Intel: Don't use Via P4 chipset 145
RoofusPennymore writes "Intel is warning not to use the Via chipset that lets the P4 use DDR SDRAM."
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin
No problem Intel, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:1)
But to stay on topic, how in the holy hell does VIA plan on getting away with this? Give Intel the silent treatment? Fortify their headquarters from the Fed? Not to mention that DDR RAM can still rip a person a new asshole.
*can't wait to order his ABit KG7-Raid and AYHJA Stepping TBird*
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anyone know?
Dancin Santa
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:3, Informative)
Both SDRAM and DDR are dirt cheap these days. From www.crucial.com:
256 megs DDR module, $38 ($42 for ECC)
256 megs SDRAM module CAS3, $36 (add $2 for CAS2)
256 megs SDRAM module ECC, CAS2, $40
Shipping is often free (it is right now).
This is for a good brand with good warranty, too.
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:1)
To prove my point this time, cheapest I found RDRAM for a 256MB chip was $81.
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:1)
Re:No problem Intel, (Score:1)
512 megs SDRAM module CAS3, $50.
The nature of Intel's relationship with Rambus (Score:2)
Re:The nature of Intel's relationship with Rambus (Score:1)
Dancin Santa
Re:The nature of Intel's relationship with Rambus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The nature of Intel's relationship with Rambus (Score:2)
And the only way that Rambus stock certificates will be worth more than their scrap paper value is if Intel can create a situation where people have to buy Rambus memory from no one but Rambus at whatever price Rambus wants to charge.
Of course if enough people decide that they can get the same performance with AMD and regular DIMMs for less money or more preformance for the same money then Intel and Rambus could both be out of luck. However with most people getting their CPU buying advice from Blue Man Group or the Bunny People, it'll take a lot of work (i.e., expensive advertising) by AMD and/or a "known name" box maker like Compaq, Dell, Gateway, or IBM to educate the masses enough to really put the screws to Intel and Rambus.
Re:The nature of Intel's relationship with Rambus (Score:1)
Surprised (Score:2, Funny)
Not licensed? (Score:1)
<br><br>
Well, maybe, but I don't see how they could be legally prevented from doing so.
<br><br>
kiscica
Clarification (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way, HTML preview seems to be broken now.
kiscica
Re:Clarification (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, I think this is a really stupid move on Intel's part, The only reason they would be doing it is because of some agreement they still have with Rambus.
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
BTW - HTML Preview works fine, it's just that the dropdown defaults to "pain text" now, so you have to change it to HTML formatted.
Why bother with a P4? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why bother with a P4? (Score:1)
Well I'll be... (Score:2)
...you mean someone will finally pay what this bs chip is worth? What a shame that'll be!
Via and AMD certainly aren't having the same problems.
Re:Well I'll be... (Score:2)
Aww crud, and I was... (Score:2, Funny)
I forget where I read it, but no doubt it spawned from a link here, but the last 3 chips Intel has made have been a) massively overpriced for the power, and b) the same chip.
Re:Aww crud, and I was... (Score:1)
Re:Aww crud, and I was... (Score:1)
From a builder's standpoint, you'd ask 'Why do they even bother making chips.' But the problem is the public knows about Intel. That's the company that has the neat sticker on my computer, and has those strange blue men in their commercials. The public likes Intel, and probably haven't even heard of the viable competitors.
Re:Aww crud, and I was... (Score:1)
I just wanted to set you straight, that's the purpose, is the 64bit computing, and insane registers and EPIC and stuff like that. I think Sledgehammer will be a better solution though.
Re:Aww crud, and I was... (Score:1)
People are wowed by gigahertz and press releases. More so by ghz. Intel's leading there, though we all know it means crap.
Amen, brother...
However, with the Itanium, it's a new model, 64-bit processor. That breaks compatibility with everything else, so everything need to bre recompiled.
