competitive actions undertaken by Intel. Based on those complaints, the European Commission, the South Korean FTC, and the American FTC have been investigating Intel for some time now over these alleged actions. Intel has been found guilty and fined in the EU and South Korea (with both cases on appeal) while the American FTC has continued to investigate.

In fact despite the FTC just now suing Intel, this is actually about half-way through the process. The FTC investigation is done, and they have been negotiating with Intel in private for quite some time to get the matter settled. A lawsuit is the next step for the FTC, when those negotiations break down. Those negotiations have in fact broken down, so here we are: the FTC has sued Intel, and the biggest court battle ever for Intel is soon to begin.

What the FTC Accuses Intel of Doing in the CPU Market

As the FTC’s investigation into the matter is already over, they have published a complete list of complaints against Intel which will be the basis of the coming trial. Based on these complaints the FTC case is a significant departure from the EU and South Korean cases, as the FTC is accusing Intel over not only anti-AMD shenanigans early this decade, but of continuing anti-AMD and anti-NVIDIA shenanigans right up to this day.

The Athlon, the processor that's at the root of all of Intel's legal troubles

The case fundamentally breaks down into two halves: what Intel did against AMD in the CPU market, and what they’re continuing to do against AMD and NVIDIA in the GPU market. Let’s start with the CPU-focused complaints:

  1. The usual complaints we’ve seen from the EU. Intel rewarded OEMs to not use AMD’s processors through various means, such as volume discounts, withholding advertising & R&D money, and threatening OEMs with a low-priority during CPU shortages.
  2. Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel’s compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs, our assumption is that this the specific complaint. To our knowledge this has been resolved for quite some time now.
  3. Intel paid/coerced software and hardware vendors to not support or to limit their support for AMD CPUs. This includes having vendors label their wares as Intel compatible, but not AMD compatible.
  4. False advertising. This includes hiding the compiler changes from developers, misrepresenting benchmark results (such as BAPCo Sysmark) that changed due to those compiler changes, and general misrepresentation of benchmarks as being “real world” when they are not.

Interestingly enough, the FTC cites Intel’s reasoning for all of this being that the company was at a competitive disadvantage, and engaged in these actions to buy time to improve their products. The timelines given place specific emphasis on the Athlon (K7) launch in 1999, and the Athlon 64 (K8) launch in 2003. This is a somewhat different take than in past cases, where Intel was merely accused of attempting to keep AMD’s overall market share down rather than specifically bridging performance gaps.

The FTC believes that the effects of all of these actions have (besides limiting AMD): served to drive up CPU prices, driven up CPU distribution costs, limited CPU innovation, harmed AMD’s ability to market CPUs, limited the ability of OEMs to innovate and differentiate their products, and reduced the quality of industry benchmarking.

Ultimately all of the CPU accusations are for things long past; none of the FTC’s CPU-related allegations are for things that have occurred in the last few years. We would not take this as a sign that the FTC is happy with the current market situation, but that they have no proof that they wish to follow up on that would show Intel as having engaged in anti-competitive actions in the CPU market in the last few years. The FTC does want some significant changes at Intel, which we’ll discuss in a bit.

Finally, there’s also the matter of AMD. Since AMD and Intel have settled their matters, AMD is presumably not going to participate in these proceedings as an ally of the FTC. As the FTC is going ahead on these charges, it’s clear that they aren’t worried about what this means for their position.

What the FTC Accuses Intel of Doing in the GPU Market

When we were first reading the FTC’s suit, the thing that caught us entirely off-guard was that it wasn’t merely about anti-competitive actions in the CPU market, but anti-competitive actions in the GPU market as well. While the CPU-related accusations are all for things done well in the past, the GPU accusations are fresh, very fresh. These run right up to today, and include the Larrabee project and the anti-competitive actions Intel has taken in the GPU market both outside and inside that project. To get right to the point, the FTC believes that as things currently stand, Intel is likely to get a monopoly on the GPU market similar to the one that they have on the CPU market, and that this monopoly will be created by abusing their CPU monopoly.

In the complaints about the GPU market, both NVIDIA and AMD are mentioned as being the primary competitors for Intel. The bulk of the complaints however are related to NVIDIA and their chipset business, as while AMD stands to be harmed too by an Intel GPU monopoly, it’s NVIDIA that stands to be the most harmed. In effect Intel has finally gotten AMD off their back for CPU matters, only to now have NVIDIA on their back for GPU matters.

The GeForce 9400M: Intel's chief competitor in the integrated graphics market and a threatened product line

Just to note where things stand, the FTC already estimates that Intel has approximately 50% of the GPU market. This is consistent with the vast number of Intel IGP-equipped computers that are on the market. Depending on how you intend to count various user bases, this stands to grow in the future as Intel puts their IGP GPUs first on-chip, and then on-die with their CPUs.

