• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2009
Posts
17,175
Location
Aquilonem Londinensi
As a marketer I think this is both vile and a bad move.
You should never resort to slagging off your competition. If you believe in your product you should stand behind it and show it off on its own merit. Not to mention, these are "people" in this advert, with familys to support and AMD is joking that they are now unemployed? Worst. Advert. Ever.

If you know the origins of the sentiment, it's actually quite clever
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
I hope there's some great news at computex.

The upgrade bug has me something fierce, and I would like a 5Ghz XFR AMD system to upgrade to. Specially with leaks saying some motherboards will support ram to 4400MHz ( OC ) off the bat!

Will be a lovely upgrade from 4Ghz 5820K, with 2400Mhz RAM.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
As a marketer I think this is both vile and a bad move.
You should never resort to slagging off your competition. If you believe in your product you should stand behind it and show it off on its own merit. Not to mention, these are "people" in this advert, with familys to support and AMD is joking that they are now unemployed? Worst. Advert. Ever.

I quite like it. Dont see anything wrong with it, certainly dont see the slagging off aspect.

People always used to justify buying Xeon even if inferior as it was essentially the done thing, low risk. The same used to be said for IBM, where this comes from originally. Now AMD are saying they have a product so superior that attitudes will change, just like Intel did to IBM.

Dont be a drama-llama as my daughter would say.

Just 2 years ago Intel were slagging off Zen for being a "glued together" bodge job. That doesn't seemed to have been justified at all. Especially now Intel are bringing their own multi chip solutions to market.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eteknix.com/amd-intels-glued-together/amp/
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2003
Posts
4,188
Location
Stourport-On-Severn
As a marketer I think this is both vile and a bad move.
You should never resort to slagging off your competition. If you believe in your product you should stand behind it and show it off on its own merit. Not to mention, these are "people" in this advert, with familys to support and AMD is joking that they are now unemployed? Worst. Advert. Ever.

It's a very old advert for a start. But in a "slagging off your competition" advert, it is nothing compared to what Intel have done to AMD over the years. Plus of course, AMD have never resorted to outright bribes to it's OEM's to not use or sell Intel products.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Apr 2017
Posts
1,762
I don't know how long you have been watching this thread but i have made that same Ryzen vs Coffeelake argument time and time again in this thread, he can't get me or as far as my observations in this thread are anyone to disagree with him 'on that', so what he does is exaggerates, by quoting 20% better IPC, 50 FPS faster in games without giving any context and so on..... knowing its crap because he's had those tropes shown to be wrong to him over and over again.

There is something that is true, many in here say the same thing that your talking about, and then there's utter hyperbole, that's where Dg stands in this discourse.

I've been following it from the beginning sadly... Although dipped in and out as there's little news worthy stuff in here lol.

20% ipc no chance, but 20% performance in some games is about right though, game depending.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Apr 2017
Posts
1,762
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
Do you think we would have 8 core 16 thread CPU's from Intel right now if it was not for AMD? look at the slide above you, if we didn't we'd have problems, i think its only because of AMD that we have 5Ghz 8 core CPU's, and a CPU can be faster on paper, in a slide, doesn't mean its the best CPU for the job.
Also, seemingly faster gaming is the only thing Intel have left, without that, what do they have?
what is your argument here fella? I was replying to those shouting dg down that he was a troll et al - and he may well be - but not because of his post about intel delivering. intel have delivered the top cpu's for about a decade, that is completely inarguable yet there are those on here happy to shout dg down that he's wrong. he's certainly a 'wrong un' :p but that part of his argument is sound. as I said there seems to be a habit of arguing with the person posting rather than the post - as is evident in your replies to me, you appear to be debating something that I've never said.
you're no longer debating the point on intel being the top dog for a decade you're rehashing replies that have no relevance to my posting. you specifically ask in the first line of the post I've quoted - do I think we would have 8c 16t cpu's from intel if it wasn't for amd - what has that got to do with intels previous dominance?? FWIW I 100% agree we almost certainly would not have had them but that doesn't negate the fact intel have been producing and delivering the fastest cpu's.

