• 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 far cheaper, what's the catch?

EsaT said:
AMD giving also update path to actually improved architecture CPUs?
Instead of making third socket for Xth time rebranded same old security Swiss cheese like Intel...
Click to expand...

Chortled at this, fun times - well at least those that give off they have no brand loyalty should buy a Ryzen at some point and its about time. Just for them security holes alone is enough to drop em for a while, but the actual AMD performance is doing the talking which has been a while!
 
The last AMD I got was an athlon 64 single core. Intel have been on top of things since then until the last couple of years which I think is great. Will definitely get an AMD chip next time.
 
There are several times in the past 40 years AMD has had convincing or even better products on the market, although i dont think they have ever been in this position before... basically have intel by the balls.
AMD made decent early x86 chips, i used a lot of there 486 stuff and they never seemed bad - heck there even was a 120mhz DX4 486 !

Then with the Athlons and then a bit later with the dual core stuff they were in a good position performance wise, heck they even reached 5ghz first..... ok not talk about that.
 
Intel were the best for budget, then AMD, then Intel again and now AMD.

Every few years it changes, get whats best at the time.

Now it seems AMD. 5 years time, probably Intel again.
 
sideways14a said:
There are several times in the past 40 years AMD has had convincing or even better products on the market, although i dont think they have ever been in this position before... basically have intel by the balls.
Click to expand...
Performance wise AMD was actually even more dominating during Intel's NetBurst/Pentium 4 fiasco, which lacked also single core performance and was only good for turning lots of electricity into heat.
But Intel used very illegal means which should have resulted upper management getting stripped penniless in court and thrown behind bars.
While Intel's dirty tactics earlier preventing AMD from building up manufacturing capacity was already causing problems for AMD.
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective

And Intel is still continuing at the least semi-illegal AMD performance crippling compiler tricks:
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...ss-matlab-cripple-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/h...for-Python-Numpy-And-Other-Applications-1637/

Intel just isn't grey knight, but full blown black knight.
(Vantablack can be reserved for Nvidia)
 
sideways14a said:
There are several times in the past 40 years AMD has had convincing or even better products on the market, although i dont think they have ever been in this position before... basically have intel by the balls.
AMD made decent early x86 chips, i used a lot of there 486 stuff and they never seemed bad - heck there even was a 120mhz DX4 486 !

Then with the Athlons and then a bit later with the dual core stuff they were in a good position performance wise, heck they even reached 5ghz first..... ok not talk about that.
Click to expand...

the roles seem to reverse and it's ALWAYS the one who goes for clockspeed who fails.

first with the Pentium 4: Intel chased clockspeed and AMD went for cores, AMD won.

then AMD went for clockspeed around puledriver/bulldozer and Intel went for IPC, Intel won.

And now we have Intel chasing clockspeed while AMD is doing IPC and cores, AMD has won
 
Grim5 said:
the roles seem to reverse and it's ALWAYS the one who goes for clockspeed who fails.

first with the Pentium 4: Intel chased clockspeed and AMD went for cores, AMD won.

then AMD went for clockspeed around puledriver/bulldozer and Intel went for IPC, Intel won.

And now we have Intel chasing clockspeed while AMD is doing IPC and cores, AMD has won
Click to expand...

Going for clockspeed is simply the result of having nothing else good in the pipeline. It's the only way to get performance improvements.

It isn't a deliberate decision in most cases.
 
PanMaster said:
No. Intel has been ripping off consumers for years. The 9900K costs Intel roughly $30 to make. That profit margin makes the 2080Ti look like a bargain.
Click to expand...

To be fair its a bit more complicated than that, theres the Lipography Machines to pay for, R&D, tho Intel don't seem to be doing much of that on the CPU side, and 100,000 staff to pay, compare that to AMD's 11,000.
 
muon said:
Going for clockspeed is simply the result of having nothing else good in the pipeline. It's the only way to get performance improvements.

It isn't a deliberate decision in most cases.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a deliberate decision. It's a deliberate decision that's a result of your first sentence "nothing else good in the pipeline"
If we look back over the history of Ryzen, AMD had a very clear incremental plan and have been implementing it year on year. To the point that we are now, they pretty much dominate the retail cpu market. It won't be that long before they dominate the laptop and then the enterprise markets as well.

Intel for their part decided they would just drip feed performance via clockspeed. In other words, do little or no innovation for as much profit as possible. As a so called hi tech company, one would have thought Intel would be looking for and breaking new ground year on year. They made the conscious decision to actually do nothing other than overcharge customers for little performance gain, so as to maintain very high profits and juicy bonuses for it's top execs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom