Soleron -Its not what they had done wrong as a practice, its that the hardware is designed in a fashion that makes it difficult for some leased engines to use the hardware properly. Its not their intent, its the lack of updating drivers on known issues. Of course, this has been an ATI problem even before AMD.

As for the reviews, when you have 50-100 different people cite the same issue, would you still buy the product? I'm far too busy to do the legwork, but the only accurate benchmarks for hardware are on tomshardware.com .. Take a peek and see if you care, maybe you'll find something you didn't know, as I'd imagine you havent owned ALL the AMD ATI cards available.

AMD CPUs, going back to the mid 90s, always lagged behind what their spec numbers said. Building AMD gaming systems back them was futile. Sure, things may be different now, but old memories are hard to erase and they'd have to do something to not just keep up with Intel, but blow them clear out of the water technologically for me to take notice now. It seems like they're always playing "catch up".

First point - OK. I agree there are issues. I still don't understand why this would stop you buying the cards.

Second point - Only accurate benchmarks are Tom's? You realise most of the internet hate Tom's for Intel and Nvidia bias from 2003-2008? The most reliable and neutral sites are Anandtech and Techreport. OK, some ATI cards have heat issues. But my point is that it's nowhere near as severe or widespread as Nvidia's issue.

Third point - Yep, agree AMD was flaky in the 90s due to lack of funding vs. Intel. But AMD were technologically and physically ahead of Intel from the release of K8 (2003) to C2D (2006). They really did 'blow them out of the water' during this time according to all hardware websites other than Tom's.

^^ Well at least we can agree to a point.

I'm really not trying to be a fanboy/unreasonable. I don't like seeing people have unfounded hate for AMD since AMD's existence is crucial to the survival of the PC and probably now the console market. My strategy is that when two products at a given price point are equally matched I'll buy the AMD one to save them from their impending bankruptcy. Otherwise I'll buy the faster one.

ugh..card development doesnt start in the year they're released. More like 3 years before according to anandtech. So HD4000 deveopment started around the aquisition. So if anything, AMD increased ATI's quality.

NJ5 is a terrific poster indeed.

On topic: ouch! The EU burocracy moves slow but when it hits, it hits hard. Still, Intel isn't done yet - they have appealed the decision on the courts and until the courts have their say Intel won't pay. 

Of course, but acquisitons don't happen overnight either. While AMD became official owners of ATI in 06, who's not to say that they got involved sooner? Just a possibility.

It's really none of the EU's business if one American company is demonstrating anti-competitive behavior against another American company.  They have an *interest* (it could ultimately lead to a monopoly and higher prices), but not a mandate, except in their own minds.  How would the EU respond if the US government fined BMW because it was being anti-competitive against Saab?  Our government tends to fine foreign companies that are improperly competing with American companies, but I'm unaware of scenarios where we levy gigantic fines against foreign companies for unfairly competing with each other.

When fines of that magnitude are levied, it's usually to restore a local competitor or to compensate consumers.  In this case, it's simply a tax considering EU customers most likely would NOT have paid significantly less for those processors had the behavior not existed.

You're clearly uneducated about these matters. If an American robs an American on European soil, the applicable law is that of the country where the crime happened. The same is true in regards to companies' activities, which were done in EU territory.

For similar things, Intel was fined in Japan and Korea. If Intel doesn't want to get fined, they can either leave these markets (which they won't) or comply with the law.

Most patents last 17 years.  How is Intel still enforcing the x86 patents?  Most likely they struck cross-patent deals with AMD.