this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
172 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

73792 readers
3036 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
172
The European Commission Re-Imposes €376.36 Million Fine on Intel for Anticompetitive Practices in the Market for Computer Chips (www.techpowerup.com)
submitted 2 years ago by geosoco@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The European Commission has re-imposed a fine of around €376.36 million on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominant position in the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units ('CPUs'). Intel engaged in a series of anticompetitive practices aimed at excluding competitors from the relevant market in breach of EU antitrust rules.

With today's decision, we are re-imposing a €376.36 million fine on Intel for having abused its dominant position in the computer chips market. Intel paid its customers to limit, delay or cancel the sale of products containing computer chips of its main rival. This is illegal under our competition rules. Our decision shows the Commission's commitment to ensure that very serious antitrust breaches do not go unsanctioned. - Commissioner Didier Reynders, in charge of competition policy

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sadreality@kbin.social 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So EU charges them 400m but then turn around give them 10 billion to build a plant in Germany

Setting up proper incentives ;)

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

Really??? Ah, why am I surprised...

[–] jay9@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This seems pretty reasonable to me - just because someone gets a parking ticket doesn’t mean they should get their government benefits cut off

[–] BloodSlut@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yes, but fines for financial crimes should be greater than, or at the very least, equal to the money gained from said crimes.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

I guess once you accept that legal entities are people subject to preferential treatment by the state, this logic checks out.

Money for buy backs of shares does not come from no where, taxpayers got to pitch in.

[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They do that because that's the only way they can survive against AMD given how much behind Intel is in terms of CPU and GPU tech.

I have a really slim laptop featuring an AMD APU (Ryzen 7 7735U with Radeon 680M) and nearly 8 hours of battery life (browsing and office stuff), and which I can use to game (mid settings in games like Genshin Impact, on a Wayland desktop thanks to high quality open-source Linux drivers) and do GPGPU programming exactly as if I was writing CUDA thanks to their open-source HIP SDK (again, on a slim as fuck laptop with just an APU, AMD is surprisingly catching up very quickly in the GPGPU programming space this year, a few months ago I wasn't able to get HIP code to run).

Neither Intel nor NVIDIA offer anything similar right now (Intel's OneAPI DPC++ doesn't count as "exactly as if I was writing CUDA").

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They do that because that's the only way they can survive against AMD given how much behind Intel is in terms of CPU and GPU tech.

This is just blatantly false and disengenious.

Sure, Intels GPU tech is pathetic. But it's also not their business. Their only reasonable market use case is making a serviceable on board gpu for people who aren't going to buy a real GPU. AMD makes actual fucking graphics cards. Of course their GPU tech is ahead.

But Intel CPU tech is not blatantly behind AMD. Sure, there have been points where AMD has leapt ahead. But the same could be said for Intel. Sure there are advantages to some techs on the AMD side, but the same could be said for Intel. They're in competition and neither is wholy ahead of the other.

Yeah, you go on to pinpoint one specific use case that you have, which is very specific, and something less than 1% of 1% of 1% of their customers care about. Same could be said the other way.

[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

But the same could be said for Intel.

Give examples that don't involve shipping chips that need to be factory-overclocked and have much higher power consumption just to match AMD's chips (also: https://www.xda-developers.com/intel-core-i9-13900k-vs-amd-ryzen-9-7950x/)

For example, the Cinebench R23 results mentioned earlier had the Core i9 system consuming 461W of power, a whopping 110W higher than the 351W of the 7950X.

or bribing OEMs just so that Intel doesn't have to compete with AMD's high-end CPUs by making buying an AMD PC either impossible or very obscure.

Only an Intel fanboy can be oblivious to this and pretend that Intel is still in the CPU race. It doesn't even make sense when you add to that their anti-competitive practices. You shouldn't need to bribe OEMs to offer as few AMD options as possible if you were confident in your own CPUs.

one specific use case that you have

Same was said a long time ago about NVIDIA consumer GPUs supporting CUDA and look at where we are right now.