• 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 on the road to recovery.

humbug said:
Not quite, what Intel did is not in dispute, Dell fessed up to receiving the money for the reasons AMD claimed, what Intel appealed is the legality of it, a technicality.
Click to expand...
ASUS does cashbacks should that be illegal too? what about just out right under pricing a competitor? how is it really any different.

No more discounts for bulk buying because some court might not like it? ooh look AMD have a monopoly on consoles maybe someone should let the courts know.

the whole thing is ridiculous
 
Bencher said:
Besides that, lots of positive. Platform support, pricing remain constant (instead of the HUGE inflations amd shoved down our throats) even when it had absolute and complete domination of the cpu market space.
Click to expand...
Platform support: what do you mean by that, Intel make you change the motherboard after every generational refresh.

pricing remain constant: Historically the CPU remained the same also, small price increments for small performance increments.

instead of the HUGE inflations amd shoved down our throats: that needs explaining, AMD have done nothing but push the cost to performance ratio down, significantly. Its one reason Intel are not as profitable these days.

arknor said:
ASUS does cashbacks should that be illegal too? what about just out right under pricing a competitor? how is it really any different.

No more discounts for bulk buying because some court might not like it? ooh look AMD have a monopoly on consoles maybe someone should let the courts know.

the whole thing is ridiculous
Click to expand...

Cashback's are not illegal, never have been.
 
Grim5 said:
Click to expand...
And there I was thinking I had wandered into the pick the new PM thread!

As Humbug already said, it does gloss quite a bit but for a I guess for an analyst it is pretty deep.

Anyway for the 1980s stuff: AMD or Intel was hardly my problem. My problem from about 1981 until the mid 1990s was: why x8086. What an extremely poor ISA which made live hard for everyone one. Yes, Microsoft could have been more competent at OS design, but there was a good reason most GUI computers at that time were Motorola 68k.
 
The thing that investors are seriously worried about at present is the sort of example i'll give you here.

In the last quarter Intel earned $4.7 Billion in revenue from data centre.
AMD only earned about $1.85 Billion in revenue from data centre.

However revenue is not profit, it does not include the cost of turning in that revenue, you would deduct that cost from the revenue and with that you're left with profit.

So, from $4.7 Billion revenue Intel earned $200 Million profit, about 4%
From $1.85 Billion AMD earned $490 Million profit, about 32%.

Intel are practically giving away their data centre products for cost to NOT stop AMD from growing their market share with 32% profit margins.
If it gets just one step worse than that AMD will have continued to gain market share from Intel, at 32% profit, while Intel will be losing money on what was previously their most profitable business.

In 2016 Intel earned $19 Billion revenue in data centre, with $8.5 Billion profit. 50% margin.

On top of that AMD employ about 14,000 people, Intel employ about 120,000 people.

And AMD are about to swing a 12lb sledge hammer at the market, this to Intel's butt end of a plastic handled screw driver.

Oof....
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Not quite, what Intel did is not in dispute, Dell fessed up to receiving the money for the reasons AMD claimed, what Intel appealed is the legality of it, a technicality.
Click to expand...
Who cares what dell fessed up, the courts determined that Intel was innocent. I mean come on, if it was AMD instead of Intel and the courts determined they were innocent you wouldnt be bringing up any anticompetitive practices.
 
humbug said:
Platform support: what do you mean by that, Intel make you change the motherboard after every generational refresh.
Click to expand...
It means that Intel makes it known what CPUs will support what motherboards, and they support it day one. Unlike some competitors with whom you have no idea what CPU will support what motherboard - requries you to spam all threads in various forums to make them keep their promise and have to wait 2 years four your now 5 year old motherboard to support a 2 year old outdated cpu.
humbug said:
pricing remain constant: Historically the CPU remained the same also, small price increments for small performance increments.
Click to expand...
Thats not true, we've been throught his 50 times and you keep repeating something that's factually wrong. 2600k to 6700k had a 45% performance increase in MT workloads. 1700 to 5600x has a 35% performance incraese. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating stuff thats actually not true? I really don't get it, I mean sure, you like AMD, but is that a reason to actually lie? Wtf
 
humbug said:
instead of the HUGE inflations amd shoved down our throats: that needs explaining, AMD have done nothing but push the cost to performance ratio down, significantly. Its one reason Intel are not as profitable these days.
Click to expand...
Really? Can you explain to me where are teh performance to price ratio increases between zen 2 and zen3? Afaik the 5600x is slower than the 3700x in MT performance for almost the same price. Also the 5800x is WAY slower than the 3900x in MT for what, a 10% discount? Latest gen of amd cpus have lower performance to price ratio than older ones :cool:
 
