Agner`s CPU blog

Yes, it may be true that the same code paths they used for Intel CPUs would have optimized well for AMD CPUs, but Intel probably isn't required to know that. Also, their code path optimizations are apparently targeted for specific vendors (namely, theirs, I guess) and models, not generic strategies, so it would have been a hack for them to apply an Intel-derived code path to AMD processors, because, while being better than no optimizer, the code might also include superfluous and deleterious algorithms as applied to AMD CPUs. Yes, it's pragmatic to do so and would have been better for consumers, but can we ethically require them to engineer a dirty hack into their programming structure? Another reason it's a gray area is that it's possible that the code path optimizations they took were obvious and would likely apply to any modern x86 CPU (though the fact that AMD and Intel are the only two players in the game sort of makes it beg the question), and if only some of them were obvious those optimizations may or may not be modularized already for easy extraction and universal use.

From a business standpoint, this was obviously a strategic decision on Intel's part to undermine AMD, but if it's an ideological grey area whether they undermined AMD or simply took advantage of the fact that they happen to be the producers of one of the CPUs they compile for in order to improve their compiler for their *own* product, then they can't necessarily be faulted, because the law requires evidence and analysis. (Taking in-house advantage isn't necessarily anti-competitive in itself; for example, Microsoft makes plenty of applications that run on their own OS but not on Linux or Mac OS.)

It is true that the settlement they issued flat-out admits wrongdoing; i.e., it implies that they did, in fact, effect an "affirmative or design action" meant to undermine AMD. As far as I can see there are three possible reasons for this.
1. We don't know all the details regarding how their code paths engine was implemented and other contingent issues. Being that it's a gray area, depending on these details we don't know, they could have been clearly in the wrong and thus admitted it.
2. It's a settlement; settlements are always political. Therefore the fact that they made a statement implying wrongdoing doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. In fact, the excerpt shown doesn't really say *anything* except that Intel will not in the future do things that are already clearly classified as anti-competitive. In other words, it's a formal statement that they won't break the law... and not being able to break the law is already implied.
3. As per Reason 2, given the small excerpt of the settlement shown, it seems possible to me that what they *actually* did is make something up that will sate AMD's lawyers while at the same time leaving the door open for them to either continue the same practice, or cease the practice (if it's too obviously anti-competitive or if they explicitly said they'd cease it elsewhere) but instate similar and/or related practices in the future, on account of the fact that those practices can easily be classified as "failures to act."

Of course it complicates the matter that there is actually a complete instruction set (SSE) that they don't support for the AMD. They have an excuse for that. Whether or not it's valid who knows. Since they do support that instruction set, it would seem deliberate "affirmative action" to disable it on AMD since AMD supports it in exactly the same way that Intel does on a purely functional level (independently of speed), and SSE is generally more efficient when applicable. However, if the decisions for how and when to use SSE instructions are intricately tied in with the rest of their code path algorithm (and possibly rely on internal structure of the CPU design), then the caveats I brought up earlier still apply.

In any case, whether not supporting optimizations on AMD's CPUs was an affirmative design decision to undermine AMD machines or merely a failure to act (to benefit AMD machines), either way, it's clearly wrong for them to publish benchmarks to OEMs, etc. comparing AMD CPUs to Intel CPUs using their own compiler that specifically optimizes for Intel CPUs (based on Vendor ID no less!, but either way) and not for AMD CPUs. It's misleading, and according to the UTC, even when specifically confronted with the issue they would habitually either mislead or directly lie about the cause for the speed difference and whether it could be solved. So *that's* the part that's really devious, and I can see why the FTC sued them. I *hate* companies like that. Incidentally, though, all companies are companies like that.