No, Itanium isn't backward-compatible, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be. Any of Sun's 64-bit UltraSPARCs can run any program compiled for a 32-bit SPARC machine just fine. And if you're looking for a 64-bit machine--or any server, for that matter--why not just get a Sun? These days, they cost about the same as comparably-performing Intels; the UltraSPARC is a better-designed, more scalable, and more reliable processor (no bugs at all... contrast Intel's microcode workarounds); and Solaris even runs GNOME <g>.
Oh, and by the way... AFAIK, the Itanium will run well with at the most 32 processors (at least that's what XP Datacenter or whatever it's called is supposed to support). An E10k setup can run one image on 1024 processors...
Re:Aww crud, and I was... (Score:2, Informative)
Intel shouldn't do this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Intel shouldn't do this... (Score:2)
Re:Intel shouldn't do this... (Score:2)
Via won't hand over half their profits over to Intel because they claim that in their acquisition of S3, they also inherited the license to the bus allowing them to interface with the P4. Seeing as how Intel is a public company, their sidestepping suing Via suggests they reluctantly agree with them.
Of course they are.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Of course they are.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Of course they are.. (Score:2)
At least one claim was that the S3 licensing agreement only applies do graphics chips and/or chipsets with integrated graphics.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this works out. My guess is that Intel is trying to stall this until their SDRAM chipset comes out, and doesn't expect/plan to kill it off entirely. Perhaps there will be some midnight licensing deal where Intel accepts much lower royalties than they had originally asked for (something like $20+/chipset) -- that would open up the market and speed P4 acceptence, while still saving face for Intel, and not set any dangerous (to Intel) precedents about enforcing patents.
Re:Of course they are.. (Score:3, Informative)
Intel Just Jealous (Score:5, Informative)
Because they can't outperform Via [theinquirer.net]. Thus... just like their partner, Rambus, counter attack with lawsuit. What a classic. Meanwhile, Via has a very strong case [theinquirer.net], too.
Some bits here [anandtech.com] and here [anandtech.com] at Anandtech [anandtech.com], and there is another one [earthweb.com] at Hardware Central [earthweb.com]. Then, here [tomshardware.com] and here [tomshardware.com] at Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com].
All says: Via Rocks, Intel sucks. I'll leave it to you to judge.
Re:Intel Just Jealous (Score:2)
Uh, have you actually looked at the Anandtech article about the Via P4/DDR chipset? Intel's i850 (RDRAM) chipset outpferoms Via's DDR chipset on every benchmark.
Re:Intel Just Jealous (Score:2)
Their SDRAM chipset was 20% or so behind VIA's chipset in almost all of the benchmarks, except where it fell farther behind.
So no, Intel's SDRAM chipset can't stay anywhere near VIA's SDRAM chipset. In fact, Intel's chipset fell farther behind than would be expected from ram bandwidth itself, leading to speculation that they intentionally crippled the chipset, so as to not take away sales from the more expensive product. (They've frequently done this, 486SX, Celeron 2, etc)
Face it, Intel currently has the slowest chipsets, and the slowest CPUs. The fastest x86 out there is an Athlon 1400 with DDR.
They tried this same vaguely threatened lawsuit trick against mobo makers when they were first coming out with Athlon boards. Intel and MS, can't compete with products, have to do it in court.
Re:Intel Just Jealous (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Intel Just Jealous (Score:1)
Microsoft Says Do Not Use Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
..............sigh
Go ahead. (Score:3, Troll)
Buy the VIA chipset. You should jump on it quick though. In a month or two, VIA will be so buried in legal paperwork that they won't be able to put a resistor in a box without a court injunction. It's really too bad that Intel can't let this slide, but I'm guessing that Intel and Rambus(t) have been in bed together so long that someone forgot where the key to the handcuffs is. Some Intel CPO woke up one day to find himself gagged and bent over a box, and his lawyers told him they couldn't do anything, but that they'd take some pictures to remind him in the future that KY and a condem aren't all that's needed in the corporate world.