i'm not arguing that intel look to be about to get another kicking from amd, never once argued/questioned that. i am simply saying that those claiming intel have failed to deliver are wrong. intel have quite clearly delivered.
could they have delivered more? almost certainly.
could they have pushed the boundaries of cpu's further in the time they have had clear dominance? almost certainly
could they less ***** of a company? definitely

but i am not debating or arguing any of those things. intel have been consistently delivering the better (more or less) cpu's for about a decade. and people shouting troll/fanboy/bias at dg or whoever on this point down won't change that. why? because they are demonstrably wrong and I know that you know enough about cpu's to agree with that.

amd pulling their fingers out of their rear ends have undoubtedly forced intel to up their game, or at least try - seems they may well struggling now. that, however, does not take away from the fact (actually makes it more lol worthy to see them struggle after their dominance) that intel have had the best and strongest cpu line in about a decade.

edit: for clarity, what intel have failed to do is progress the cpu landscape - that does not mean they have not been delivering. what that means is they may well be about to stop delivering the 'big boy' cpu's
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,382
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
what is your argument here fella? I was replying to those shouting dg down that he was a troll et al - and he may well be - but not because of his post about intel delivering. intel have delivered the top cpu's for about a decade, that is completely inarguable yet there are those on here happy to shout dg down that he's wrong. he's certainly a 'wrong un' :p but that part of his argument is sound. as I said there seems to be a habit of arguing with the person posting rather than the post - as is evident in your replies to me, you appear to be debating something that I've never said.
you're no longer debating the point on intel being the top dog for a decade you're rehashing replies that have no relevance to my posting. you specifically ask in the first line of the post I've quoted - do I think we would have 8c 16t cpu's from intel if it wasn't for amd - what has that got to do with intels previous dominance?? FWIW I 100% agree we almost certainly would not have had them but that doesn't negate the fact intel have been producing and delivering the fastest cpu's.

i'm not arguing that intel look to be about to get another kicking from amd, never once argued/questioned that. i am simply saying that those claiming intel have failed to deliver are wrong. intel have quite clearly delivered.
could they have delivered more? almost certainly.
could they have pushed the boundaries of cpu's further in the time they have had clear dominance? almost certainly
could they less ***** of a company? definitely

but i am not debating or arguing any of those things. intel have been consistently delivering the better (more or less) cpu's for about a decade. and people shouting troll/fanboy/bias at dg or whoever on this point down won't change that. why? because they are demonstrably wrong and I know that you know enough about cpu's to agree with that.

amd pulling their fingers out of their rear ends have undoubtedly forced intel to up their game, or at least try - seems they may well struggling now. that, however, does not take away from the fact (actually makes it more lol worthy to see them struggle after their dominance) that intel have had the best and strongest cpu line in about a decade.

edit: for clarity, what intel have failed to do is progress the cpu landscape - that does not mean they have not been delivering. what that means is they may well be about to stop delivering the 'big boy' cpu's

I'll repeat my argument, Intel have been stagnating and still are.

Answer this simple question, seemingly faster gaming is the only thing Intel have left, without that, what do they have?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
I'll repeat my argument, Intel have been stagnating and still are.

