Intel Corp (INTC)

[imho]

Smallpops,

The problem I have is that if anyone posts anything over here showing that it is possible that AMD did not completely make up every single complaint, well we all know how that person is treated. That person is a deslusional AMDroid living in the Matrix and has no idea what is really going on

It is not the complaints that are created in the “Matrix”, it is the conclusions that are drawn that require the “tin foil hat” ;) Ok, excuse me for saying that. But the argument is not on what happened, but why? It is the intent that is being questioned. In this case concerning the Intel compiler, the question is: did Intel do this deliberately?

If you check your article and follow the authors conversations with Intel on the complaint forum, you will glean some more information. Not only did Intel fix this “bug” in its later compilers, but the “bug” was not there in previous versions of the compiler. The accusing author states:

No, the problem is deliberate. The older versions of IFC (version 7) produce code that works perfectly well on both Intel and AMD chips. The latest version does not.

http://softwareforums.intel.com/ids/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=1583

Well, the author has his own opinion. To me this seems to be a strong indicator that there was nothing deliberate in what happened, but a classic case of a bug rearing its ugly head further down the road. If this was deliberate, I would think that Intel would have had this “bug” since the Athlon XP introduction in 2001. That was not the case. But, if you are AMD and can’t possibly explain why you make great products and still can’t make money, then it is easy to blame your competitor and jump to conspiracy theories. That does not mean they are right.

IMHO