</speculation>
Boo hoo (Score:1)
Oh no, somebody call the WAAAAAHHHHHmbulance.
A couple thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, I wouldn't believe either side yet. Lawyers have a tendency to slightly over-react. If motherboards come out and you get one, don't worry about it. You won't be liable for using the supposed "renegade" technology. Of course, IANAL, so everything I said was a lie.
3 boxes in my home office. All Athlons. I don't dislike Intel; I just dislike Intel's pricing.
Re:A couple thoughts (Score:1)
... I am not a lawyer, so everything I said was a lie... wow, that's a ironic.
Re:A couple thoughts (Score:1)
Yeah, sue them! (Score:2, Funny)
I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, at least, I think it's just that Intel got a little egg on their face and is now trying to use their muscle to halt it.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
The chipset Intel is planning on releasing this year is one that uses standard SDRAM, which, IMO is total BS as the whole P4 architecture relies on high memory bandwidth, which standard SDRAM cannot provide. With SDRAM, Pentium 4's are not likely to perform any better than lower-clocked P3's.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
With SDR SDRAM, the P4 is essentially useless. I have no idea why Intel is bothering to make it use this. Especially before the DDR ones. MAYBE at the same time, for people who want P4 for no reason other than marketing and bragging rights (who needs to know what kind of ram you have), but certainly don't release it beforehand.. ugh.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
Intel plans on releasing a chipset that supports DDR DRAM within a month or so ANYWAY, so whats the point of this fight? Does Intel make MORE money licensing the chipsets that use their processors then the processors themselves?
To me, at least, I think it's just that Intel got a little egg on their face and is now trying to use their muscle to halt it.
PLEASE read the article! The issue has nothing to do with the speed of DDR SDRAM, it has to do with the fact that VIA supposedly doesn't have the proper licensing from Intel, and there could be legal battles. This is a purely legal/business issue, not a technical one.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Troll)
I find it sad (Score:1)
I want open source software and hardware. I don't expect them to release the silicon schematics, but I at the very least expect them to give enough information to let me hack away at it (remember IBM's purple book?), free of the sort of "licensing" that they seem to be pushing onto people.
And the "warning to potential buyers of potential legal action" reeks of (take your pick) M$/RIAA/MPAA.
Time to boycott Intel.
Re:I find it sad (Score:1)
Agreed. And in this case, it's actually possible to boycott them without sawing off one's own nose to spite one's face
AMD [amd.com] have consistently made cheaper products than Intel, and for the past few years, they've made better products than Intel as well. When you can buy a CPU that performs better than Intel's offerings and costs less, it's hard not to boycott Intel.
I've owned AMD-based PCs and I've seen plenty of benchmarks. I know benchmarks get skewed in whichever direction the reviewer wants them to go, but my own experience tells me the K7 (Athlon, if you insist on brand names
Banjo Bug? (Score:1)
License to be compatible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to clarify the headline: Intel is not "warning" people that using the VIA chipset is dangerous -- that it might harm their Pentium 4 processors -- but rather that they wish it were illegal. A quote from the article:
Mr. Malloy and his superiors apparently believe that they have "intellectual property" not only in their patents, but also in devices they may have never seen which interoperate with their patents. I believe that this idea was settled in Nintendo v. Galoob [uconn.edu], the "Game Genie" case, in which Galoob's right to create a device that interoperated with the NES game console (and which modified the behavior of the latter, no less!) was upheld.
Re:License to be compatible? (Score:1)
simplest solution.. (Score:1)
What a surprise! (Score:2)
A VIA chipset that sucks! Now that surprises me!
</sarcasm>
Should be safe to ignore (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel and Playing Hardball? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd give Via the benefit of the doubt, considering that Intel is still flapping their gums about how good RDRAM is, even after Craig Barrett put Rambus down. [eetimes.com]
Meanwhile, Rambus failure to overturn on appeal the SDRAM fraud charge is blowing up in their face with a slough of shareholder class action suits. [yahoo.com]
Bad move by Intel (Score:1)
On another note:
"They are not licensed to sell products that are compatible with the Pentium 4," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.
Sense when can they do this? If I want to make and sell intake manifolds I suer hope there is'nt some fucked up law that forces me to get ford's premission first.
Warning: My competitors eat boogers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I am not going to say anything about Intel's products, but it is REALLY grasping a straws when the only ammunition you have is whining to your clients that your cheaper, quicker, and more savvy competition may not have it's licensing in order...
Re:Warning: My competitors eat boogers! (Score:1)
Well, at least this is confined to Intel. Because obviously Microsoft would never use these tactics to put down Linux, oh no... ;-)
Better call the BSA (Score:1)
"Do you have licenses for these Pentium 4 chipsets?"
"Licenses for my hardware??"
"I can offer you a Pentium 4 site license for 20% off right now, or I take you and all your employees to pound-me-in-the-ass prison."
What did you expect? (Score:1)
This is just a friendly warning (Score:1)
Really, this is just Intel being a nice corporate citizen and warning other companies of a possible downside they could have neglected to consider.
Don't you like it when companies are so helpful?
Just Another Point of View... (Score:1)
But, as someone whose last three out of four computers (and probably next one) have been AMD Athl/Dur-on computers, let me just give a slightly different twist on this. I have had HUGE problems with VIA chipsets, on both AMD and Intel platforms. Quite frankly, they are just not quality products. They have ridiculously bad USB support, sub-par stability, and tons of other little things that drive me NUTS.
I would also like to point out that unlike many other chipset makers, VIA specifically optimizes their chipsets' drivers for Microsoft OS use. Generally speaking, this means that you always have to use the absolute latest Linux kernel in order for even somewhat good chipset support.
Given VIA's track record, Intel's advice seems completely logical: VIA cares more about getting a chipset out than making sure it's a quality product.
In other words, if you're in the market for a P4/DDR combo, I implore you to wait for Intel, SiS, or ALi to release their chipsets, as VIA's track record (particularly in new techologies) is...less than great.
Just another stupid move (Score:3, Troll)
Let's see now...
The Pentium FPU error recall debacle.
The PII/PIII serial number "Big Brother Inside" disaster.
And now this. And never mind the fact that, when you buy Intel, you get the honor of paying more for less performance. What a joke. Has it never occurred to these corporate idiots that they're losing market share?
And in case anyone from Intel is reading this... Hey guys, there's a reason your numbers are declining: many people don't find your products competitive anymore. You might have been able to get away with such tactics five years ago, but not anymore. I'm running a K6-II right now, and if there was ever a miniscule chance that I'd have purchased an Intel chip in the future or even recommended one to someone else, it's gone now.
Re:Just another stupid move (Score:2)
OK Mr. Troll, we see you. Now crawl back under your rock.
But I just have to ask. What do you find wrong with a K6-II, especially considering the fact that I bought it when it was the fastest chip out there? It does the job, so I don't feel the need to upgrade every six months just to spend money. And when I do upgrade, I'll be getting a Thunderbird, which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the market Intel is after. But since you never bothered to consider these things, you wouldn't have known, now would you?
There's history here. (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't know, the only reason PC133 exists (as a PC standard DRAM type) is because of VIA. Flashback to early 1999: Intel had the market for chipsets (for Intel processors) almost completely to itself, riding on the enormously successful 440BX chipset, which used PC100. However, P3 speeds were ramping up while memory speeds had been stuck at PC100 for a couple years. The obvious thing to do was to update the BX to support a 133MHz FSB. After all, it was a dead-simple engineering trick (every BX mobo at the time could easily overclock to 133; many were stable up to 150), and the memory makers were already making SDRAM which could safely run at 133 but clocking at 100 because that was the highest official speed.
