(10-18-2011, 02:26 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2011, 12:48 AM)Maverick Hunter X Wrote: [ -> ]You start to wonder if AMD is somehow doomed or what.
It's not looking good at all, at least that's what I think.
I hope AMD doesn't die, not because I like them (or hate them, it's just that Intel is simply better), but because if they die Intel can jack up their prices because there is no competition.
True, business needs a little competition from time to time.
But I think Intel have been pretty good with their pricings so far (the new i7 2600K was relatively cheap when I bought it this spring compared to my other rig with a Q9650 which was somewhat overpriced last winter) and if AMD were to disappear from the CPU market the prices for Intel would still be affordable in my opinion.
Hopefully there isn't people who change CPU's like they change underwear, so that cost isn't that bad.
When I upgrade I do it all so the CPU cost just blends in with the rest.
Quote:The only thing AMD/Bulldozer and Windows 8 have in common for me is that I won't touch neither.
And yet you will. But still, Intel isn't better than Amd, only bigger. It's never a good idea that companies don't have rivals, even if they are smaller. Look what happened to Windows, it took a decade or more until it finally was stable enough (win7). Now look at video hardware. Nvidia and Ati always fought for the first place and now we have incredible power on our video cards. The same is true for Intel and Amd, I hope they always compete for the faster cpu.
Quote:But I think Intel have been pretty good with their pricings so far (the new i7 2600K was relatively cheap when I bought it this spring compared to my other rig with a Q9650 which was somewhat overpriced last winter) and if AMD were to disappear from the CPU market the prices for Intel would still be affordable in my opinion.
Reading this brings me to the conclusion that either you never bought a microprocessor in the 1990s and/or you don't know anything about business economics.
The reason Intels x86 microprocessors are priced so well is because of competition from AMD. If they didn't sell them at a reasonable price people would just buy from AMD instead and they would lose revenue. Intels executives have a responsibility to the shareholders of the company to increase the companies net profits as much as possible, if they fail to do this they will be fired by the board of directors and replaced by someone who will. If hypothetically AMD were to go out of business Intel would have no reason to charge such low prices, in fact the executives at the company would have a hard time explaining to the shareholders why they didn't jack up the prices of there next chip when it would have made them more profit. They literally have a responsibility to the company to charge the correct amount for there products to make as much profit as possible, if AMD is removed from the equation that ideal price will go way up since there is no longer any competition for OEMs to buy from if they charge too much.
Anyone who bought x86 chips back in the 90s before AMD started providing good competition to Intel knows what I'm talking about. Back then Intel charged such absurd prices for their chips that OEMs usually went with the previous generation of chips just to save on costs. It wasn't until the explosive success of Athlon that Intel started to charge reasonable prices due to pressure from competition.
In the entire history of capitalism a complete business monopoly over an industry has never ever been beneficial to the consumer.
Quote:True, business needs a little competition from time to time.
Businesses ALWAYS needs more competition, it's the driving force behind capitalism.
Quote:Supposedly Bulldozer will run better on win 8
Quote:Performance for bulldozer on windows 8 appears to be significantly better than windows 7 due to optimizations for bulldozers unique threading system. The problem is that right now multithreaded applications running on bulldozer are distributing their threads in order of available cores, this means that two threads will end up running on the same module rather than two separate modules. Windows 8 fixes this by treating it like a CPU with HT, so threads will be distributed to different modules instead of just different cores until all of the modules are occupied. Luckily dolphin is already set up to do this but in the meantime this is a serious bummer for AMD until windows 8 becomes common (which won't happen for a very long time).
It's been stated multiple times now.
Quote:AMD to no longer use GlobalFoundries?
Read the post 2 above yours and 3 above yours. This was also already posted. Please read the posts in the thread before you submit a "new" link.
AMD is still doing well with it's fusion platform and GPUs. Although I'm willing to bet the Ion 3 platform nvidia is launching next year will crush it, and if that's the case AMD is in deep shit.
(10-18-2011, 11:11 AM)kernel64 Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:The only thing AMD/Bulldozer and Windows 8 have in common for me is that I won't touch neither.