Bencher said:
It means that Intel makes it known what CPUs will support what motherboards, and they support it day one. Unlike some competitors with whom you have no idea what CPU will support what motherboard - requries you to spam all threads in various forums to make them keep their promise and have to wait 2 years four your now 5 year old motherboard to support a 2 year old outdated cpu.

Thats not true, we've been throught his 50 times and you keep repeating something that's factually wrong. 2600k to 6700k had a 45% performance increase in MT workloads. 1700 to 5600x has a 35% performance incraese. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating stuff thats actually not true? I really don't get it, I mean sure, you like AMD, but is that a reason to actually lie? Wtf
Click to expand...

AMD promised up to 4 years of support for AM4 motherboards, the Ryzen 5800X3D makes that 5 years of support.

Why would you compare an older AMD Ryzen 7 to a current AMD Ryzen 5? Generation to generation would be Ryzen 1600X to Ryzen 5600X, that's Ryzen 5 to Ryzen 5.

Bencher said:
Really? Can you explain to me where are teh performance to price ratio increases between zen 2 and zen3? Afaik the 5600x is slower than the 3700x in MT performance for almost the same price. Also the 5800x is WAY slower than the 3900x in MT for what, a 10% discount? Latest gen of amd cpus have lower performance to price ratio than older ones :cool:
Click to expand...

Again you're comparing the Ryzen 7, this time a later Ryzen 7, to a Ryzen 5, you're straw-manning.
 
humbug said:
AMD promised up to 4 years of support for AM4 motherboards, the Ryzen 5800X3D makes that 5 years of support.
Click to expand...
It took them 2 years to provide zen 3 support to x370. You call that good support?? 2 freaking years? LOL
humbug said:
Why would you compare an older AMD Ryzen 7 to a current AMD Ryzen 5? Generation to generation would be Ryzen 1600X to Ryzen 5600X, that's Ryzen 5 to Ryzen 5.



Again you're comparing the Ryzen 7, this time a later Ryzen 7, to a Ryzen 5, you're straw-manning.
Click to expand...
Im not the one comparing them, amd is comaparing them by pricing them similarly. I dont care about what names amd or intel decide to put on their CPUs, I care about the price. You said AMD increased the performance per cost ration, and I just gave you clear examples when that's absolutely false, amd gave us slower CPUs per euro than their previous gen. What name they decided to give on these cpus is irrelevant. If the new 6core zen 4 is called R9 7950x and costs 400 euros would you claim thats a huge pricecut cause the previous R9 wsa 700? Of course not, names are irrelevant
 
Bencher said:
It took them 2 years to provide zen 3 support to x370. You call that good support?? 2 freaking years? LOL

Im not the one comparing them, amd is comaparing them by pricing them similarly. I dont care about what names amd or intel decide to put on their CPUs, I care about the price. You said AMD increased the performance per cost ration, and I just gave you clear examples when that's absolutely false, amd gave us slower CPUs per euro than their previous gen. What name they decided to give on these cpus is irrelevant. If the new 6core zen 4 is called R9 7950x and costs 400 euros would you claim thats a huge pricecut cause the previous R9 wsa 700? Of course not, names are irrelevant
Click to expand...