But instead--and unbeknownst to most of the techie world at that point--Intel had a contract with Rambus which offered them many goodies like the ability to make RDRAM controllers royalty-free (others paid up to 5%) and lots and lots of stock options. However, the contract was contingent on, among other things, Intel agreeing to do everything reasonably in their power to prevent "next-generation DRAM" types other than RDRAM from being paired with Intel processors for the consumer desktop. "Next-generation" was defined as > 1GB/s bandwidth.
PC133 has a bandwidth of 1.066 GB/s.
Moreover, Intel *thought* it was putting the finishing touches on the ill-fated RDRAM-only (at that point) i820 (Camino) chipset, with which they were going to introduce new and badly needed 133MHz FSB P3s. Instead, engineering delays involving the difficulties of getting RDRAM working (eventually they had to settle for only 2 RIMM slots instead of the original 3, a per-channel limitation which remains to this day), and the difficulties of getting a memory translator hub which allowed PC100 to be used on the i820 (a last minute addition when they realized people weren't exactly going to pay $500 for 128MB of RAM) working, pushed the release date back 6 months or so, until November.
Just to reiterate: Intel put off releasing 133MHz FSB P3s, and then when they did release them said that consumers could only use them with a buggy chipset, limited to 2 RAM slots, which offered one's choice of an extra-slow translated implementation of PC100 or of RDRAM which cost 10 times as much per bit as SDRAM. Meanwhile, tests with BX chipsets overclocked to 133 MHz FSB showed that this solution was significantly *faster* than the i820 + RDRAM chipset!
Into this world stepped VIA offering the Apollo133 chipset, the first P3 chipset explicitly designed to use PC133. Nevermind that it was probably *less* stable than an Intel BX overclocked to 133 MHZ FSB. Nevermind that it underperformed the BX@133 as well. And nevermind that then, as now, Intel sued VIA with all their might, among other things requesting injunctions forbidding all VIA products from leaving Taiwan. (The pretext then was that VIA was abusing Intel IP by using the P3 bus with a DRAM type Intel had not sanctioned.)
VIA quickly gained > 50% of the P3 chipset market.
Indeed, the only reason you see ALi, SiS, and soon-to-be nvidia and others getting into the 3rd-party chipset market is because VIA paved the way a couple years ago.
Intel tried every FUD tactic in the book, from suing in multiple jurisdictions to claiming that PC133 SDRAM was not stable (the DRAM itself! And this from the company which had spent the past year patching bugs with RDRAM!). Intel got their ass handed to them in court, and by in the summer of 2000 introduced the i815, essentially the BX@133 product they should have introduced in late 1998.
Intel doesn't like getting humiliated, though, and they've had a seemingly personal vandetta against VIA ever since. In retaliation, they denied VIA the chance to license the P4 bus, as ALi and SiS and (interesting) ATi have done. (This is the basis for the current *threatened* suits. However, it's interesting to note that the P4X266 is currently shipping and no suits have yet been filed, meaning this is probably just a bluff on Intel's part.)
Intel reps were even seen at the recent Comdex show threatening mobo makers who had VIA promotional balloons flying at their booths. All the balloons were taken by the Intel people.
However, Intel's case this time is as flimsy as last. Disregarding potential antitrust concerns, the fact remains that NatSemi, whom VIA recently purchased *did* have a license for the P4 bus, and thus so does VIA.
So does this mean VIA will have similar success as last time? Well, I think they'll easily prevail in court if it comes to that, although it appears that Intel may be playing this one all FUD and no bite: warning mobo manufacturers not to use the P4X266 rather than actually filing any lawsuits. While of course not stated in the article, the well-documented fact [realworldtech.com] is that Intel is telling the mobo makers that if they use the VIA chipset they will have their allocation of Intel's SDRAM (and soon-to-be DDR) P4 chipset, the i845, curtailed or dropped altogether. The result will likely be that only the third-tier mobo makers, who probably wouldn't have gotten a Brookdale allotment anyways, will be using the P4X266.
