CE-Oh no he didn't! Part LIII: AMD's Hector Ruiz badmouths Intel

In an unsurprising turn of events, AMD honcho Hector Ruiz has taken advantage of a recent interview to verbally smack up competitor (and market kingpin) Intel. In the midst of a sit-down, the chipmaker's CEO claimed that rival Intel was playing a game of catch up to AMD's innovation, stating, "If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." Ruiz went on to blast the Santa Clara-based company, saying that, "Intel continues... to abuse their monopoly and that's why around the world governments and regulatory agencies continue to go after them." Hey -- at least he doesn't seem to be feeling bitter about the whole thing.

[Via The INQUIRER]

[Seve @ Dec 2nd 2007 9:48PM]

Or... he could stop bitching and make faster processors. I used to be an AMD fanboy, but man, those C2Ds just rock too hard.

[Chuckles McGee @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:36PM]

Yeah, the guy's on something. Single-die quad core processors are an Intel original, among many...

[frank @ Dec 3rd 2007 3:50PM]

My laptop running on a AMD Athlon (not X2) starts faster than my desktop with Intel Core 2 Duo... Both running freshly installed Kubuntu

Can't argue with results

[JohnTitor @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:15AM]

um actually Chuckles, Single-Die Quad Cores are an AMD original
and Seve, you thinks it's really so easy to just roll out a new CPU?

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 3rd 2007 1:06AM]

True. AMD shipped 4 cores on a single die two months before Intel. And all AMD had to do was drop the speed to 1.9GHz and cut the per-core L2 cache size in half. Predictably, this made the performance lousy, well below the performance of Intel's two-die solution. But Barcelona made up for that by being expensive and in poor supply due to low yields. Yields so bad that AMD is talking about shipping "3 core" chips from the huge pool of failed 4-core dice.

In one fell swoop, AMD gave a great example as to why Intel is kicking their ass. AMD held out for a single-die solution, only to find what Intel seemed to have known all along, which is that putting 4 cores on a single 65nm die isn't cost/performance-effective right now.

When AMD stops making bonehead moves like this, they'll start to get back on track and compete properly with Intel again. And then Ruiz can talk some smack, if he's still around.

[fred @ Dec 4th 2007 2:46PM]

"and Seve, you thinks it's really so easy to just roll out a new CPU"

Intel doesn't seem to be having problems rolling out great CPU's, so...

[j.d.ripper @ Dec 3rd 2007 4:01AM]

@why not the LS2/LS7?

Even more than 4 cores have been cost effective for over a year (maybe 2?) now

http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml

Though this is not intended for a desktop computer ....

[Chris @ Dec 3rd 2007 5:40AM]

Of course intel is kicking AMD's ass. Intel is by far the larger company.
Bigger company = more money = more R&D = better products
I can't say i'm an expert but i think AMD failed badly because they didnt take a slice of the portable (laptops, smartphones, pmps ) market.

[mattclarkie @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:51AM]

I have an AMD dual desktop and a Intel Dual laptop.

Both running Vista.

My AMD always shows the 2 cores at the same % of usage within +-1%. This is good.
My Intel never has the cores in sink, 1 core is always around 80% while the other is at like 20%. The closest they have ever got is 15% different.Unless idling.

This says to me that the Intel chips aren't proper dual-core. Intel is T7300 and AMD is +4800 x2.

You may argue with this, but this is the case for me.

[seoultrain @ Dec 3rd 2007 11:28AM]

matt, are you seriously comparing laptop vs desktop?

[Moze @ Dec 3rd 2007 5:16PM]

I allways was and still am with AMD.

[Technophile @ Dec 2nd 2007 9:48PM]

What is he smoking? Intel has been in the lead for processor speeds and benchmarks for at least a couple years... it's more like AMD is catching up to Intel.

[Josh @ Dec 2nd 2007 9:55PM]

try one year, they may have been ahead in ghz before then but those pentium 4s sucked.

I am with #1 up there, i have built all AMD systems since i started 7 or 8 years ago but my next will probably be my first intel, they are just better processors these days, there is no denying it.

AMD really needs to come back and provide SOME competition but i really dont see that happening anytime soon unfortunately.

[eliot1785 @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:10PM]

AMD was in fact ahead of Intel a few years ago. I recall (and just found the news article to confirm it) that they were ahead of Intel in moving to dual-core processors. Intel wanted to keep improving the Pentium 4, but realized that their trajectory was lacking in terms of performance and power consumption and had to quickly change direction. They were still planning on moving to multicore, it seems (they had a dual core Itanium on the way already), but didn't prioritize it the way AMD did:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584-5207837.html

Anyway, things don't look so good for AMD right now. Hopefully they'll bounce back, though, because a monopoly would be bad for the market.

[Joseph @ Dec 2nd 2007 9:50PM]

Someone is sore after what's been going on lately(i.e the ownage of penryn)

[Jon Doe @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:05PM]

Typical corp procedure for the underdog. If you can't dazzle them with facts, confuse them with bullshit.

Which,sadly, seems to be what AMD is all ab out these days.

[Arno @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:07PM]

Go AMD, GO!

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:08PM]

Is he trapped in a time warp?

Intel is kicking AMD's ass specifically because Intel has been innovating and executing recently. This isn't 3 years ago when AMD was running from strength (A64) to strength (X2).

As to AMD creating all the innovations in computing technology, didn't Intel create PCI, PCIe and USB? Last I checked every recent machine has those 3 things. Almost all of them also use AC97 or HD audio interfaces for audio, both of which were also created by Intel. Almost all computers utilize either ATX or BTX form factors, both of which were created by Intel.

AMD has made significant contributions. Without them, we might still all be under Rambus' thumb, which would suck. But to stay AMD made all the contributions is just brain-dead stupid. Sounds like Mr. Ruiz' 'good til' date is up. Maybe he'd like to take Zander's place over at Moto.

[deloreanz @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:10PM]

I wouldn't be too hard on him. Sure corporate bad-mouthing is kind of 5th grade, but AMD was a leader in innovation for a while which gave them the upper hand. AMD produced the first mainstream 64 bit cpus which also worked in x86 mode. Intel with their pants down scoffed AMD saying no one needed/wanted 64 bit, only to release EMT64 which was a poor excuse for a pseudo 64 bit chip.

AMD was of course the first to release a dual core cpu, with Intel again throwing a solution together at the last moment to try to compete. Intel really started getting their act together recently with the success of the C2D chips.

Although I suppose some criticism is in order due to the poor job AMD has been doing lately with the exception of the cost efficient 3800 series gpus.

[kojo87 @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:13PM]

whatever. AMD is still better price to performance ratio. the fact that you can get a Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for $60 still baffles me. thats friggin cheap. i put one in my build back in February and it cost me $135 and i thought that was a good price then.

its too bad the Phenom is so lame. hopefully they pick it up and make some faster quads. i really like AMD but my next build may be Intel if AMD doesnt get their act together. i will never give up on ATI though!

[David Clark @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:25PM]

I swore I'd never buy AMD again after I bought one of those crapass "XP" processors. Upgrading my P2 300 MHz to an XP "1300+", I didn't even notice a difference.

[thethirdmoose @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:44PM]

Hello all, I am David Clark. I am an idiot. I base all my buying decisions on brand loyalty and the performance of 4-generation old parts. I won't buy those panasonic batteries, because I had a panasonic remote control that broke when I sat on it. Also, it wasn't any better than my previous sony remote control. Thank you for your time.

[OddManOut @ Dec 2nd 2007 11:24PM]

"I didn't even notice a difference."

Yeah me too. I upgraded from a P-III 450 to an Athlon 1.2ghz box, and then to a Barton Core Athlon 2800+ and didn't notice a significant increase in gaming performance. But then again the same can be said for my stongest current machine. An Intel E6700 based system with 2GB of ram. Of course, Delta Force 2 (released in 1999) can only run so well...

Point being, what is your metric ? MS Office performance ? How fast you can type ? There are plenty of things that an XP can outclass a P2 on, and yet there are things they do equally well. What are/were you judging by ?

Yeah, AMD is lettin' us all down now. I had high hopes for the Phenom, but now that I've had a chance to play with a few (I'm a QA tech with access to nearly unlimited parts) I can't say as I'm super impressed.

Still, AMD has risin' from underdog status before (remember the K5/K6II/K6III days ?). They can do it again.

AMD fustigated Intel but good in 'Athlon vs P4'. Then they proved it was no fluke in 'Athlon64 vs. Itanium'. Forcing Intel to basically write off the next round,'X2 vs. Pentium D' so they could really wind up their next haymaker -> Core(2) Duo/Quad.

Congratulations Intel...TKO...

Now AMD is struggling up off the ropes. Phenom might be a desperate attempt to one punch the ringer, or it might simply be jabs and dancing while AMD catches it's breath and picks it's shot. Like I said, Intel had to let one round go to get back on top, AMD can do the same.

Anyways, I know most of us will be watching with great interest...

[David Clark @ Dec 2nd 2007 11:24PM]

No, a company sells you a sow's ear telling you it's a silk purse, you learn not to fall for the gimmicks ever again.

Fool me once, you know.

It's by no coincidence I've never had a bad intel product, ever.

[tcc3 @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:26AM]

"It's by no coincidence I've never had a bad intel product, ever."

I guess you managed to skip the P4 generation. Especially the early ones that were slower than same speed P3s.

Intel is doing great now, but it hasn't been that long since they dropped the ball.

[sbbarnes @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:29PM]

Sorry AMD, Intel's Hi-k process in their silicon is the biggest innovation in the last 5 years. Unless someone like IBM can save them, the performance gap will widen further.

[vince warnock @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:38PM]

They all suck, bring back my commodore 64

[Zeus the God @ Dec 3rd 2007 2:01AM]

I have one of those... Though it doesn't work...

[Zeus the God @ Dec 3rd 2007 2:01AM]

I have one of those... Though it doesn't work...

[ukickmydog @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:43PM]

I love AMD, but the only good thing they're doing now is keeping Intel's chips cheaper

[jbcaro @ Dec 2nd 2007 10:53PM]

Hector is a joke. We called him "Hector the sector wrecker" after he just about destroyed the Motorola Semiconductor Group.

[BigDaddyM @ Dec 2nd 2007 11:24PM]

Products speak for themselves... Sure monopolies have their strengths, but since AMD can sell direct, and they have proven they can do the grassroots thing, so all the smack talk means nothing.

Make better processors and the DIY crowds will give you all teh free marketting you need... However, AMD seems to not be as cheap as they used to so I think many don't feel teh savings is big enough.
M

[Hilman Chung @ Dec 2nd 2007 11:31PM]

This guys really likes to pull bs out of air. He preached the monolithic quad core for the last two years but when it came out, it really barely competes with Intel's last gen chips...

Once he's fired, he'll be a nobody... Let's see if anyone would give him the time of day for a interview.

[dustandechoes91 @ Dec 2nd 2007 11:36PM]

I know Intel's chips are way better gaming and hardcore performance wise, but amd's seem much better for cheap consumer low-performance pc's. All of my friends' desktop pc's all are running on AMD CPU's. Most people i know have them. I too have one, its great for OCing, i went from 2.8GHz to running 3.2-more stable than my gpu running factory oc'd clocks. I dont get how amd is so far behind. It does seem a lot like amd does implement come up with much better and newer technologies.

The problem is not too many people buy them, and not very many hardware and software developers utilize them. Take for example GPU's. Ati's are more powerful on paper, but nVidia gets much better in-game performance because so many developers optimize their games for Intel and nVidia. I cant ever recall seeing splashes for amd or ATI when i start up a game. Developers seem to give a lot more support to amd and nvidia.

[Kenban @ Dec 2nd 2007 11:44PM]

AMD is behind in just about every way possible and I have no idea if its even possible for them to catch back up soon enough to save the company. Intel has been spending huge amounts of money working on better production processes. Only one other company is even producing 45nm chips currently and AMD is still trying to get to 65nm. AMD is 2 years behind Intel in production alone.

The Pentium 4 was a complete mistake and failed design strategy. But AMD could not get big OEM producers like Dell to start offering their chips until it was too late. I really think this is a bad case of Intel forcing these companies into not offering alternatives.

Today is what's important though and Intel's new chips are better then anything AMD is curently producing. My last 5 desktop computers were all AMD based systems. But I want to build or buy a new computer soon (next 6-9 months) and I currently am not even considering using an AMD chip.

The only thing I can think of is that AMD's purchase of ATI might offer them a chance to do some interesting systems integration. I think a new low cost chipset designed for lower power systems which uses a dual-core CPU with a GPU integrated into the die (so it can use the CPU's memory controller). Along with that a single motherboard chip which integrates everything from a standard north and south bridge. This combination could be huge in the low cost and laptop market. It could also be good for media center systems.

[ericdano @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:18AM]

Sounds like he has been hanging out with Steve Ballmer. Both suffer from delusions that they were the ones that created something, not copied it.

[Kaminix @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:24AM]

That is one badass picture though... :o

[Josh Brunelle @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:35AM]

Nothing like this to stir up the fanboys. Though I must say, I have been all AMD for a long time, but my next build will no doubt be a C2D.

[thinkamc @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:41AM]

AMD should stop whining, and hire a new marketing team. They've got amazing products, people just don't realize it.

There's still the common misconception that AMDs are inferior because of overheating problems that occurred what, like 10 years ago? If they cleared up their misconceptions, boosted their image... they could easily take over.

Oh well.

[Joe! @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:41AM]

Is it just me, or does he really look like an Oompa Loompa in this picture?

[Sam Zebian @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:11AM]

lol.

[N30 G30 @ Dec 3rd 2007 2:03AM]

I'm with the rest of you. As much as I love AMD and everything else they're doing, the Core 2 Duo is just way too good. I don't think I'd buy anything else right now.

[Steveorevo @ Dec 3rd 2007 3:52AM]

AMD has horrible marketing. Period. H E L L O ? I've seen zero promotions for AMD processors and everyone here in the states has heard the phrase "Intel Inside". T.V. ADs, Adobe's "Intel Optimized", etc. The list goes on. If these are AMD innovations, they've done a great job making it unknown.

[mattclarkie @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:58AM]

The P4 had a major flaw. Temperature.

Me and my friend just built new rigs, me AMD a 2.8Ghz dual Core 5600+ My friend a 2.4 ghz E6 something Intel.

My AMD worked fine right away, and the temperature at load is 50C and often is only 32C.

My friends crashed within mins of turning on due to the Heatsink not working. And even with the heatsink working the Temp is 50C plus at all times, and that is idling.

The P4 was even worse, but it still shows a big difference between AMD and Intel even after the C2D. As he has a 65nm and I have a 90nm it shows a huge difference.

[tekdemon @ Dec 3rd 2007 11:30AM]

Maybe your friend had a defective chip, but most Core2's run very cool, especially stock.
Heck, I ran my E4300 up to 3.2Ghz stably on the tiny stock heatsink and the temps were never anything super high.

[woohoogogo @ Dec 3rd 2007 10:24AM]

Well, right now im running a core 2 extreme 3.0ghz, at 33C, with only the normal fan, nothing more, so it seems that your friend is having other problems.

I figure ill step up to liquid cooling eventually haha.

[nonamo @ Dec 3rd 2007 11:41AM]

I think you are all missing the point.

He's saying Intel have made no innovations recently, compared to AMD - which have!
If you read chip news for the last year, i think you'll agree with him.

The fact that AMD is making crap cpus at the moment and have rubbish marketing is irrelevant.

They are pushing money into R+D and new technologies, the same cannot be said for Intel. Its a shame this new technology is not shining yet, but that's because its first gen and hasn't matured yet. In a couple of years AMD will have it perfected and Intel will be in the dark ages cause of their all talk, no R+D attitude.

[melvz @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:14PM]

after being kicked in the balls for quite some time now... that's all AMD can do?!? whine about the competition?!? that is so gay of ruiz!

[warlock @ Dec 3rd 2007 2:02PM]

Sad, sad, sad...

First thing you learn as a company representative is to NOT badmouth the competition...

It's time to stop crying and start acting !

[4cr JaXs @ Dec 3rd 2007 3:40PM]

Intel Outside. AMD FTW.