AMD aren't going anywhere, If Intel succeed again in pushing AMD out they will down size and licence out their IP, like ARM, and that doesn't include X86, its not theirs to licence out, what they might do is give that up and revoke Intel's AMD64 Licence and then Intel's chips wont work on your Desktop.
-
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.
Intel Allegedly Playing Dirty Again To Undercut AMD’s Ryzen
- Thread starter Simon Belmont
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
You have a short memory. You're waffling on about buying AMD and when the 3000 series came out you did nothing but cry and whinge about the price, had a hissy fit and disappeared
No one needs to help or owes AMD anything, they are out to make money just like any other company. They are just as bad as Intel and Nvidia when it comes to it, the 5000 series are the best gaming processors and came with a hefty jump in price and the 6900xt however is inferior to nvidia offerings yet it's hardly a value proposition. To buy based off sentiment is naive.
You have a short memory. You're waffling on about buying AMD and when the 3000 series came out you did nothing but cry and whinge about the price, had a hissy fit and disappeared
No one needs to help or owes AMD anything, they are out to make money just like any other company. They are just as bad as Intel and Nvidia when it comes to it, the 5000 series are the best gaming processors and came with a hefty jump in price and the 6900xt however is inferior to nvidia offerings yet it's hardly a value proposition. To buy based off sentiment is naive.
AMD had the opportunity to completely render Intel's lineup obsolete and worthless. Instead, they left some room for Intel to move and still compete.
I still think and believe that people on Mindfactory and the other big retailer stores buy AMD's Ryzen and keep them the bestbuys because of punishment vote against Intel, not so much because the Ryzens are so great. They are not so great.
AMD had the opportunity to offer the 12-core Ryzens as Ryzen 7, so to lower the premium SKUs to mid-range segments, but they chose to pursue higher short-term profits.
You have a short memory. You're waffling on about buying AMD and when the 3000 series came out you did nothing but cry and whinge about the price, had a hissy fit and disappeared
No one needs to help or owes AMD anything, they are out to make money just like any other company. They are just as bad as Intel and Nvidia when it comes to it, the 5000 series are the best gaming processors and came with a hefty jump in price and the 6900xt however is inferior to nvidia offerings yet it's hardly a value proposition. To buy based off sentiment is naive.
You're right, having said that the 5800X is a better CPU than the 10850K and slightly cheaper, AMD are the only ones doing 12 and 16 cores... GPU prices are all over the place right now but MSRP the 6900XT is at least as good as the 3090 in rasterization performance and 33% cheaper. yes the 3090 has better RT performance, at least right now in Nvidia RTX games, but that's where your £500 premium comes in, if its worth it to you.
That is not a competitive advantage. Not a pronounced one and definitely not enough to compete with Intel.
Ah, yet it is, isn't it?
Not enough to compete with Intel 
At the moment, you wrap a turd in AMD stickers and they will sell better than Intel's crap
You have to be extremely upset with AMD to think that even with increased prices AMD is in disadvantage. The way AMD sets prices is they look at overall picture and then value their product. EG, gamers, look at certain aspects of the chip only, and then get upset when AMD product is equal in gaming while costing the same as competition, yet it is stomping competition in areas which gamers do not care about.
At the moment, you wrap a turd in AMD stickers and they will sell better than Intel's crap
You have to be extremely upset with AMD to think that even with increased prices AMD is in disadvantage. The way AMD sets prices is they look at overall picture and then value their product. EG, gamers, look at certain aspects of the chip only, and then get upset when AMD product is equal in gaming while costing the same as competition, yet it is stomping competition in areas which gamers do not care about.
I think some people are unreasonable when it comes to AMD's pricing, its as if people expect them to always be heavily discounted no matter what the competition is doing, remember when an 8 core CPU cost £900? it was not that long ago.