But another reason VIA won't snap up the P4 chipset market is much more hopeful. SiS' DDR Athlon chipset, the 735, has earned rave reviews, significantly beating every other chipset around. Their upcoming 635 chipset for the P4 will offer all that and more, including support for 333MHz DDR (PC 2700) which is coming down the pipeline now.
And they *do* have a P4 license.
Re:There's history here. (Score:2)
Re:There's history here. (Score:2)
Re:There's history here. (Score:2, Informative)
(Disclaimer: I work for National Semi, and all of this information is available in public press releases.)
Re:There's history here. (Score:3, Informative)
VIA's dealings with NatSemi were the above-mentioned buyout of Cyrix IP, plus VIA contracted NatSemi to do manufacturing of their Pentium 3 chipsets after Intel revoked VIA's P6 bus license.
Licencing, P4 bundles with Rdram, and stupid Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
I also have a question for those in the US. Can you buy single P4 chipsets without Rdram? When P4 came out here they only sold them with Rdram bundles, but now they actually sell P4s and their RDrams seperately. What they do is take out the Rdram that came in a P4 box and sell them seperately. I wonder if that's legal...
BTW, I am actually beginning to hate Intel. I never liked them since I have known about AMD and some of Intel's monopolisctic tactics but it gets very annonying to hear them sue or slander some other company or technology every week.
I know it's sort of meaningless to ask legal questions on /. but I'll ask anyway: Could I for example build a fan specificly designed for P4s without Intel's consent? Would I get sued? Just because Intel has filed patents?! I mean Via must have produced its own cpu interface for P4. Other than that, it's just the number and the layout of the CPU pins they are using. Intel's gonna sue Via because of this?!!? Can somebody explain?
Re:Licencing, P4 bundles with Rdram, and stupid In (Score:1)
Micron is having a similar problem to Via, where Intel is trying to stop a chipset of theirs which is currently under development.
MM
--
Re:Licencing, P4 bundles with Rdram, and stupid In (Score:2)
Yes, and it would be an ilegal tied sale if Intel tried to require it.
Intel seem to have screwed up really badly here. RDRAM is going to remain expensive, not least because RAMBUS is suing all the fabs with their smurfed SDRAM 'patent'.
A billion dollars of RAMBUS stock may sound a lot but that is nothing to losing 2% of market share to AMD. It appears to me that Intel have stalled the P4 range entirely with this deal.
Plus the RAMBUS stock that Intel will get is probably worth much less than a billion dollars right now, after the SDRAM fraud finding RAMBUS has been in free fall - remember that the judge only reversed some of the fraud findings and did not reverse the non infringement ruling.
The genius that made this mess probably gets paid several million a year with millions of options on top. After this fiasco he probably wishes they were puts not calls.
The stats don't lie..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Rambus has already sued just about every memory manufacturer for some reason or another, if Intel sues Mobo Manf. and VIA, that would look real good for the guys who started the whole rambus intel deal. Ok, we put out an inferior product that was away from the main streem and natural flow of the industry, no body bought it because it cost 3 times what everything else on the market did. It offered no real performance gain and it ended up getting us in littigation with half of the hardware companies in the country.
I would say that was pretty successful, wouldn't you?
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
So the problem is? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So the problem is? (Score:2, Insightful)
My meter for "be careful, somebody's trying to pull a fast one" now trips when the discussion's terminology gets "Intellectual Property" added to it. There is no such thing in the law.
There are legal mechanisms for patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trade marks, service marks (and a few others), but none of these legal mechanisms are as strong or complete as those laws related to real property. And that's as intended; real property and intellectual creations have very different characteristics.
