He believed there was a need to boost education and awareness among government IT units and the commercial systems integrators who bid for these projects.

It was also alleged that certain government IT hardware tenders expressly required the supply of Intel Pentium processors, but AMD could not provide any examples.

These claims were disputed by the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO), the body in charge of Hong Kong's IT-related policies and strategies.

'The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has issued internal product selection guidelines to facilitate government bureaus or departments in the selection of hardware and software products for general office use,' a spokeswoman said.

'On the procurement of computer systems, the guide specifies that factors to consider should include performance, compatibility, usability and cost.'

She pointed out the purchase of computer products by departments must comply with the government's 'stores and procurement regulations', which advise that 'when inviting tenders, brand names should be avoided unless there was no sufficiently precise or intelligible way of describing the procurement requirements'.

Mr Wong said AMD planned to engage the GCIO and other relevant departments in dialogue about market competition.

Commenting on AMD's allegations, an Intel spokeswoman said: 'Intel has built its valuable brand by having a long, proven history of providing high-quality, reliable, stable products for IT departments and consumers worldwide.'

AMD's salvo in Hong Kong is the latest in its long-running challenge to larger rival Intel in supplying microprocessors to the world's personal computer and server markets.

In June, AMD filed an anti-trust suit in the Delaware Federal Court against Intel, alleging anti-competitive practices.

It said Intel allegedly violated United States anti-trust law by pressuring 38 original equipment manufacturers - including Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Sony - to use its microprocessors.

Intel had said it would officially respond to that complaint in court on or before September 6.

There are now 68 class-action suits associated with that case in various federal and state courts.

The lawsuit followed a recommendation made in March this year by the Fair Trade Commission of Japan, which ruled that Intel violated Section 3 of the country's Antimonopoly Act. The commission found Intel conditioned its pricing based on system makers not doing business with its competition.

The European Commission, in co-operation with Japanese authorities, had also started investigating Intel for possible similar anti-competitive business practices.

In a report published last month, research firm Gartner suggested the AMD lawsuit seemed to have been crafted not only as a legal complaint but as part of a media campaign.

'This class of lawsuit typically takes years to resolve, and this one is likely to be no exception, though the pace could accelerate if AMD is able to interest federal or state authorities in taking up an anti-trust case,' Gartner vice-president Martin Reynolds said.

'The battle will begin to heat up when AMD tries to engage in the discovery process, which Intel can be expected to vigorously oppose.'

The Intel spokeswoman said the Japanese commission's action has had no impact on its business in the country.

'We would have disclosed in our earnings report if it were different.

'One of the reasons we accepted the cease-and-desist order was to enable us to continue to compete and minimise the impact on our customers,' the spokeswoman said.