>Oklahoma-based Abington Cole + Ellery, which specializes in class-action litigation, is asking affected Intel customers to contact the law firm about participating in a potential lawsuit.
>caught the attention of attorneys looking to capitalize on it.
Yes, I will gladly contact some suave gentlemen in business suits so I can make 10 cents while they make bank if I register with so-and-so entity after a dozen years of wasting the judiciary's time, all the while crapping on a company I like.
Yes, the article mentions that a class action only works if Intel isn’t honoring the warranty. The threat of a lawsuit is part of what incentivizes Intel to RMA instead of ignore.
With Intel continuing to flounder, and given all of the issues with their CPU products over the past handful of years - one has to wonder if Intel ever was actually good at designing and manufacturing CPU's.
Think back to the Pentium 4 and Athlon days... think about all the anti-competitive, illegal and/or unsavory business practices Intel employed during that era to gain dominance. They literally shut out AMD via illegal behavior - and received a slap on the wrist many years later. Their illegal behavior led to AMD being forced (via unfairly reduced revenue by way of anti-competitive Intel practices) to spin off Global Foundries, and forced to employ only second-tier engineers, managers, executives, etc.
Where would we be if Intel and AMD had actually competed freely during that era. It seems likely Intel would not have been the darling of so many PC enthusiasts, and would not be dominant in business computing either.
Here we are today, with Intel seemingly unable to find their way out of a paper bag...
You have to look more far back than just the Pentium 4 days. Intel absolutely were some of the greatest innovators on the industry if you look at 70s, 80s and 90s. I would say they simply were the best, but dropped the ball at least when AMD64 became a thing. How the mighty have fallen...
It's hard to overstate Intel's importance in regards to the modern CPU: they invented the microprocessor itself. (Though I'd like to state it's a bit controversial whether they only were the first to come up with a commercially available one or whether they actually invented the concept itself)
Also, there are many things outside the CPU that we take for granted today that were of Intel's innovation. A great example would be PCIe that Intel invented and essentially standardized. More recent example would be USB4.
Regarding CPUs they have some truly legendary chips, like the Intel 8086. This chip from the 70s is still in use today in your everyday products (as a clone though). It can be found TODAY in common products like computer mice, keyboards, AC, TV remotes and so on. Anything that is a commodity and needs some simple processing power has usually some derivative of 8086 inside it, granted ESP32 and such are taking over nowadays.
Of course the x86 instruction set comes from that very chip. I guess the name speaks for itself how big of a thing that was.
There's too much to fit inside one comment about how innovative Intel truly used to be, but they have a pretty good page for their history here: https://timeline.intel.com/
I guess it was innovation until competition got tough, then it was squash-mode, no matter how illegal or unsavory. During that era, can we honestly say Intel was still innovating in the CPU line? Have they innovated in CPU's recently? It seems not so much...
Look at the Core series - moderately incremental improvements for nearly two decades now? Many of which have significant, unfixable design flaws. AMD got their act together, and with significantly fewer resources ended up totally leap-frogging Intel in nearly all CPU metrics. How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
AMD had some objectively better CPU's during the Athlon era - until they ran out of money mostly due to Intel's anti-competitive behavior.
The "what-if" scenario is interesting to ponder...
> AMD got their act together, and with significantly fewer resources ended up totally leap-frogging Intel in nearly all CPU metrics. How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
And so could Intel if they wanted. Instead, they seem more interested in designing yet another socket and asking everyone to upgrade all of their hardware for a moderate performance bump...
>Instead, they seem more interested in designing yet another socket and asking everyone to upgrade all of their hardware for a moderate performance bump...
Yeah I totally agree if we consider Intel's innovation in the CPU space or lack thereof in the 21st century.
I have seen more innovation happen in the CPU space in the last 5 years than the 20 years prior to that. This has been thanks to AMD, Apple, ARM, TSMC etc; Intel has seemingly attempted to only slow down the innovation to keep cozy at the top spot.
Personal example: I rented an AMD machine last month and I seriously thought there was a bug with fastfetch when it showed the CPU having 5,7GHz clocks with 32 threads. I didn't believe such was possible. I had to double check because it felt so far fetched seeing such monstrous increase in clocks and cores, when upgrading from a few years old Intel machine to a new AMD one. That's innovation.
However to Intel's credit they have made major innovations in other areas, like peripherals, interconnects and so on. I am extremely grateful for Thunderbolt/USB4 existing today compared to the myriad of vendor specific docking connectors of the past.
>How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
They replaced engineers with accountants after gaining dominant position on the market. Short term it gave more profits but long term most innovation was lost in the process.
Intel developed and released the first single chip microprocessor, the 4-bit MCS 4004.
You had CPUs before that, but they were not single chips.
> like the Intel 8086.