People who are pushing the term "intellectual property" into arguments often are indicating their desire to make the legal controls[1] over information creations to be as strong or stronger than those over tangible property. So that not only means eliminating fair use and expiry, but also the creation of new categories of government control mechanisms for those things that inconveniently don't fit into the existing legal structures.
[1](Note "controls"; "protections" is another attempt to shift the terms of the debate.)
Re:So the problem is? (Score:1)
MM
--
Article translation (Score:5, Funny)
Intel, as part of dirty tricks against competitor Via, released anti-Via messages in the media thinly diguised as a public service warning, alerting consumers to the alarmingly lower costs of its competitor's products.
Intel claims that Via does not have the necessary licensing for its Apollo P4X266 chip set.
An Intel executive somehow decided it would be helpful to their profits to inform the public that Via concerns itself with manufacturing products rather than getting into bed with Intel.
Intel representatives have privately cautioned PC and motherboard manufacturers in the United States and overseas against using the product, saying it could draw them into a costly legal battle, said sources with some of those companies.
Determined to go all the way with the bad press, Intel threatened prospective corporate clients of their competitor with legal action if they used the more efficient product.
Intel has repeatedly taken Via to court over licensing disputes and is currently is pursuing a lawsuit involving chip sets designed by Via for use with Athlon processors made by rival chip maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
Intel has a history of fighting its competition in the courtroom rather than in the marketplace.
According to Intel, Rambus offers the best performance.
Intel apparently considers itself credible enough to offer "impartial" advice to consumers.
Pricing has become a key issue this year as Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif., and PC makers struggle through an industrywide slump.
Intel is nervous and jumpy about this, despite claims inferring that Via produces an inferior product.
Amid weaker-than-expected sales of the Pentium 4, Intel has announced it will release an SDRAM chip set next month and a DDR product early next year.
Intel's numbers are down and it's looking to point fingers. Intel itself plans to use similar manufacturing techniques to those it defames, but can't get them into the marketplace as fast as its competition.
But with Via releasing its DDR chip set now, the company, which holds about a 35 percent share of the world chip set market, stands to reap financial rewards by beating Intel to the market by several months.
Whereas Via has all their ducks in a row, stands to profit from it, and Intel doesn't like it, opting for a smear campaign.
Following Via's announcement this week, Intel claimed the company is not authorized to sell the product.
Lacking in actual facts against Via's product, Intel simply repeated the same gripes over again to pad out the press release.
"They are not licensed to sell products that are compatible with the Pentium 4," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.
And over again.
Mulloy would not say whether Intel was warning its business partners to avoid using Via's product, saying only that "those discussions are typically very private."
Intel refused to admit to telling companies the same thing behind closed doors that it's currently telling the public in a national press release, describing it as a very private matter.
However, a Via representative confirmed that companies had reported such incidences to them.
However, its competitor says they know Intel has.
Brown declined to discuss the licensing controversy, saying only that Via was "comfortable with this."
Brown was reluctant to say anything without running it through Via's legal department first, but suggested he didn't think Intel had a leg to stand on.
In other news, sources at Intel say they've decided to forego this kind of shallow denouncement in favor of simply advertising its competitors products in a line of television and print advertisements.
What kind of godawful reporting is this? Intel smear campaigns billed as news... Didn't they bother interviewing the companies in question that Intel was suspected of threatening, rather than getting a very biased "Did not!" "Did too!" from Intel and Via? Sheesh. I'm surprised this was accepted by Slashdot, although it was fun ripping it apart. Blatant corporate hijinx are beat sitcoms hands-down for entertainment value.
Ridiculous. (Score:1)
There are good alternatives available.
Way to go Intel... (Score:1)
This could be the step that makes the P4 affordable, but then Intel looses RAMBUS royalties
(AFAIK Intel collects them) and the sales of its chipsets.
