Intel faces fresh charges in Europe

Intel is accused of using shady tactics to undermine AMD

Intel faces a fine of up to 10 per cent of its annual turnover if it is found guilty of the latest anti-competitive charges filed by European regulators.

The European Commission has sent a letter outlining new complaints that Intel used shady tactics at the expense of arch rival AMD.

Intel stands accused of offering discounts to a major European PC distributor to favour its products in preference to AMD's, and paying a PC manufacturer to delay marketing plans for a range of products using AMD chips.

Intel is also accused of paying the same PC maker to manufacture systems based on its own products rather than AMD's.

Regulators said that initial investigations have led them to believe that Intel's actions were part of a co-ordinated effort to undermine its main competitor.

"The Commission also considers at this stage of its analysis that all the types of conduct reinforce each other and are part of a single overall anti-competitive strategy aimed at excluding AMD or limiting its access to the market," the executive arm of the EU said in a statement.

Intel has eight weeks to respond to the Commission's latest round of complaints and has the right to seek a subsequent hearing in Brussels.

In a statement Intel dismissed the accusations as "unfounded" and claimed that they were part of a long-running AMD strategy to undermine its position.

"We are confident that the worldwide microprocessor market is functioning normally and is highly competitive in Europe and elsewhere. Intel's conduct has always been lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers," the company said.

"It is clear that the allegations stem from the same set of complaints that our competitor, AMD, has been making to regulators and courts around the world for more than 10 years."

This is the second time this year that Intel has locked horns with EU regulators. In February officials raided the chip makers' offices in Germany in search of evidence that the company had abused its market position.