The basis of the FTC’s complaint here is that they believe Intel is threatened by the rise of GPUs as programmable computing devices, and that using them in GPGPU situations threatens Intel by making CPUs less important (something NVIDIA has been trying to play for ages) and as a result less profitable. The FTC argues that Intel is seeking to establish a monopoly here to maintain their overall control of (and high margins in) the computing market.

As for the specific complaints:

  1. Intel eliminated the future threat of NVIDIA’s chipset business by refusing to license the latest version of the DMI bus (the bus that connects the Northbridge to the Southbridge) and the QPI bus (the bus that connects Nehalem processors to the X58 Northbridge) to NVIDIA, which prevents them from offering a chipset for Nehalem-generation CPUs.
  2. Intel “created several interoperability problems” with discrete CPUs, specifically to attack GPGPU functionality. We’re actually not sure what this means, it may be a complaint based on the fact that Lynnfield only offers single PCIe x16 connection coming from the CPU, which wouldn’t be enough to fully feed 2 high-end GPUs.
  3. Intel has attempted to harm GPGPU functionality by developing Larrabee. This includes lying about the state of Larrabee hardware and software, and making disparaging remarks about non-Intel development tools.
  4. In bundling CPUs with IGP chipsets, Intel is selling them at below-cost to drive out competition (given Intel’s margins, we find this one questionable. Below-cost would have to be extremely cheap).
  5. Intel priced Atom CPUs higher if they were not used with an Intel IGP chipset.
  6. All of this has enhanced Intel’s CPU monopoly.

The FTC believes that all of this will help Intel to establish a GPU monopoly. This is on top of all other effects of Intel’s actions, which are similar to the effects of their actions in the CPU market: driving up GPU prices, driving up GPU distribution costs, limited OEM differentiation, and limited GPU innovation.

There’s also one last complaint unrelated to GPUs, which has to do with standards.

  1. Intel used their market position to delay AMD and NVIDIA’s implementations of USB and HDCP by refusing to make the specifications accessible until Intel’s products were ready. We know that there has been some strife among Intel and virtually everyone else over Intel dragging its heels on the USB3 specification, but it’s not clear if this complaint is about that.
Intel's Response & What The FTC Wants


View All Comments

  • LaughingTarget - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    Forgot something. Monopolies are not inherently bad. A monopoly that is formed because the entity provides a product or service that is so good, so cheap, that no one can hope to compete is good for the people. If there aren't any regulations on the market (like anti-trust for instance), entering to compete against this monopoly will be easy should they cease offering a decent product, hike prices, and/or treat workers poorly. Nothing is blocking someone else from coming in. Natural monopolies tend to go out of business because they end up paying workers too much and keeping prices too low in efforts to avoid competition. How anyone can think of this as bad is beyond me.

    The only bad monopolies are those protected by government force. If we believe Intel is moving into a monopoly position, we need to identify why. If it's because they make a good product people want, let it be. If it's because our national governments have become so onerous to businesses that competing against the big guys is too expensive, maybe we should reevaluate our laws, tax system, and regulatory structure.

    In either case, it isn't Intel's fault for doing this. Either it's good for us or our governments tax and regulate too much. Don't blame Intel for making most of the rules and conditions set by powers beyond their control.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I'd like to add that especially in the computing world, there is a strong natural push towards a monopoly.
    Is it really a coincidence that both the hardware (x86) and the software (Windows) completely dominate the market?
    I don't think so. The market demands compatibility and interoperability. As soon as one technology reaches 'critical mass', it becomes so entrenched in the market that you're locked-in seemingly forever.
    AMD was smart enough to realize this to a certain extent, and decided to fight for an x86 license, and won. Virtually all non-x86 CPU manufacturers have long been wiped out.
    But how are you ever going to win the battle, if you have to pay royalties to your main competitor over every product you make?
    You aren't as big and powerful as Intel to start with, how will you ever reverse that situation?
  • karielash - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    There is a strong push to a compliant world with common standards. Hence the domination of standard hardware and software. That does not mean a world dominated by a single supplier, your claims that one supplier should dominate demonstrates a remarkably (and somewhat laughable) naivety.

    AMD signed a cross licensing agreement with Intel in 1976, this was extended in 1982, the only fighting that was done is when Intel tried to illegally (according to the court) prevent AMD from manufacturing products under a legal contract between the companies.

    AMD cross license now includes technology developed by AMD being used in Intel CPU's, they are both mutually dependent and rely upon each others patents to extend their current technology.">
  • Taft12 - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    There are so many errors in your post, it is hard to decide where to begin. The "strong natural push" toward a monopoly is what the FTC is there for! We do not have "unbridled capitalism" in this country or anywhere because the bad outweighs the good. Competition is necessary.