2 Years? i know there was a time when AMD said they couldn't support Zen 3 on first gen AM4 motherboards due to most of them only having 16MB BIOS roms, Zen 3 needed 32MB roms, they did say those with 32MB roms could support Zen 3 if they wanted to, MSI had 32MB roms and they did support Zen 3.
After an outcry AMD went back to look at it and figured out that if they removed all support for all other generations of Zen from their firmware they could support Zen 3, it just meant that once you updated the BIOS you were stuck on Zen 3, that was it, no other support.
I don't remember exactly how long it took them to do that, but it was nothing like 2 years, that is a massive exaggeration.
------------

In 2017 i replaced my Core i5 4690K @ 4.6Ghz with a Ryzen 1600.
This first image here is why, the second image is the result.
The 4690K was £240, the 1600 £200.

6sR6qPL.png

B0KnK71.jpg
 
humbug said:
2 Years? i know there was a time when AMD said they couldn't support Zen 3 on first gen AM4 motherboards due to most of them only having 16MB BIOS roms, Zen 3 needed 32MB roms, they did say those with 32MB roms could support Zen 3 if they wanted to, MSI had 32MB roms and they did support Zen 3.
After an outcry AMD went back to look at it and figured out that if they removed all support for all other generations of Zen from their firmware they could support Zen 3, it just meant that once you updated the BIOS you were stuck on Zen 3, that was it, no other support.
I don't remember exactly how long it took them to do that, but it was nothing like 2 years, that is a massive exaggeration.
------------

In 2017 i replaced my Core i5 4690K @ 4.6Ghz with a Ryzen 1600.
This first image here is why, the second image is the result.
The 4690K was £240, the 1600 £200.

6sR6qPL.png

B0KnK71.jpg
Click to expand...
Zen 3 came out July of 2020. Support of zen 3 on x370 was given a couple of months ago. So yes, 2 years.

In 2017 I also replaced my 1800x for an 8700k. Dont have any pictures but the difference in gaming was massive. The 1800x cost 500 while the 8700k was 340
 
humbug said:
2 Years? i know there was a time when AMD said they couldn't support Zen 3 on first gen AM4 motherboards due to most of them only having 16MB BIOS roms, Zen 3 needed 32MB roms, they did say those with 32MB roms could support Zen 3 if they wanted to, MSI had 32MB roms and they did support Zen 3.
After an outcry AMD went back to look at it and figured out that if they removed all support for all other generations of Zen from their firmware they could support Zen 3, it just meant that once you updated the BIOS you were stuck on Zen 3, that was it, no other support.
I don't remember exactly how long it took them to do that, but it was nothing like 2 years, that is a massive exaggeration.
------------

In 2017 i replaced my Core i5 4690K @ 4.6Ghz with a Ryzen 1600.
This first image here is why, the second image is the result.
The 4690K was £240, the 1600 £200.

6sR6qPL.png

B0KnK71.jpg
Click to expand...
Spot on regarding Zen, bug.
 
Bencher said:
Who cares what dell fessed up, the courts determined that Intel was innocent. I mean come on, if it was AMD instead of Intel and the courts determined they were innocent you wouldnt be bringing up any anticompetitive practices.
Click to expand...
I care! As with most politics and justice, money wins. Intel purposely dragged the dispute on and on with appeal after appeal until it got a result. Despicable!
 
Bencher said:
Who cares what dell fessed up, the courts determined that Intel was innocent.
Click to expand...
That's either laughably naïve, extremely cynical, or the kind of talk a shareholder might engage in.

So you've never heard of a large adversary dragging court proceedings out until the other party guess bankrupt or gives up? That's not justice, just money at play.

Anyhow, the main thing in the EU is that Intel dragged it out so long until semiconductor fabs and technological security became such a big thing that the EC gave up in the hope of Intel basing more fabs in the EU (Leixlip, Ireland is of course the existing fab in the EU).

While Intel were clever enough to drag this out (if they had been found guilty subsequent market abuse would have resulted in very fast fines), they did settle with both AND and Nvidia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Litigation_and_regulatory_disputes
(The Nvidia lawsuit send took be missing from that article.)
 
Last edited:
KompuKare said:
That's either laughably naïve, extremely cynical, or the kind of talk a shareholder might engage in.

So you've never heard of a large adversary dragging court proceedings out until the other party guess bankrupt or gives up? That's not justice, just money at play.
Click to expand...
But thats not what happened at all. Intel was given a fine back in 2009, but a higher court annuled the fine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom