Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Despite FTC Settlement, Intel Can Ship Oak Trail Without PCIe

Posted by timothy on from the bizarre-micromanagement-from-on-high dept.

MojoKid writes "When the Federal Trade Commission settled their investigation of Intel, one of the stipulations of the agreement was that Intel would continue to support the PCI Express standard for the next six years. Intel agreed to all the FTC's demands, but Intel's upcoming Oak Trail Atom platform presented something of a conundrum. Oak Trail was finalized long before the FTC and Intel began negotiating, which means Santa Clara could've been banned from shipping the platform. However, the FTC and Intel have recently jointly announced an agreement covering Oak Trail that allows Intel to sell the platform without adding PCIe support — for now."

24 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Am I the only one who is confused... by robot256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...by what the actual issue is here? And I did RTFA.

    Something about Intel pushing a new proprietary graphics bus into a new chipset...they never actually mentioned how the FTC thing got started.

    1. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by cappp · · Score: 4, Informative
      Okay as far as I can tell

      The FTC sued Intel alleging Intel had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

      A little more digging brings us

      The FTC filed its complaints against Intel on Dec. 16, 2009. It charged the chip maker with illegally using its dominant position to stifle competition for decades. The complaint was filed just a month after Intel had settled antitrust and patent disputes with Advanced Micro Devices for US$1.25 billion.

      The FTC site adds that

      ").(1) Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition," and was amended in 1938 also to prohibit "unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

      Seems to have been part of a broader move against Intel at the time, I admit I don't remember it very clearly, but Reuters adds

      A wide range of antitrust enforcers have gone up against Intel for its controversial pricing incentives. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused Intel in November of threatening computer makers and paying billions of dollars of kickbacks to maintain market supremacy. The European Commission has fined Intel 1.06 billion euros ($1.44 billion) for illegally shutting out AMD. In June 2008, South Korea fined Intel some $26 million, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying microprocessors made by AMD. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly act. The case before the FTC is "In the Matter of Intel Corporation," docket number 9341.

      Oh and that case can be found here

    2. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is a good article about the original antitrust settlement.

      Basically, Intel refuses to license it's new DMI or QPI bus protocols to NVIDIA, so they can no longer make chipsets for intel processors (like nForce). Furthermore, it has been feared that with the push towards systems on chip, that Intel would eliminate the PCI-e bus as well leaving no way for any graphic company to supply a discrete graphics chip for netbook or notebook computers.

    3. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by bhcompy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean leaving no way for nVidia to do it. ATI has always had solid mobility offerings and AMD owning them just means that nV is left out in the cold if Intel goes down the course you say.

    4. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... I went there expecting shoe porn.

    5. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically Intel locked down all I/O on many of their chips to specifically lock out Nvidia and force their lousy GPUs onto you, whether you like it or not. Considering this is the same company that bribed OEMs, rigged their compiler, and paid 1.25 billion to AMD just to keep them from digging all the skeletons in their closet? It really shouldn't be surprising.

      I was a life long Intel man, going back to the 486Dx, but after all the dirty underhanded shit they've pulled recently I've gone full AMD for my customers and myself. If you win a market because you are faster/cheaper/better? No problem with me. But rigging the market is a BIG no no in my book, and makes it worse for all of us. Just look at how many power hogging P4s are still in use, thanks partially to the fact that Intel paid off OEMs not to run the better at the time AMD chips. The regulators in the USA may not have any teeth anymore, but I can't wait to see what the EU does to them. Intel has been so nasty lately they make MSFT look like the Care Bears.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Furthermore, it has been feared that with the push towards systems on chip, that Intel would eliminate the PCI-e bus as well leaving no way for any graphic company to supply a discrete graphics chip for netbook or notebook computers.

      If they did that, every manufacturer of even moderately high-end laptops would drop their CPUs faster than an LSD addict drops acid.

      Even if Intel's GPUs were the best in the industry, there are too many other critical things you wouldn't be able to properly support without PCIe---ExpressCard slots, FireWire, maybe even eSATA (unless they add more SATA ports to the chipset).... IMHO, dropping PCIe would be suicide for Intel.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Intel & AMD decided to offer GPUs linked by QPI & HT it would give their GPUs a big advantage with Nvidia unable to compete.

      That would also kill Intel's high-end consumer products. Most high-end Intel CPUs are sold to gamers, who aren't going to be gaming on some crappy Intel integrated graphics chip.

      At least for the forseeable future, Intel need Nvidia for the mid to high-end gaming market, because they're not going to be releasing GPUs in that arena any time soon.

    8. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Instead of telling Intel how to make their product, I consider it much better to confiscate the relevant patents and copyrights and put them into the public domain. That way AMD, nvidia, etc. will have all the access they need. They use asset forfeiture on us all the time. Time to use it here. Fair is fair.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by monktus · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...they make MSFT look like the Care Bears."

      Can't....type.....horrible image of Ballmer....in Care Bear outfit.

      --
      Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
    10. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not a good comparison. Intel has an obscenely high priced chip. Fine, they always have for those people who have more money than sense. They also have reasonably priced chips. Try instead looking at, say, a Core i5-760. 2.8GHz quad core chip for $210. Look up some performance numbers and then compare to AMD chips. It isn't very favorable. More or less they need their 6 core chips to compete, and then it is only competitive if you happen to have an app that can use all 6 cores (which is very rare still). For example if you look at Anand's benchmark (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/5) you find that the 760 matches the 1090T in many tests, and an 860 beats in almost all of them.

      Once you've got some roughly even performance, then compare build prices. You'll find that Intel compares quite favorably. Not saying AMD doesn't offer good value, but Intel does as well.

      In performance per watt and raw highest performance, Intel has AMD beat. In performance per dollar, they are highly competitive too. AMD has just not been doing well lately, unfortunately.

      Don't try to contrive situations to spin the truth, look at things accurately.

    11. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Issue is that Atom except Intel STB boards with their media accel processor is deliberately crippled in terms of video performance. As a result the entire system ends up being crippled wholesale giving the consumers a perception that the computer is slow while it really isn't.

      Nvidia has demonstrated this - when paired with a devent video chippery Atom makes a perfectly adequate desktop and notebook. As a result Intel has gone as far as damaging its own media STB roadmap to lock Nvidia out so that Atom does not cannibalise its more expensive CPUs. This is all being done with the tacit support of Microsoft to ensure that demand for "cheap windows" wanes together with cheap computers.

      IMO, this decision is a BIG loss for the consumer. This platform is an example of what is wrong about Intel "innovation" as we now it. It is driven not by the desire to improve, but the desire to screw competition. was Nvidia or AMD I should definitely take the FTC to court on this one. This allows Intel a wholesale way out of the concent degree in the segment where competition is at its fiercest - low end notebooks and tablets.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    12. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Try instead looking at, say, a Core i5-760. 2.8GHz quad core chip for $210. Look up some performance numbers and then compare to AMD chips.

      Performance numbers based on Intel crippling compiler.

      Yeah. Even in cases where Intel's compiler isnt used for the benchmark program, many benchmarks still use libraries compiled with Intel's compiler.

      Of significance are Intels Math Kernel Library and even AMD's Core Math Library (compiled with Intels fortran compiler!)

      These libraries are extensively used in most benchmark programs.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by Starrider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      High-end graphics and discrete cards are making up a smaller and smaller percentage of the market. It is quickly getting to the point that the only people who are buying discrete GPUs are gamers and graphics professionals. Most people just don't see the need for the added expense.

      The "mid to high-end gaming market" is fairly small on the PC, relative to the entire PC market.

    14. Re:Am I the only one who is confused... by Dynedain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intel's high-end consumer products aren't where they make their money.... and enough of them make it into prebuilt machines from Dell, HP, anyways.

      Most high-end Intel CPUs are sold as server solutions, where a graphics card makes very little difference.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  2. Don't see any other way for Intel by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I went and looked up the specs for the chip in question. It's a SoC chip, just a PCI bus is all I could find. There's no market reason for PCIe, and it really wouldn't even offer much of a benefit, since the single-core CPU is barely pushing a gigahertz. The FTC behaved pretty much reasonably in this case.

    1. Re:Don't see any other way for Intel by sarkeizen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't even see the relevance of the Atom platform anymore. It used to be about power efficiency and they really got there with the Z series maxing out at 2.4W. This was, of course at the expense of processing power, addressable memory and such. However after the release of the SU7300 which maxes out at 10W - and doesn't have the limitations of the Atom. I get that there are some power savings in there with all the integration Intel is planning but I'm skeptical how much that bares out. My wife was recently in the market for a more portable machine for work and I steered her toward an machine with an SU7300 core. It's battery life rivaled my Z series netbook and was much more functional (in addition to the other things I've mentioned my netbook had a GMA 500 graphics controller which Intel severely hobbled in Windows 7). When that netbook died I replaced it with the ASUS UL30 - a bit more screen space, longer battery life, full 64 bit OS, well supported video hardware, up to 8GB of RAM...

    2. Re:Don't see any other way for Intel by squizzar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought that Intel wanted to break into the embedded market that contains a lot of ARM and PowerPC cores with Atom? The FPGA + Embedded processor combination is pretty common, and PCIe is the way to interface them. Hence your low power/low performance chip is bundled together with another (FPGA or ASIC) that does the heavy lifting for a specific task. Every application that requires some serious, but fixed, number crunching is appropriate for this. I do broadcast related stuff, so the things that spring to mind are video compressors, deinterlacers, etc. Why spend lots of dollars and lots of watts on a powerful CPU when you can combine a amsll core and an ASIC/FPGA and get the same result? Without PCIe no one is going to consider the Atom for these applications.

  3. Re:Please explain. by jgreco · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please re-read, it's Intel, not IBM... and there's lots of useful info in the comments.

  4. more like light peak only no DVI no USB no vga by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    more like light peak only no DVI no USB no vga.

    also light peak only works with intel video and if you want to use your usb keyboard or mouse $30 cable or hub that needs a wall wart as light peak may not pass power.

    want Ethernet $30 cable

    want to use a ati or nvidia video chip you may need a piggy back cable to make it tie into the light peak network.

  5. Re:Please explain. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Funny

    Two identical posts this close together? You must be a Slashdot editor.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  6. Re:Human-readable analysis of the stuff by yuhong · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If Intel doesn't want a GPU on their platforms, it is trivial to abide by the letter of the law and still screw Nvidia

    During the public comment period, I submitted a comment about this and the FTC actually responded:
    http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/101102intelletterbao.pdf

  7. Ya I can't imagine them not wanting it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Intel doesn't want nVidia making chipsets, true enough, because Intel makes chipsets. However the want expansion slots on their boards because they want people using their boards. I'm quite sure they are plenty happy with nVidia and ATi graphics cards. Heck they've included ATi's crossfire on their boards for a long time (they didn't have SLI because nVidia wouldn't license it to them). Intel has nothing that competes in that arena, and they recently revised their plan so they aren't even going to try. They want people to get those high end GPUs because people who get high end GPUs often get high end CPUs since they are gamers. Not only that, they STILL sell the Integrated GPU, since it is on chip.

    I just can't see them not wanting PCIe in their regular desktop boards. They know expansion is popular, and they also know that the people who expand the most also want the biggest CPUs.

    Now on an Atom platform? Sure makes sense. These are extremely low end systems. PCIe logic is really nothing but wasted silicon. You don't have room for PCIe expansions in there, never mind the desire for it. Those are integrated, all-in-one, low end platforms.

    However desktop and laptop? I can't see them wanting to eliminate it there.

  8. Semi-accurate is Fully-retarded by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't believe their bullshit. Two major flaws with their argument:

    1) Nobody gives a shit about PCIe speed on the Atom. It is a low end platform, for netbooks. You are not putting discrete GPUs at all on it, never mind fast ones. You do not want that kind of battery drain, or cost, for that platform. Speed is really not relivant.

    2) PCIe is way, WAY faster than it needs to be. 8x, which is half speed, is still more than you need as HardOCP found (http://hardocp.com/article/2010/08/16/sli_cfx_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x16x8/6) even for extremely high end cards in multi-card setups. For that matter on the forums Kyle said that 4x (quarter speed) is still more than enough for cards at 1920x1200. The highest end discreet cards don't need it, you are fine.

    Semi-accurate is more of a raving opinion rag than a news site. The guy who runs it was fired from The Register for bias, and that is right up there with getting fired from Fox News. He hates Intel, hates nVidia and loves AMD/ATi.