just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
Sorry, but that example was really bad.
Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k. As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same. Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k. What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts. Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.
Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features. Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.
I'm not sure why you're insisting on educational replies. I'm aware AMD is stepping up their game.
What I don't agree with is that Intel are somehow the bad guys. AMD didn't push the CPU market either.. they've only 'just' got on an even playing field. Why aren't AMD accused of being lazy and greedy over the last few years too? Because they were 'catching up'? The guy lagging behind is usually the lazy one. It's taken AMD far too long to get to this point. Intel achieved it years ago.
The point of the metaphor is the principle behind it. Value is determined by demand, not cost of materials and labour. That's how the value of currencies are determined and the stock market. Demand for Intel was (or still is) higher than it was for AMD, therefore it cost more. It may change now and that could be good overall but Intel didn't do anything wrong.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
Sorry, but that example was really bad.
Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k. As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same. Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k. What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts. Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.
Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features. Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.
I'm not sure why you're insisting on educational replies. I'm aware AMD is stepping up their game.
What I don't agree with is that Intel are somehow the bad guys. AMD didn't push the CPU market either.. they've only 'just' got on an even playing field. Why aren't AMD accused of being lazy and greedy over the last few years too? Because they were 'catching up'? The guy lagging behind is usually the lazy one. It's taken AMD far too long to get to this point. Intel achieved it years ago.
The point of the metaphor is the principle behind it. Value is determined by demand, not cost of materials and labour. That's how the value of currencies are determined and the stock market. Demand for Intel was (or still is) higher than it was for AMD, therefore it cost more. It may change now and that could be good overall but Intel didn't do anything wrong.
Few years ago there was a guy(Martin Shkreli) who if I remember correctly raised the prices for a life depending drug by 5000%. Supply and demand you say... that's true, but it has to be within limits. In this particular case he went to jail. Obviously Intel isn't doing something that's life-threatening, but the point of this is that they kept prices high while improving on their tech with just a little. Enough to say it's new tech. Then comes AMD and suddenly Intel is producing excellent CPU's... do you think they had a breakthrough in technology suddenly... no they felt the heat and they decided to start delivering better technology which they could've done for years, but why invest more for less profit...
You see I don't "hate"(if I can use that word at all) Intel for what they were doing and in fact continue to do, rather I'm annoyed that there are people who defend them which only encourages them to continue doing it. Thankfully AMD is delivering and Intel doesn't have a choice, but to improve and hopefully adjust their future prices. And if you are wondering why I want Intel to imporve when I'm on team AMD at the moment... competition. Only with competition will us the small people actually get fair prices and good products.
Btw Gdemami after you got destroyed I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to even open this thread. It seems you click LOL on everything that doesn't shout Intel is better. Well I suppose at least you have the decency not to try and flaunt your ignorance anymore after that self K.O.
That Intel CPUs have been largely stagnant for the last few years rather than continuing to advance is not because they got lazy, and certainly not because they were greedy. It's because they tried to build a new process node that could build the newer, better products that they wanted to build and failed spectacularly at it.
For-profit corporations have always been greedy. Saying that they did something because of greed doesn't make sense unless they've always done it. It's like blaming an airplane crash on gravity: that doesn't explain why most planes don't crash.
And the train wreck that is Intel's 10 nm process node is most certainly not because of greed. The dollar value of what that is going to cost them in revenue (as compared to something that more or less worked while being at most mildly delayed) over the next couple of years is easily into eleven digits.
Well to be honest I'm not entirely sure about Nvidia since the RTX super versions seem like the better buy, but Intel is definitely filling that diaper.
Generally I'm surpised that there are still people who support Intel especially from the gaming community. It appears that those people are oblivious that their Ice Lake CPU's are all for laptops. Intel doesn't care about your gaming experience. They care where the money is and currently laptops are generating more sells than desktops. On the other hand AMD is focusing on both gaming and more importantly delivering CPU's that can be used for work as well without having to fork $1k just for a CPU.
First off, there is a stocking problem at the moment for the super cards and secondly I can get a AMD 3700 for $100 less than the 2060 super and it is a better card. So please explain how the super cards are better? Oh and even the 2060 super can't really do ray tracing without major FPS loss. At least AMD realizes that ray tracing is just a gimmick at the moment as it requires far more HP than the current generation can furnish.
Comments
What I don't agree with is that Intel are somehow the bad guys. AMD didn't push the CPU market either.. they've only 'just' got on an even playing field. Why aren't AMD accused of being lazy and greedy over the last few years too? Because they were 'catching up'? The guy lagging behind is usually the lazy one. It's taken AMD far too long to get to this point. Intel achieved it years ago.
The point of the metaphor is the principle behind it. Value is determined by demand, not cost of materials and labour. That's how the value of currencies are determined and the stock market. Demand for Intel was (or still is) higher than it was for AMD, therefore it cost more. It may change now and that could be good overall but Intel didn't do anything wrong.
Top of the mountain for why Intel is the bad guy.
Obviously Intel isn't doing something that's life-threatening, but the point of this is that they kept prices high while improving on their tech with just a little. Enough to say it's new tech.
Then comes AMD and suddenly Intel is producing excellent CPU's... do you think they had a breakthrough in technology suddenly... no they felt the heat and they decided to start delivering better technology which they could've done for years, but why invest more for less profit...
You see I don't "hate"(if I can use that word at all) Intel for what they were doing and in fact continue to do, rather I'm annoyed that there are people who defend them which only encourages them to continue doing it. Thankfully AMD is delivering and Intel doesn't have a choice, but to improve and hopefully adjust their future prices.
And if you are wondering why I want Intel to imporve when I'm on team AMD at the moment... competition. Only with competition will us the small people actually get fair prices and good products.
Well I suppose at least you have the decency not to try and flaunt your ignorance anymore after that self K.O.
And the train wreck that is Intel's 10 nm process node is most certainly not because of greed. The dollar value of what that is going to cost them in revenue (as compared to something that more or less worked while being at most mildly delayed) over the next couple of years is easily into eleven digits.