    Growing market share from Apple, Linux, ARM refutes your claim that critical mass cannot be reversed.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The 'push' coming from the market I meant, not from Intel or Microsoft.
    FTC shouldn't do anything about that. It's a majority vote.

    Apple and Linux have been struggling for decades, and still have not reached critical mass. If anything, they prove it's futile to try and resist. They certainly don't prove that you can reverse Microsoft's dominant position.

    Oh, and next time, skip the personal attacks like "there are so many errors in your post, blahblah". It doesn't exactly make your arguments any stronger.
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    I have two issues with the Intel Compiler complaints:
    1) Yes, I know for a fact that it originally generated SSE/SSE2 code which only worked when the CPUID instruction returned "GenuineIntel" as a brand name.
    How you interpret that fact is another matter though. AMD didn't have SSE/SSE2 support yet at this point. So any CPU that wasn't Intel, couldn't run the code anyway. Intel couldn't guarantee the compatibility of future SSE/SSE2 implementations from other vendors either.
    I personally never used the "GenuineIntel" string, I only looked at the MMX/SSE/SSE2 bits, because that should be the 'correct' way to determine these features... But I can understand why Intel would only enable them on their own CPUs. After all, I'm an independent software developer, and Intel is a CPU manufacturer.
    The motive is not necessarily 'foul play'.

    2) It is the Intel Compiler, the name says it all. It is written by Intel, for Intel products. Intel has no responsibility to other vendors whatsoever with this product, Intel has never made any claims or guarantees about performance on competing products.
    The responsibility is completely with software vendors, if they decide to use the Intel Compiler for their products. They could just as easily have used a more neutral compiler, such as the Microsoft Compiler or gcc. It is the vendor's choice, not Intel's.
    I don't see why Intel wouldn't be allowed to make a compiler for their CPUs. And I also don't see why Intel would be responsible for how developers decide to use their compiler, which may or may not benefit CPUs other than Intels. Perhaps the developers weren't interested in anything other than Intel CPUs anyway. It happens.

    I see a parallel with nVidia's CUDA, and the software that's now trickling in, like games with PhysX acceleration, virus scanners, Adobe products etc.
    Yes, they only work on nVidia hardware, so it's 'not fair' to other GPU brands... but you can't blame nVidia for that. The developers knew (or should have known) what they were getting into and chose to support only nVidia.
  • Radnor - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The thing is CUDA, is a proprietary, NVIDIA developed technology. The fact that is exclusive to Nvidia is because nobody bought a license for it. So, no harm no foul.

    x86 is a standard and it is licensed to more partners. I believe the point with the Intel C++ compiler, isn't that it gives advantag to Intel Hardware, but mainly because it was forced to software developers. Lets wait and see in this point.
  • blaster5k - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    The vast majority of developers on Windows use Microsoft Visual Studio -- not the Intel compiler. It's hardly "forced". I'd guess that it's market share is pretty low actually. Reply
  • Scali - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link

    x86 was a proprietary, Intel developed technology, until AMD managed to persuade a court to force Intel to license the technology back in 1991. Before that, it was no different from CUDA.
    Even though Intel is forced to license it to other companies, it's still Intel's instructionset, and Intel is the one who controls the licenses. It was never meant to be a multi-vendor standard, and Intel has never considered it a multi-vendor standard either. They never speak about AMD at all.
    Again I point out the obvious: It's the Intel Compiler. The brochure specifically talks about Intel platforms.
    It doesn't say anything about 'any x86 platform' let alone 'AMD'. It's a compiler BY Intel, FOR Intel. Intel has never claimed otherwise.
    Compare it to Mac OS X. It runs on x86 processors, but it's not meant for 'any x86 system'. Apple sells it as an OS for their hardware. You can't sue Apple because you managed to install OS X on your non-Apple hardware, and now the performance, stability or compatibility are not as good as on Apple hardware. It's not Apple's fault that you installed it on unsupported hardware.

    I don't see how Intel could force their compiler on any developer. Are you implying that Intel has men in black who visit developers and put a gun to their heads, saying "You will use our compiler, or else..."?
    I don't see it. Intel may be able to muscle OEMs a bit, because they depend on Intel's supply and Intel's pricing. But what leverage could Intel possibly have over any developer?
  • karielash - Friday, December 18, 2009 - link

    Your dreaming. Intel licensed the original x86 design to AMD who were to be a secondary supplier to IBM in 1982 (single source products were frowned upon by IBM) the court forced Intel to stand up to their commitment in 1993 and agreed that the 386 was an extension of the original x86 design and was covered by the license agreement allowing ADM to continue to manufacture x86 CPU's.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now