And yet you will. But still, Intel isn't better than Amd, only bigger. It's never a good idea that companies don't have rivals, even if they are smaller. Look what happened to Windows, it took a decade or more until it finally was stable enough (win7). Now look at video hardware. Nvidia and Ati always fought for the first place and now we have incredible power on our video cards. The same is true for Intel and Amd, I hope they always compete for the faster cpu.
Don't be so sure about that my friend, Windows 7 SP1 and future SP2 will still hold for a few more years.
As of today I see no gain in a upgrade to Windows 8 (Not gaming wise anyway) and I'm not impressed so far of what they've done with it *cough* Metro UI *cough* along with other stuff.
And as for AMD (ATi), you might be half true that I'll touch their GPU's never ever their CPU's
(10-18-2011, 03:10 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:But I think Intel have been pretty good with their pricings so far (the new i7 2600K was relatively cheap when I bought it this spring compared to my other rig with a Q9650 which was somewhat overpriced last winter) and if AMD were to disappear from the CPU market the prices for Intel would still be affordable in my opinion.
Reading this brings me to the conclusion that either you never bought a microprocessor in the 1990s and/or you don't know anything about business economics.
The reason Intels x86 microprocessors are priced so well is because of competition from AMD. If they didn't sell them at a reasonable price people would just buy from AMD instead and they would lose revenue. Intels executives have a responsibility to the shareholders of the company to increase the companies net profits as much as possible, if they fail to do this they will be fired by the board of directors and replaced by someone who will. If hypothetically AMD were to go out of business Intel would have no reason to charge such low prices, in fact the executives at the company would have a hard time explaining to the shareholders why they didn't jack up the prices of there next chip when it would have made them more profit. They literally have a responsibility to the company to charge the correct amount for there products to make as much profit as possible, if AMD is removed from the equation that ideal price will go way up since there is no longer any competition for OEMs to buy from if they charge too much.
Anyone who bought x86 chips back in the 90s before AMD started providing good competition to Intel knows what I'm talking about. Back then Intel charged such absurd prices for there chips that OEMs usually went with the previous generation of chips just to save on costs. It wasn't until the explosive success of Athlon that Intel started to charge reasonable prices due to pressure from the competition.
In the entire history of capitalism a complete business monopoly over an industry has never ever been beneficial to the consumer.
Maybe price is no object so it doesn't really matter what they charge, just face it you just must have an Intel to any cost.
Monopoly or not, as long as Intel make CPU's I will continue to build computers.
If AMD was to take over the CPU market my world would be shattered and there would be no purpose in building any longer.
Yes I'm an Intel fanboy when it comes to CPU's and you may think I'm immature.
Quote:Maybe price is no object so it doesn't really matter what they charge, just face it you just must have an Intel to any cost.
The grammar in this sentence is so poor that I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Please rewrite it.
Quote:If AMD was to take over the CPU market my world would be shattered and there would be no purpose in building any longer.
????
That makes no sense. AMD would have to produce a superior product to overtake Intel in market share. Are you saying that if AMD made a superior product you would have no purpose in building desktops any more?
Quote:Yes I'm an Intel fanboy when it comes to CPU's and you may think I'm immature.
I don't think that you're immature because you're an Intel fanboy. I just think that your logic and reasoning skills need some work.
Sorry everyone. I realize I have now turned this thread into a wasteland.
Intel competes with itself more than AMD does. They have make their CPUs fast enough to get people to upgrade. OEMs not named after fruit can't absord a price increase and sales would likely go down if prices went up leaving the fabs expensive fabs idle (IB has delayed due to decreased demand). Even when Intel was charging top $ for the P2 they gave us the Celeron to keep that new .25μ fab running. Before that we Cyrix/AMD/NexGen/IDT/Rise all on Intel socket7 chipsets.
(10-18-2011, 04:50 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Maybe price is no object so it doesn't really matter what they charge, just face it you just must have an Intel to any cost.
The grammar in this sentence is so poor that I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Please rewrite it.
Ha ha that's a joke right? You seriously telling me that you can't understand that sentence.
Ok in pure english:
"I don't care what price Intel takes for their CPU's, I want to buy an Intel CPU no matter how high the price is."
I'm outta here...