Intel is just spreading bull to scare customers away from Via over to Intel.
seems like a bunch of intel bull. (Score:1)
If they really have a license for P4s, then this is just like Microsoft calling linux a cancer... they are afraid of it, and intel knows that can't get out of the rambus deal until 2002, they'll lose a lot of chipsets to VIA in those months.
I have a feeling that VIA has a leg to stand on, while I'm not a fan of them, I hope the hurt intel pretty bad.
one more reason (Score:1)
in proformance test DDR previeled over RDRAM
VIA is not the only one (Score:2, Interesting)
Intel appears to be essentially on the warpath against chipset makers. Well, there is at least one chipset maker which seems to have Intel's approval (maybe Intel is going to buy them. heh,heh), but it appears that Intel is refusing to license the P4 bus technology to all the others.
If this is not just some kind of posturing (which it probably is) it could lead to more complete polarization of the Intel architecture market into Intel and non-Intel camps. That is, the chipset vendors may have no choice but to put all their efforts into making AMD compatible products only. It seems kind of humorous that there could be a non-Intel Intel-Architecture camp.
It's a shame that Intel didn't patent the x86 instruction set, then they could have stopped AMD, cyrix and others from ever building processors at all.
MM
--
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
"We're especially upset by the release of inexpensive `Yosemite Sam - Back Off!' and `Naked Girl Silhouette' mudflaps. They have no right to sell those things and put them on Ford Vehicles.", a Ford spokesman was quoted as saying. AutoZone officials declined to comment on the threatened lawsuit, but an inside source claimed that they regarded Ford's move as "asinine".
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:2)
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:1)
IANAL, but it seems to me that as long as RDRAM is covered by patents, Rambus will get a piece of the pie.
Dancin Santa
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:1)
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
Rather than RDRAM, get excited about the much more scalable multi-channel low-end solutions which are appearing in the pipeline, the first of which will be the nforce. It dual-channels, but one can imagine quad-channeling, octo-channeling, etc. Exciting times.
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:1)
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
RDRAM motherboards are MUCH more difficult to design than SDRAM and DDR boards because the tolerances are much lower due to the high bus speed. RDRAM boards are in no way cheaper than SDRAM boards.
What's more, RDRAM is far more expensive to manufacture than SDRAM (aside from the stupid patent royalties) because of the way the memory is designed. SDRAMs are just simple SOJ surface-mount chips on a cheap board. RDRAMs have some other more exotic method (flip-chip?), plus a "heat speader" across all the chips because memory accesses to an RDRAM board tend to concentrate on just one chip on the board (rather than accessing them in parallel), causing that chip to heat up so much that it needs the heat speader as a heat sink.
The pincount of an RDRAM or DDR board does nothing to manufacturing cost; it's just a board with an edge connector etched on like all the other wiring, so there's no cost difference. The connector for DDR might have more pins, but that's not a huge cost increase, and with the far greater volumes of DDR that are purchased, and resultingly the far greater volumes of DDR sockets manufactured and sold, DDR sockets will cost less due to economy of scale.
Re:Who wants ddr anyway? (Score:1)
That depends on the user. Dual-channel PC800 RDRAM is faster than DDR DRAM (is anyone else rather underwhelmed by DDR? Seriously there was such an outpouring of excitement over it, and of course the name itself implies dual performance, yet it's marginally better than SDR SDRAM. Perhaps they need to start multi-channeling it...oh wait they will with the nvidia nForce [a motherboard I am very anxiously awaiting]). Anyways to the kind of people who are looking for the fastest of the fastest for whatever, RDRAM may be quite economical indeed.
Personally I'd get an Athlon, preferably on a nForce motherboard.
Re:I have a cool evil solution (Score:1)
Re:Smokescreen (Score:1)
This means that Intel is more afraid of loosing a part of the chipset marketshare to Via, than loosing a part of the CPU marketshare to AMD. They might be right, Joe Average doesn't care about what chipset they use, but they might know that the CPU should be an Intel.