Answer this simple question, seemingly faster gaming is the only thing Intel have left, without that, what do they have?
hold on a minute - what the hell has any of the above got to do with intels dominance for the past decade or my stance that to call someone out as biased or a troll for stating intel have been delivering the top cpu parts is wrong? you're argument as you call it is irrelevant to this specific discussion. (it's not an argument by the way because no one, certainly not me, is arguing with you on that - kind of need a 2 way for it to be an argument other wise you're just stood all alone howling at the moon like a maniac!)

why are you insistent on returning to an argument/debate with me that I have not ever been a part of?

rather than me answering your question (mainly because it's pointless - i've not been debating that) how about you answer my simple question because it relates directly to what I have been debating (I have no idea what conversation you think we're a part of?!)

who has been delivering the top cpu's for a decade. please don't reply with some guff about amd forcing the core/thread increase, power delivery or any other irrelevant info. I don't care about that as far as this conversation goes.

plainly and simply answer me this - who has consistently delivered the best cpu performance for the past decade....also don't answer with straw men, or any other round about 'stuff'....amd or intel.....who have delivered the top cpu parts consistently for a decade?

i'm actually a tad confused what is going on here and why you keep going back to the same waffle about intel stagnating the cpu market. if you take time to read my post and debate it rather than debate with the poster you'll see already I've agreed intel have been stagnating the cpu landscape. but yet again that is totally irrelevant to my posts.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2010
Posts
3,069
I'll repeat my argument, Intel have been stagnating and still are.

Answer this simple question, seemingly faster gaming is the only thing Intel have left, without that, what do they have?


Amd Gpu compute and a brand name to enable them to demand the £&$ in the relevant markets. They will lose Apple soon but even this would affect Amd too.

Edit look at the buyouts and acquisitions intel made in the last few years.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2018
Posts
2,710
what is your argument here fella?

intel have delivered the top cpu's for about a decade, that is completely inarguable... intel being the top dog for a decade

AMD weren't even competing for a number of years. Intel were in a one man race. I could win a one man race myself and call myself "top dog". Intel weren't even trying because AMD weren't even in the race. Hence, Intel had a complete lack of innovation. That's nothing to be proud of.

Then AMD entered the race in 2017 so Intel started trying again and produced some great products. But only because of AMD.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,382
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
hold on a minute - what the hell has any of the above got to do with intels dominance for the past decade or my stance that to call someone out as biased or a troll for stating intel have been delivering the top cpu parts is wrong? you're argument as you call it is irrelevant to this discussion. (it's not an argument by the way because no one, certainly not me, is arguing with you on that - kind of need a 2 way for it to be an argument other wise you're just stood all alone howling at the moon like a maniac!)

why are you insistent on returning to an argument/debate with me that I have not ever been a part of?

rather than me answering your question (mainly because it's poitnles - i've not been debating that) how about you answer my simple question because it relates directly to what I have been debating (I have no idea what conversation you think we're a part of?!)

who has been delivering the top cpu's for a decade. please don't reply with some guff about amd forcing the core/thread increase, power delivery or any other irrelevant info. I don't care about that as far as this conversation goes.

plainly and simply answer me this - who has consistently delivered the best cpu performance for the past decade....also don't answer with straw men, or any other round about 'stuff'....amd or intel.....who have delivered the top cpu parts consistently for a decade?

i'm actually a tad confused what is going on here and why you keep going back to the same waffle about intel stagnating the cpu market. if you take time to read my post and debate it rather than debate with the poster you'll see already I've agreed intel have been stagnating the cpu landscape. but yet again that is totally irrelevant to my posts.

I'm not going to read that wall of text, no time at this point. I'm not talking about "Intels dominance for the past decade" if you go back to where this argument started i made that point my self, the conversation i've been having is about Intel's stagnation against AMD pushing forward.

Why TF would i be arguing about "Intels dominance for the past decade" ? that's a given. How did you even arrive at this argument? its nothing to do with anything i have said.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
Jesus lord have mercy you lot will argue over pretty much anything lol
hardly, but there is a small minority in this thread who seem intent on quoting posts then talking about something completely different in their replies. that is either down to wanting to argue with the poster than the post content or an inability to understand the post they have quoted. if it's the former then the mods should be acting accordingly if it's the latter then folk need to either take more time to read, digest and understand the post they are quoting or stay out of that particular conversation.
 
Back
Top Bottom