You mean the 8051? It is a nice embedded chip, mostly because it has a lot of bit-level instructions and has separate execution and data address spaces if I'm remembering the details right.
> Of course the x86 instruction set comes from that very chip
It does come from the 8086, which I do believe was at least somewhat based on the even earlier 8080. I could be wrong though.
But yeah Intel did a lot. In the 70's though you had lots of semiconductor companies: Fairchild, Signetics, Motorola, MOS/CSG branching off of them. I really wonder what Intel would be if IBM selected a 68000 for the 5150 though.
Yeah sorry I might've mixed up 8051 and 8086. Not totally sure, main point was that it's an old ass chip design used in modern products.
These chips with 70s design are very common in ordinary "non computing" products, granted most are Chinese clones with varying levels of modification. I spend a lot of time reverse engineering regular commodity devices, their electronics and their firmware. For example the portable AC I just opened had 2 of these 8051s(?) inside, with an ESP32 for networking which I find rather fascinating. The first one controls physical inputs (buttons) and IR input from a remote, the second controls the AC compressor, fans and lower level electrical inputs (sensors etc) while taking input from the first and the ESP32 handles wireless communication sending input to the first one.
These old low performance chips are found inside mice, keyboards, remote controllers, dehumidifiers, air fryers and almost any other "simple" electronics. It's fascinating how a 70s chip design is still so prevalent in our everyday products.
Intel's golden eras were the 8086, 2/3/486, Pentium I/Pro/II era (1978-1998) and the Core era (aka son of Pentium M) before they ran into process issues (2006-2015).
Current execution stumbles do not diminish historical triumphs -- Pentium II and Nehalem were and are amazing.
>Current execution stumbles do not diminish historical triumphs
Not for those who have "$THING was never good" mindset after repeated, multiple stumbles in a row. You see this with anything that closed/died in disgrace.
I imagine there are people out there who think that Intel might file for bankruptcy/insolvency if they can't right themselves from this issue.
Frankly - every comment in this thread that touts Intel's technical achievements in the CPU space are citing things that happened nearly 30 years ago, or longer.
Intel, in the past 20 years, has floundered and misfired constantly. It's not a stretch to assert the only reason Intel is still around is due to their illegal business practices in the early and mid 2000's. Intel became synonymous with CPU's because they were literally (and illegally) the only option for 99% of the computer buying market.
I think you might be looking for facts that fit your ideas.
>> Commercially produced chips at 22 nm and below have generally utilised FinFET gate designs (but planar processes do exist down to 18 nm, with 12 nm in development). Intel's tri-gate variant were announced at 22 nm in 2011 for its Ivy Bridge microarchitecture.[30] These devices shipped from 2012 onwards. From 2014 onwards, at 14 nm (or 16 nm) major foundries (TSMC, Samsung, GlobalFoundries) utilised FinFET designs.
Do I need to copy/paste the entire wikipedia section? Intel didn't invent/discover FinFET nor where they first to use it commercially.
Even if we examine Intel's Tri-gate Transistor contribution to existing FinFET technology, we can see even there it was not an Intel invention/discovery.
Intel’s probably not worried. The very term “patent troll” was invented by their legal office to describe the people suing on a daily basis. And while patents has nothing to do with this case, their legal department is used to being sued…
31 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 81.7 ms ] thread>caught the attention of attorneys looking to capitalize on it.
Yes, I will gladly contact some suave gentlemen in business suits so I can make 10 cents while they make bank if I register with so-and-so entity after a dozen years of wasting the judiciary's time, all the while crapping on a company I like.
Not.
I don’t like lawyers but I guarantee there are equally if not more suave Intel lawyers who would tell customers to shove it if they could.
So this supposed lawsuit isn't even serving that dubious purpose.
As an aside, I have a 14700K. I've not filed for an RMA because it's been working perfectly fine for the better part of a year now.
I guess my point is that it’s better if Intel behaves, but if they don’t we have some recourse. Lawyers are a last resort thing.
Think back to the Pentium 4 and Athlon days... think about all the anti-competitive, illegal and/or unsavory business practices Intel employed during that era to gain dominance. They literally shut out AMD via illegal behavior - and received a slap on the wrist many years later. Their illegal behavior led to AMD being forced (via unfairly reduced revenue by way of anti-competitive Intel practices) to spin off Global Foundries, and forced to employ only second-tier engineers, managers, executives, etc.
Where would we be if Intel and AMD had actually competed freely during that era. It seems likely Intel would not have been the darling of so many PC enthusiasts, and would not be dominant in business computing either.
Here we are today, with Intel seemingly unable to find their way out of a paper bag...
It's hard to overstate Intel's importance in regards to the modern CPU: they invented the microprocessor itself. (Though I'd like to state it's a bit controversial whether they only were the first to come up with a commercially available one or whether they actually invented the concept itself)
Also, there are many things outside the CPU that we take for granted today that were of Intel's innovation. A great example would be PCIe that Intel invented and essentially standardized. More recent example would be USB4.
Regarding CPUs they have some truly legendary chips, like the Intel 8086. This chip from the 70s is still in use today in your everyday products (as a clone though). It can be found TODAY in common products like computer mice, keyboards, AC, TV remotes and so on. Anything that is a commodity and needs some simple processing power has usually some derivative of 8086 inside it, granted ESP32 and such are taking over nowadays.
Of course the x86 instruction set comes from that very chip. I guess the name speaks for itself how big of a thing that was.
There's too much to fit inside one comment about how innovative Intel truly used to be, but they have a pretty good page for their history here: https://timeline.intel.com/
Look at the Core series - moderately incremental improvements for nearly two decades now? Many of which have significant, unfixable design flaws. AMD got their act together, and with significantly fewer resources ended up totally leap-frogging Intel in nearly all CPU metrics. How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
AMD had some objectively better CPU's during the Athlon era - until they ran out of money mostly due to Intel's anti-competitive behavior.
The "what-if" scenario is interesting to ponder...
AMD outsourced foundry issues to TSMC.
Who's upgrading their cpus after 1-2 generations?
I have seen more innovation happen in the CPU space in the last 5 years than the 20 years prior to that. This has been thanks to AMD, Apple, ARM, TSMC etc; Intel has seemingly attempted to only slow down the innovation to keep cozy at the top spot.
Personal example: I rented an AMD machine last month and I seriously thought there was a bug with fastfetch when it showed the CPU having 5,7GHz clocks with 32 threads. I didn't believe such was possible. I had to double check because it felt so far fetched seeing such monstrous increase in clocks and cores, when upgrading from a few years old Intel machine to a new AMD one. That's innovation.
However to Intel's credit they have made major innovations in other areas, like peripherals, interconnects and so on. I am extremely grateful for Thunderbolt/USB4 existing today compared to the myriad of vendor specific docking connectors of the past.
>How did this not happen at Intel after all these years?
They replaced engineers with accountants after gaining dominant position on the market. Short term it gave more profits but long term most innovation was lost in the process.
You had CPUs before that, but they were not single chips.
> like the Intel 8086.
You mean the 8051? It is a nice embedded chip, mostly because it has a lot of bit-level instructions and has separate execution and data address spaces if I'm remembering the details right.
> Of course the x86 instruction set comes from that very chip
It does come from the 8086, which I do believe was at least somewhat based on the even earlier 8080. I could be wrong though.
But yeah Intel did a lot. In the 70's though you had lots of semiconductor companies: Fairchild, Signetics, Motorola, MOS/CSG branching off of them. I really wonder what Intel would be if IBM selected a 68000 for the 5150 though.
These chips with 70s design are very common in ordinary "non computing" products, granted most are Chinese clones with varying levels of modification. I spend a lot of time reverse engineering regular commodity devices, their electronics and their firmware. For example the portable AC I just opened had 2 of these 8051s(?) inside, with an ESP32 for networking which I find rather fascinating. The first one controls physical inputs (buttons) and IR input from a remote, the second controls the AC compressor, fans and lower level electrical inputs (sensors etc) while taking input from the first and the ESP32 handles wireless communication sending input to the first one.
These old low performance chips are found inside mice, keyboards, remote controllers, dehumidifiers, air fryers and almost any other "simple" electronics. It's fascinating how a 70s chip design is still so prevalent in our everyday products.
Current execution stumbles do not diminish historical triumphs -- Pentium II and Nehalem were and are amazing.
Crazy remembering a time when there was that much 16-bit code in the wild.
Not for those who have "$THING was never good" mindset after repeated, multiple stumbles in a row. You see this with anything that closed/died in disgrace.
I imagine there are people out there who think that Intel might file for bankruptcy/insolvency if they can't right themselves from this issue.
Intel, in the past 20 years, has floundered and misfired constantly. It's not a stretch to assert the only reason Intel is still around is due to their illegal business practices in the early and mid 2000's. Intel became synonymous with CPU's because they were literally (and illegally) the only option for 99% of the computer buying market.
Intel didn't invent/discover FinFET, nor were they the first to commercialize it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor
>> Commercially produced chips at 22 nm and below have generally utilised FinFET gate designs (but planar processes do exist down to 18 nm, with 12 nm in development). Intel's tri-gate variant were announced at 22 nm in 2011 for its Ivy Bridge microarchitecture.[30] These devices shipped from 2012 onwards. From 2014 onwards, at 14 nm (or 16 nm) major foundries (TSMC, Samsung, GlobalFoundries) utilised FinFET designs.
Even if we examine Intel's Tri-gate Transistor contribution to existing FinFET technology, we can see even there it was not an Intel invention/discovery.