I think £400 is reasonable for a CPU with its level of performance, features and efficiency, yes i would like it to be cheaper, i would like it to be £300, but in reality AMD are a business and their goal is to make money, i don't think there is anything unreasonable that AMD are doing, i'm sure Intel lament the fact that just 3 years ago they were selling equivalent CPU's for $1000 and no longer can. Why is it that for some people the scrutiny is always on AMD?
I think £400 is reasonable for a CPU with its level of performance, features and efficiency, yes i would like it to be cheaper, i would like it to be £300, but in reality AMD are a business and their goal is to make money, i don't think there is anything unreasonable that AMD are doing, i'm sure Intel lament the fact that just 3 years ago they were selling equivalent CPU's for $1000 and no longer can. Why is it that for some people the scrutiny is always on AMD?
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Utter nonsense, they can't render anything useless or obsolete when Intel sell massively to OEMs. Plus there are people just as insane and deluded as you with their Intel fandom.
They made a smart business move, all their CPUs sell faster than they can churn them out, so there's no advantage to pricing them even cheaper. If they start to sell 12 and 16 core CPU's at 8 core pricing that would be business suicide. As for buying CPU's to punish Intel, yeah... tin foil hat time!
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,505
Humbugs got a point, faster single thread for Ryzen. What I like about i9's is ease to OC well past 5ghz, oh, and +2 cores. At the £400 mark they are both excellent, but the 10900k was way over priced to start with.
Well, but plenty of consumers do think about not just their immediate purchase but also the one after that, and so.
So if someone realizes that the purpose of dumping and other anti-competitive practices are to put rivals out of business so that in the future the aggressor is free to set the price they want, and bases their current purchase with that at least somewhat in mind that doesn't make them an activist (not that activist is a dirty word in my book).
people are fully aware how anti-competitve amazon is yet people still buy from amazon at the cost of highstreet brands.
same thing with fashion and loads of other consumer goods.
consumer cares very little about coorporate practices. they care how much stuff they can buy with the limit amount of resources they have and if the stuff is the best they can buy.
I despise James Dyson for instance, gets millions from EU farm subsidy and prominant brexiteer. As soon as brexit transition period kicked it, he moved his head office to Singapore and probably save a bucket of tax money. I still have 2 dyson products in the house, it just happens the hoover is well priced for the money I am willing to pay and it is a good product. there are of course better product than dyson, but they cost more than I am willing to pay...
and every time i look at those hoover, i am reminded where James Dyson got me...in front with my trousers around my ankle
Is this a troll or just can't keep normal speech and doesn't know normal words?
Exactly, they could sell more if they could make more faster, even when they were price gouged with a £100 markup over MSRP they still sold faster than they were coming in, AMD could charge £500 for the 5800X and sell just as many, yet its still priced at a reasonable £400 and on top of that AMD have prioritised the lower end cheaper SKU's to bolster stock of them.
There is a balance to this, you can always reduce your prices, you can't put them up, so the balance is where your price is reasonable but with room to move if you need to, its not looking good right now but if Rocket Lake S does turn out to be good enough to put Zen 3 back in the box AMD will move their pricing to compete until Zen 4 is ready.
For those that want a cheaper Zen 3, maybe wait a few months.
The sold quantities are very small. If your retailer sold 30,000 a month, that is 0.000375 from the population of the country.
That is virtually nothing.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Is this a troll or just can't keep normal speech and doesn't know normal words?
You really do have zero self awareness. It would probably be funny if not for the fact there is clearly something wrong.
They are selling out, if you can't afford one get last gen.
No, they don't.
The phrase "faster than they make them" means that they are very far away from the real market demand for this kind of performance.
Which means that their whole supply chain, production, planning - everything is wrong.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Exactly, they have a decent stack and room to manoeuvre when Intel brings something to compete. If they price 12 cores at 8 core pricing they would cripple themselves considering most people will still just go buy Intel now unless they are proper enthusiasts, which most people aren't.
Like you say, there's a balance and I'm fairly confident a large multinational know a thing or two more than our resident armchair expert.
Last edited: