SUNNYVALE, Calif., 14 August 2007 — An economic study has been issued by Dr. Michael A. Williams, director, ERS Group, an economic and financial consulting firm retained by microprocessor manufacturer AMD’s outside counsel, O’Melveny & Myers LLP. The study found that Intel has extracted monopoly profits from microprocessor sales of more than $60 billion in the period 1996-2006. Williams also found that consumers and computer manufacturers could gain over $80 billion over the next decade if the microprocessor market were open to competition. The analysis noted that consumers would save at least $61 billion over the period, with computer manufacturers projected to save another $20 billion, enabling them to increase their investment in R&D, create improved products and greater product variety; and provide additional innovation benefits to computer buyers around the world.

“In light of the recent European Commission decision and prior Japan Fair Trade Commission actions, this analysis asks not whether Intel has engaged in anticompetitive conduct, but how much Intel has gained from the alleged conduct,” said Williams.

Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer, added: “Intel’s monopoly profits of $60 billion directly contradict Intel’s claim that its business practices have resulted in lower prices — in fact this study shows that billions of dollars have moved straight from consumers’ pockets to Intel’s monopoly coffers. That $80 billion translates into an Intel monopoly tax on every consumer who purchases a computer. That’s a jaw-dropping figure that helps explain why the European Commission brought antitrust charges against Intel — the real harm that its abuse of monopoly power causes competition and consumers.”

To examine the study’s findings in more detail click to: www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~118720,00.html.

Intel has issued a response to the findings of the study:

“This study AMD has paid for is wildly speculative and based on flawed assumptions concerning Intel’s financials and the market. It speculates concerning a confidential Statement of Objections that neither AMD nor the author of the report have seen and makes conclusions no reputable economist would make. AMD is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, AMD is saying that Intel’s prices are way too high and Intel is reaping monopoly profits because Intel’s customers are paying way too much. On the other hand, AMD is claiming that it is being harmed because Intel is selling its products at a discount.”

In its case against Intel, the European Commission alleges that the company has committed three types of antitrust violation.

“The commission also considers at this stage of its analysis that the three types of conduct reinforce each other and are part of a single overall anti-competitive strategy,” its statement said.

The three abuses outlined by the commission are:

• Intel has provided conditional rebates to computer makers so long as they agreed to obtain most or all of their CPU chips from Intel.

• Intel made payments “to induce (computer makers) to either delay or cancel the launch” of products that used AMD chips.

• Intel provided CPU chips to strategic customers at below cost “in the context of bids against AMD.”

In regards to the decision by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition to issue a statement of objections concerning Intel’s business practices, Bruce Sewell, senior vice president and general counsel commented:

“We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel’s conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers. While we would certainly have preferred to avoid the cost and inconvenience of establishing that our competitive conduct in Europe has been lawful, the commission’s decision to issue a Statement of Objections means that at last Intel will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations made by our primary competitor.”

Sewell pointed out that the case is based on complaints from a direct competitor rather than customers or consumers, but Intel agreed that the commission has an obligation to investigate those complaints. Sewell reminded everyone that the Statement of Objections contains only preliminary allegations and does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of European Union law.

“The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling,” said Sewell. “When competitors perform and execute, the market rewards them. When they falter and under-perform the market responds accordingly.”