VooDoo PC founder weighs in on AMD vs. Intel

Intel can be great to work with--but the company can also drop you like a hot potato, says the founder of VooDoo PC.

Rahul Sood, who serves as president and chief technology officer of the Canadian PC maker, said Wednesday that Intel has applied pressure in the past to change the "ratio" of Advanced Micro Devices processors to Intel chips in VooDoo systems.

"There have been times when Intel has requested that we build our ratio between the number of our AMD computers and the number of our Intel computers higher in favor of Intel--many times, as a matter of fact," Sood wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "We've had allocation issues, where if we don't play ball, we don't get our allocation (of Intel chips). When Intel WAS supporting us they did an awesome job. When they stopped, it was noticeable."

Intel declined to comment on Sood's comments.

Intel's treatment of PC makers and dealers is at the core of an antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD in June. AMD alleges that Intel violates antitrust law by "coercing" PC makers to increase its market share, using marketing dollars or withholding chips and technical information. Intel hotly denies this, stating that its marketing programs and practices are fully legal and that AMD's problems stem from that company's own miscalculations.

PC and chip executives, mostly speaking anonymously, have said that Intel can be a tough negotiator, but they've also said they didn't feel violated by the chipmaker's business practices. Besides, the marketing dollars and tech help came in handy, some said.

Earlier in the week, Sood penned a blog commenting on the recent developments between AMD and Intel. He has been critical of Intel's practices of late and recently wrote an article for Hexus.net titled, "Is it time for Dell to file for divorce?"

The executive recalled his own experience when Intel first began to woo gamer PC companies.

"A number of years ago I remember Intel called us and said they wanted to 'engage' with us. They wanted to work with us on reviews, sampling, marketing, etc.," Sood wrote in his blog. "It was a shock, because up until then Intel never really called on us pro-actively...It seemed as if they wanted to elevate themselves as the 'Ultimate Gaming CPU.'"

"Other than the odd call from our (Intel) sales rep we aren't treated at the same level as we were before," he added in the blog.

Subsequently, Dell entered the market for gamer PCs and the calls from Intel stopped coming as frequently, he said.

"I don't feel slighted by Intel as much as I feel that once they got what they wanted they just forgot about us," Sood wrote in the e-mail. "I believe they wanted to influence gaming to gain some respect amongst gamers. Once Dell took the reins, they just left us wondering what happened."

Dell spokesman Venancio Figueroa said the company would not comment on "competitive rhetoric" and declined to comment on AMD's accusations.

CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos contributed to this report.

[Des Alba]

Why Criticize Intel?

I'm not sure I understand Mr Sood's criticism of Intel's business practices to protect Intel's business interests. If a PC builder does not want to play ball Intel's way, they can drop Intel and go exclusively with AMD. It seems to me that PC builders need Intel more than Intel needs them. Some builders tried going with only AMD and saw their sales nearly grind to a halt. Is Mr Sood critical of Intel because his company needed Intel to survive? That doesn't seem logical to me either. My organization buys Intel-only as a matter of policy. That policy was driven by past experiences which affected productivity and profitability, and not by acquisition costs since those are amortized over the same 5-year depreciation period, regardless of CPU brand.

[System Tyrant]

I think

what he is saying that Intel would with hold product and support if Voodoo didn't do what Intel wanted. That kind of pratice is against the law. Intel can make deals with computer makers that gives the computer maker better prices and probably better access to stock, but what they can't do, as I understand it, is intentionally with hold the products because a company refuses to sell only Intel or mostly Intel.

If Intel was to say to a company like Voodoo 'you won't see product for six months unless you agree to not sell AMD' then that would be illegal. On the other hand I believe that if Voodoo went to Intel and said 'we won't sell AMD if you give us a price break and first dibs on your products' that would be violating any laws.

Of course AMD's biggest problem is going to be proving that Intel did the worst. I have a feeling it will take more than one PC vender to do that.

[Des Alba]

Why Criticize Intel?

I'm not sure I understand Mr Sood's criticism of Intel's business practices to protect Intel's business interests. If a PC builder does not want to play ball Intel's way, they can drop Intel and go exclusively with AMD. It seems to me that PC builders need Intel more than Intel needs them. Some builders tried going with only AMD and saw their sales nearly grind to a halt. Is Mr Sood critical of Intel because his company needed Intel to survive? That doesn't seem logical to me either. My organization buys Intel-only as a matter of policy. That policy was driven by past experiences which affected productivity and profitability, and not by acquisition costs since those are amortized over the same 5-year depreciation period, regardless of CPU brand.

[System Tyrant]

I think

what he is saying that Intel would with hold product and support if Voodoo didn't do what Intel wanted. That kind of pratice is against the law. Intel can make deals with computer makers that gives the computer maker better prices and probably better access to stock, but what they can't do, as I understand it, is intentionally with hold the products because a company refuses to sell only Intel or mostly Intel.

If Intel was to say to a company like Voodoo 'you won't see product for six months unless you agree to not sell AMD' then that would be illegal. On the other hand I believe that if Voodoo went to Intel and said 'we won't sell AMD if you give us a price break and first dibs on your products' that would be violating any laws.

Of course AMD's biggest problem is going to be proving that Intel did the worst. I have a feeling it will take more than one PC vender to do that.

[fireball74]

Here's what I think....

What it sounds like to me was that Intel came to them and said "Hey, we want you to promote our chips as the premier gamers chip." In which, no doubt, Intel gave VooDoo special pricing and tech support. The marriage was broken up by Dell, who stepped in and became Intel's posterboy of sorts. That left VooDoo high and dry. When VooDoo went to Intel wondering what happened, they were basically snubed. Intel threw the ring at VooDoo and said it's over, and now you have to pay just like anyone else, that is, except Dell, unless you want to make a deal. VooDoo was like, "what deal?" "Sell considerably more of our chips than AMD, and you can have your cake and eat it too." VooDoo thought about it and just couldn't bring itself to give preferencial treatment to Intel, who was just too mean to them lately.

All in all, you can't really blame VooDoo. Intel is a cut-throat company to deal with, who plays hardball with a shotput. VooDoo is just trying to do what's best for their bottom line, just the same as Intel, but with a major diffence, VooDoo is not near as big, and yes, the do to some extent, depend on Intel. Intel, being the top of the vendor chain, can pretty much control their market the way they want. Strong-arming their customers is more a sign of the a mob type protection of interests, than a good business practice. Companies like Intel and Microsoft aren't really learning much from the likes of IBM, who's been there. These companies are learning leasons that had been learned at IBM, the hard way. How many more times do they have to be sued for anti-trust? Who knows....

[Philips]

Old story.

Anti-trust hammer is hanging over Intel's neck all the time.
We still remember the times, when Intel invested in AMD just so it would be a competition. Otherwise Intel would have faced regulations under anti-trust law.

I doubt that Intel acted intentionally as a bad monopolist. Was it intentional or not, it might just boil down to performance of several Intel's sales reps. They can give better pricing for compnaies they do better deals. The only moment it becomes illegal - if you are a monopolist. Intel at moment is not monopolist - modernised AMD plays here major role - so AMD will hard time argueing against them.

AMD will have to convince the court that this is normal practice of Intel to limit the choices of manufacturers. From all I have heard and I know personally, Intel doesn't give the deals to anyone.

AMD will have to come up with strong evidence that Intel while enjoying 90% share of market tried to make it 100%. And tried too hard - hard enough making others CPU manufacturers leave the market. This way AMD can convince the court that Intel was at time a monopolist and for monopolist such methods are unacceptable.

Good luck AMD. You will need it.

[fireball74]

Here's what I think....

What it sounds like to me was that Intel came to them and said "Hey, we want you to promote our chips as the premier gamers chip." In which, no doubt, Intel gave VooDoo special pricing and tech support. The marriage was broken up by Dell, who stepped in and became Intel's posterboy of sorts. That left VooDoo high and dry. When VooDoo went to Intel wondering what happened, they were basically snubed. Intel threw the ring at VooDoo and said it's over, and now you have to pay just like anyone else, that is, except Dell, unless you want to make a deal. VooDoo was like, "what deal?" "Sell considerably more of our chips than AMD, and you can have your cake and eat it too." VooDoo thought about it and just couldn't bring itself to give preferencial treatment to Intel, who was just too mean to them lately.

All in all, you can't really blame VooDoo. Intel is a cut-throat company to deal with, who plays hardball with a shotput. VooDoo is just trying to do what's best for their bottom line, just the same as Intel, but with a major diffence, VooDoo is not near as big, and yes, the do to some extent, depend on Intel. Intel, being the top of the vendor chain, can pretty much control their market the way they want. Strong-arming their customers is more a sign of the a mob type protection of interests, than a good business practice. Companies like Intel and Microsoft aren't really learning much from the likes of IBM, who's been there. These companies are learning leasons that had been learned at IBM, the hard way. How many more times do they have to be sued for anti-trust? Who knows....

[Philips]

Old story.

Anti-trust hammer is hanging over Intel's neck all the time.
We still remember the times, when Intel invested in AMD just so it would be a competition. Otherwise Intel would have faced regulations under anti-trust law.

I doubt that Intel acted intentionally as a bad monopolist. Was it intentional or not, it might just boil down to performance of several Intel's sales reps. They can give better pricing for compnaies they do better deals. The only moment it becomes illegal - if you are a monopolist. Intel at moment is not monopolist - modernised AMD plays here major role - so AMD will hard time argueing against them.

AMD will have to convince the court that this is normal practice of Intel to limit the choices of manufacturers. From all I have heard and I know personally, Intel doesn't give the deals to anyone.

AMD will have to come up with strong evidence that Intel while enjoying 90% share of market tried to make it 100%. And tried too hard - hard enough making others CPU manufacturers leave the market. This way AMD can convince the court that Intel was at time a monopolist and for monopolist such methods are unacceptable.

Good luck AMD. You will need it.

Intel with held info

When I worked at Acer intel with-held information on a network chip I was designing into a product. The reason - Acer was build computers with the AMD K6 processor.

Intel with held info

When I worked at Acer intel with-held information on a network chip I was designing into a product. The reason - Acer was build computers with the AMD K6 processor.

Its about time

I've been an enthusiest for many years. I remember when AMD came out with the Athlon and spanked Intel's pIII slot core. At that point I said "Its about time". When the P4 came out and started besting AMD on business applications and multitasking I was wondering when AMD would fight that. Hince the AMD64. It spanks Intel in gaming, and has caught up in multitasking and bussiness applications. Right now the only reason someone would buy Intel is just out of personal prefrence.

Intel knows its reign as top dog is at stake. So whats it do to keep its market shares upwards of 90%? They strong arm their retail buyers. Companies like Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq and other vendors face the decision to sell just Intel and get huge price cuts or sell both and pay higher costs on the CPU's. THis is unfair to AMD. Legally you may say its sound, but its still unfair and should be stopped. Why you ask? Lets say your company builds and sells pc's. You face (these are very rough numbers) buying 1000 Intel chips at 500,000 which for arguments sake is 25% off retail price. Now, you want to sell AMD's FX and X2 line of chips. You make a deal with AMD, and starting putting the pc's out on the market. Intel comes over and says "Your selling AMD? Um, you just lost your 25% off price". Whats that company to do? Soak the cost of the chips or pass them on to their customers? If the price jumps too much their customers will go somewhere else. So, they can either lose business or drop AMD.

This is just a legall way for Intel to maintain its dominance in the market when arguably it should have dropped many years ago.

[Intelrules]

Its about time

intel business practices are perfectly legal. If Intel was violating buisness practices DOJ would in their Palace to search for documents for a case.

Plain & simple. If voodo or anyother oem want's Intel & amd chips come to them work out a deal if possible. If Intel plays hardball & voodo doesnt like it tell them we dont want you're chips. If Intel keeps on coming back to a point where they are harassing the excetuive's workers & etc... in Voodo . All voodo has to do is call their lawyers & go after Intel with evidence in court.

The way amd is accusing Intel of their buisness practice is completely shutting out amd from the market & amd filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Intel knows not to do that & they havent.

Anyway why would a jury want to give amd a guilty verdict against Intel while at the same time being ahead of Intel in technology?

I love how Intel set up amd for a trap in court. Come get ahead of us we dont mind. Following years amd sue's Intel for anti monopoly practice (which Intel is nothing close to a monopoly) but being ahead in technology also supposedly chipping away at Intel bread & butter division. Smack not guilty Intel.

Its about time

I've been an enthusiest for many years. I remember when AMD came out with the Athlon and spanked Intel's pIII slot core. At that point I said "Its about time". When the P4 came out and started besting AMD on business applications and multitasking I was wondering when AMD would fight that. Hince the AMD64. It spanks Intel in gaming, and has caught up in multitasking and bussiness applications. Right now the only reason someone would buy Intel is just out of personal prefrence.

Intel knows its reign as top dog is at stake. So whats it do to keep its market shares upwards of 90%? They strong arm their retail buyers. Companies like Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq and other vendors face the decision to sell just Intel and get huge price cuts or sell both and pay higher costs on the CPU's. THis is unfair to AMD. Legally you may say its sound, but its still unfair and should be stopped. Why you ask? Lets say your company builds and sells pc's. You face (these are very rough numbers) buying 1000 Intel chips at 500,000 which for arguments sake is 25% off retail price. Now, you want to sell AMD's FX and X2 line of chips. You make a deal with AMD, and starting putting the pc's out on the market. Intel comes over and says "Your selling AMD? Um, you just lost your 25% off price". Whats that company to do? Soak the cost of the chips or pass them on to their customers? If the price jumps too much their customers will go somewhere else. So, they can either lose business or drop AMD.

This is just a legall way for Intel to maintain its dominance in the market when arguably it should have dropped many years ago.

[Intelrules]

Its about time

intel business practices are perfectly legal. If Intel was violating buisness practices DOJ would in their Palace to search for documents for a case.

Plain & simple. If voodo or anyother oem want's Intel & amd chips come to them work out a deal if possible. If Intel plays hardball & voodo doesnt like it tell them we dont want you're chips. If Intel keeps on coming back to a point where they are harassing the excetuive's workers & etc... in Voodo . All voodo has to do is call their lawyers & go after Intel with evidence in court.

The way amd is accusing Intel of their buisness practice is completely shutting out amd from the market & amd filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Intel knows not to do that & they havent.

Anyway why would a jury want to give amd a guilty verdict against Intel while at the same time being ahead of Intel in technology?

I love how Intel set up amd for a trap in court. Come get ahead of us we dont mind. Following years amd sue's Intel for anti monopoly practice (which Intel is nothing close to a monopoly) but being ahead in technology also supposedly chipping away at Intel bread & butter division. Smack not guilty Intel.

AMD Vs. Intel

So what does Voodoo PC care? They already pull 30-50% profit margins at 500-800 systems per month... We're not talkin a $500 system either, so the profit AND revenues are pretty big. Would it really be worth an extra 5-10% discount on Intel processors to alienate your main clients (gamers), and their obvious choice for AMD? Nope.

If Intel want's a piece of the gaming pie, they're gonna have to build a chip that scores higher on the benchmarks that count - NOT business application benchmarks (which is where the excel). The hardest of hardcore gamers look purely at benchmarks when choosing a chip, and are willing to pay for that performance - thus the hefty pricetag on gaming systems.

In reality though, the difference between Intel and AMD during actual gaming isn't noticable...

AMD Vs. Intel

So what does Voodoo PC care? They already pull 30-50% profit margins at 500-800 systems per month... We're not talkin a $500 system either, so the profit AND revenues are pretty big. Would it really be worth an extra 5-10% discount on Intel processors to alienate your main clients (gamers), and their obvious choice for AMD? Nope.

If Intel want's a piece of the gaming pie, they're gonna have to build a chip that scores higher on the benchmarks that count - NOT business application benchmarks (which is where the excel). The hardest of hardcore gamers look purely at benchmarks when choosing a chip, and are willing to pay for that performance - thus the hefty pricetag on gaming systems.

In reality though, the difference between Intel and AMD during actual gaming isn't noticable...