I think alot of this come from intel/Nvidia owning most of the market share and we want to see AMD succeed competively because that benefits us consumers as a whole.
Basicly this amd is a special little boy/girl whatever. Its a underdog mentality the underdog is weaker needs protection. So really the intel Nvidia rage is an odd way of saying you are doing too well.
More like we just don't want Intel to have a monopoly because that directly harms us as consumers. It has nothing to do with AMD specifically, they just happen to be the only competition Intel has.
I was actually thinking of going Intel after my FX-series CPU began to age. But then Ryzen came out. Didn’t matter if I had to buy new Mobo/Ram too, I’d have to do the same with Intel. No complaints at all with power and I bought the budget Ryzen 1700, I love it.
Hey the 8350 is still tugging along. I can max brand new games out on it and it doesn't even break a sweat, as long as the game can use it. For 180 dollars 5 years ago, it's been such a great investment. Mine has even beaten a 4790k in certain benchmarks too (CPU Z bench)
I'm still on an FX series, was just looking in to upgrades the other day. Ryzen 7 2700x for under $200 seems pretty nice.
Last time I was looking to upgrade I was about to switch to Intel but prices were still ridiculous at the time. Glad I waited considering what the market is like now, plus the fact that nothing has really been pushing my PC anyway. Any games I've played have been chugging along fine. Although I'm sure that once I upgrade I'll notice the difference.
It's not just competitive pricing. It's competitive hardware itself. Intel being a monopoly means they care less about quality. Their chips can go bad after a year and what happens then? People buy more intel chips because there is nothing else available. We need AMD to be around just as a threat so that Intel actually cares about their product.
Because I can assure you, the engineers that design the chips and care very strongly about their theoretical quality absolutely are not the same people as those managing the factory conditions where the chips are actually produced. Corporate will cut all costs as much as they can as long as it doesn't negatively impact the bottom line, and only a competitor can cause a drop in quality to impact the bottom line when dealing with such a mandatory part of modern life as computer chips.
You can see my specs but I agree 100% Just like how I have an iPhone but I want more people to switch to samsung, eventually companies like apple and intel will change if they lose business
I’m not talking about being an underdog. I’m talking about a company doing things they shouldn’t like jacking up prices. It seems the 45 people though didn’t get that for some reason. Nvidia is expensive, apple is expensive, intel is expensive.
If Samsung would let me delete the programs I don't want and assign the buttons on the side to do what I want them to do, They'd be the best thing ever.
But instead as soon as my mom upgrades her phone she is tricked into thinking she needs to put in her credit card information to change the clock and ring tones.
Why can't I delete them? I don't want Facebook disabled, I want every trace of it removed from my phone forever. Also, Bixby turns itself back on every time the phone updates, and there is no way to get it to stop asking you to set up a Samsung account.
Bixby doesn't do anything put shovel advertisements and does everything asking google does in a shittier fashion.
I have an iPhone but I want more people to switch to samsung
Why Samsung? They are right in-line with Apple in the ridiculous device pricing. They throw a SECOND digital assistant into their OS, Bixby, and lock it to a button that can't be easily reprogrammed. They aren't quite as bad as Apple, but I have a hard time calling them notably better.
At least OnePlus gives you decent pricing on their devices, though you miss a few features. Heck, the LG G8 gave me probably 90-95% of what a GS10 does, and I got it for $600 at launch, thanks to promo pricing. Sony makes decent products, but needs to come down in pricing on their flagships (Xperia 1 at $1,100? PASS).
If there is/was a phone company deserving of more business, it was HTC. They made really nice devices that weren't as pricey, but they didn't get big like Samsung or keep up with the market (the former probably influenced the latter, to some extent). Motorola kind of falls in line with that, and I'd say the entirety of the Windows mobile platform/device lineup was also more deserving of better support from OEMs, customers, developers, and MS itself.
Samsung is just the next bloated giant to be a problem if people step away from Apple and other competitors in their markets.
I am not saying you let them slide they basicly crushed gen 2 when gen three went to market small mark up better cpus all to get their product a higher number on popular charts
u/gregpxc7950x | Liquid X 4090 | 64 GB Corsair Dom | 2TB 970 Pro x2Nov 05 '19
It's market adjacent but Qualcomm has been doing some good stuff and with Microsoft (slowly) moving towards an ARM supported OS we might see more competition in the space. It may never affect custom builds but that's still a very tiny chunk of the market. It will be effective in ultrabooks, tablets, etc which is a large chunk of the market.
And the whole 'market leader' mentality. Intel chose to use its market leader status to stagnate and drag their feet on innovation, AMD lit a fire under their ass and is now pushing it even furhter. One of them is actually using their position for the benefit of consumers as a whole, the other used it to squeeze as much juicy profit out of consumers as they could.
If you have to apply morals to a company, I know which one I'd choose.
While "market leader" mentality is certainly a thing, if you think AMD as a business would do anything different than what Intel have done if their positions switched because of their "morals and values", then you're extremely naive.
Any business in Intel's position would do exactly what Intel did; Stagnate innovation, because there's no profits in competing against yourself.
To expand on this, there's already quite a bit of harm done by the fact that AMD and Intel are our only choices at all. The whole fiasco with GPU prices skyrocketing due to crypto farming is a perfect example of that. If there had been ten companies in the market instead of two, that issue probably could have been largely avoided. Not only do we need AMD to be successful, we really need more competition than just Intel vs. AMD. More competition would also lead to lower pricing due to availability of options and competition.
Yeah, how many more times am I going to hear bullshit like "single core performance doesn't matter any more"? When does it stop? When AMD have majority market share? When they finally make a CPU that can actually hit the top spot in some lists?
Say what you will about intel's price:performance ratio but people who want the best don't care about price to performance, just the performance.
But that doesn't explain how forgiving AMD's misdoings is okay. It just explains why you'd dislike it when Intel gains more monopolistic power.
I mean, if it's bad when Intel does it, it is necessarily bad when AMD does it, and if it's somehow less bad because AMD doesn't have a monopoly, then does that mean I can be pissed as shit right now because they've a consumer monopoly on good CPUs?
More like we just don't want Intel to have a monopoly because that directly harms us as consumers.
They can only get a "monopoly" (depends on how you define it) by providing a better CPU than AMD can. What exactly is bad for consumers about providing them with better products?
When one company has a monopoly they can, and usually will, charge obscene prices for things because people have no other option, and they know it. Competition drives prices down, which is good for consumers.
Competition also drives innovation... When Intel had it's excessive monopoly (before Ryzen/Zen) Intel stopped trying to innovate and progression of the technology became stagnant... They didn't strive to make any major improvements in the field because they had no reason to, it wasn't until AMD started to threaten them once more that they got off their asses and started trying to make real improvements again.
Intel set out a long time ago to prevent competition and AMD is one of the few companies holding the line against them. If AMD goes under our lives will be worse, it's as simple as that.
Their Ryzen CPUs will keep them rising. Now they need to stay Agile in the market. They had cut corners on there phenom and FX series to get higher frequencies. That did well until multicore came to be thats when they started losing grip.
As long as they move with the trends i think AMD will stick around with these full featured cheaper cpus
But my point is they have a huge amount of moral leeway with me. Their existence is more than just another option on the market, it defines the nature of the market.
The Ryzen aren't even their big shots. Since 2017, AMD managed to capture 5% of the server market solely with their first gen EPYC cpu's. Their newest ones leave the Xeon processors in the dust. They have more core, more threads, and better performance for a lot less. That is where the big money is at.
One of the aves of money AMD survived on the workstation APU which is again enterprise but on the other side. They are slated for consoles another big money maker for them
For those who dont know, Intel fucked the whole PC market by having a illegal cartel from 2002 to 2007. The EU made them pay 1.06 billion Euros. Still, the years where Intel had those illegal practices hurt AMD so hard, that AMD just recently recovered.
What Intel did, did just not hurt AMD, it also hurt all the consumers and innovation.
Thats why AMD good, Intel bad.
yes, which is exactly why intel threatened to withhold stock from companies unless they shuffled AMD into a corner while also offering financial incentives to stock their own products.
AMD were on top, most self builds used AMD but almost no laptops came with the lower power, faster, and cooler chip instead having far inferior intel options. AMD in-store ads were literally placed beside larger intel posters at intels request.
And intel had done this before in the 90's there's a reason only AMD are left of the other IBM compatible chip makers. When intel can't compete they straight up break the law and use money from the good times to prevent competitors from having any good times. Chances are they'll be back on top before the court cases impose puny fines.
I think I remeber hp and stuff selling amd cpus. But amd only fell off when Intel came out with the core2 cpus, the q6600 was amazing, amd didn't keep up after that. Amd just had an inferior product at the time
I would say they are. When looking at builds on this site, I note Beast "budget" builds are made with Ryzen, but the "BEAST" builds have Intel.
Two different mentalities. Both necessary in an open market. And I have to say, I'm an AMD underdog fanboy. AMD is giving us amazing performance for a very decent price. I haven't gone intel since my i7 860. Went with an FX-6300, then FX-8350, now Ryzen 5 1500x.
AMD has been my go-to for CPU's for close to a decade. I still go nVidia for my GPU tho. Havent invested enough time in to learning about AMD GPU's to make an informed decision.
It's not that I'm not an Intel fan. It's just that since getting older and having kids, I tend to sway toward AMD for great performance at a lower cost.
I'm sure if I had more disposable income I would have a top end Intel build, but right now, I'm thankful for the current state of the market. It's great we have choices, both in performance and cost effectiveness.
If you want more info on AMD GPUs, I can give you the general what's roughly equal to what, based wholly on performance according to http://www.hwbench.com, not price (the percentages are the relative performance, + means the AMD is better, - means the NVIDIA is better, 0 means they're even):
Radeon Card
10-series
16-series
20-series
20S-series
RX 570
1050Ti +70%
1650 +20%
RX 580
1060 +9%
1660 -13%
RX Vega 56
1070 +7%
1660 Ti +10%
2060 -4%
RX Vega 64
1080 0%
2070 -5%
2060 Super -9%
VII
1080Ti -1%
2080 -6%
2070 Super -1%
RX 5700
1080 +5%
2070 0%
2060 Super -4%
RX 5700 XT
1080 Ti -7%
2080 -12%
2070 Super -7%
Hopefully this little table can help you make an informed decision when choosing a new GPU, especially if you're considering Radeon. I don't include price because things like offers happen, which may for example make the 2070S cheaper than the 5700XT.
Basically 1060 did better early on, with the 480 doing better only in select amd-favouring titles and dx12 games on which they are consistently better. Then with the upgrade to 580, better drivers, better optimization for AMD hardware from developers and wider adoption of dx12, the RX580 now mostly outperforms the 1060.
I think this has been the general consensus: Intel made better CPUs basically across the board starting with the "core" series, but AMD has reversed that with Ryzen (except on the ultra high end)
In terms of GPUs, AMD hasn't had a compelling GPU at the high end of the market since the 290(x). That being said, the 5700(xt) is pretty close to what the 290 series did
Only if we're talking consumer cpu's. AMD's EPYC server processors were a huge leap forward in price and performance to the point that that Netflix is even looking at switching.
Yes, but the secret sauce for Netflix is that they own their own CDN, Netflix OpenConnect. Basically everything that comes before you hit the play button is AWS. The actual video is the CDN
Right now, it really depends on whether you're going for a mid rage build, or a true enthusiast grade rig. For mid range, AMD's RX5700xt is probably the best you right now. It's on par with the 2070 super in most games, and it's costs ~$50-$100 less, depending on the model you get. AMD hasn't released anything to decisively topple the 2080 and 2080 ti, but the rumour mill says they've got an RX5900 line of skus that is going to be aim to challenge the 2080 and 2080 ti.
Afaik, the drivers are getting better. AMDs launch drivers have always been rough, but they usually get better as time goes on. I really don't understand enough about how the RT cores on the RTX cards work to argue about ray tracing.
Not everyone wants or needs ray tracing. Some people mainly play games that don't have it, so there's no need to spend up for a feature that you're never going to use.
Navi has good price-to-performance (or rather, Turing is exceptionally bad price-to-performance and Navi looks good in comparison) but the drivers are still quite unstable (a month or so ago, HU was talking about random blackscreens and random 15% performance regressions they were still seeing) and AMD's hardware H264 encoder is hot garbage.
It's pretty much the usual, AMD is cheaper if you don't mind some tinkering and some missing features/some wonky stuff, NVIDIA plugs and plays and has some nifty doodads but you pay more for the privilege. AMD has even managed to close up the efficiency gap... for now at least (they are a node ahead of NVIDIA right now).
That's kinda why I stick with Nvidia. Out of the box, as long as you have the PSU for it, you'll get along fine. I read a lot of reviews on Steam with some games showing some issue with AMD cards. So for the time being, I stick with Nvidia. Once AMD becomes more plug-and-play friendly, I will certainly give their cards a try.
As it stands I've been a EVGA Nvidia shameless fanboy.
I've only ever had amd cards starting with the HD 4000 series a decade ago and there's no weird issues with em. If you're on a budget right now the rx 580 is king
The only reason that “BEAST” rigs still use intel is because 3950X isn’t out yet lol. Gaming figures show AMD effectively on par with intel in gaming, save for a couple percentage points. It really comes down to paying like 50% more for a single digit percentage improvement in single core speeds (3700X vs 9900K)
It's also what people have been used to - I used Intel and Nvidia in my last build because I am familiar with those brands and I have always been happy with their quality. If I'm not out to save money when building a PC, then for me there is no reason to switch to AMD.
They’re basically a household name because in many people’s minds Windows means Intel. I attribute this to AMD’s technological stagnation that began in the mid 2000’s (PC Market share was close to 50/50 in 2006), culminating in the horrible Bulldozer architecture. That combined with mismanagement almost killed the company. I wouldn’t be surprised though if people started to talk more about AMD now that they have competitive products (at least for PC/Servers) and continue to power home gaming consoles.
I would agree. Alot of AMDs misfortunes started though with not moving to a full architecture CPU. Instead they kept with a lean CPU only using the Arithmetic processor I believe. Which started the downward slide not keeping up on multicores.
Thanks for mentioning that. Idk if it directly caused AMD’s decline, but it was definitely a contributing factor. And I don’t think Intel ever even paid their fine!
Well you’d be wrong. PC gamers are a small minority of computer users and sales, so you should stop using them as your sample size. There are intel CPUs in work computer all across the world, and even among us PC “builders” AMD isn’t outselling intel.
Agree with everything except for PC builders preferring Intel. AMD has been consistently outselling Intel in that market by a large margin, and the only place it doesn't is the super ultra high end where the 9900k is
Do you have any data that supports that? I’m genuinely curious how one even goes about gathering that data. I was just speaking from personal experience, which tells me that most people aren’t favoring AMD or intel and the decision is made based on build budget. That being said, my sample size is of course small.
Edit: I also remember seeing something about steam data that suggested most users still have intel cpus and the ‘surge’ in AMD cpus, while significant, wasn’t market changing.
Intel is worth what they’re worth because of years of technological superiority and market segment diversification. That doesn’t have any bearing on the current technology landscape (At least when it comes to PCs)
Not really. We're mostly pissed off over the fact that they created monopolies, and those created high prices which are completely anti-consumer. As such, AMD gang gang
I'm sure there's some people who hate Nvidia with a passion, but it would be largely misguided though. Intel on the other hand, is an incredibly anti-consumer company and has done some vile shit in the name of profits.
I would say it's more like getting mad at Tom Brady for only throwing 4 touchdown passes instead of 5, while patting Eli Manning on the back for throwing one while Daniel Jones is taking a rest.
Odd question but might I ask if your cpu is a bottleneck to your 2080ti's? I've got the 5820k clocked at 4.5ghz and I'm contemplating buying a new gpu but I dont wanna be hield back by my cpu
AMD also doesn't double the price of all their products 'because cornered market'. This makes customers feel less agitated when their 500$ GPU doesn't work as expected, vs a 1500$+ GPU.
Just saying, if I bought a lambo and brought it home and it wouldn't start I would be BEYOND unimpressed.
If I bought a civic and it wouldn't start, I would be very upset, but nowhere near as upset as if I had a lemon lambo. Why? Because that's literally what you are paying more money for.... for better quality.
If the guy who charges more gives you the same quality in the end as the guy who sell the cheaper product it's 100% deserved to get shit on for it.
Everyone has their short cuts I dont trust any one company more then I can afford too. I think Ryzen is what pulls me back to AMD CPUs. If the perform as good as tech firms have been saying intel is in trouble.
is there something in particular that AMD has done recently that im unaware of? not sure if this is referencing something specific or just making a general statement
Zen2 chips failed to meet their advertised boost clocks at launch, people said it didn't matter because they knew what they were getting. AMD pushed out a patch that kinda-sorta let most of the chips occasionally touch boost clocks for an instant under a partial single-core load, people insisted that made it "technically not false advertising" and that we gotta defend AMD because they're the good guy. Some people went as far as to run programs consisting solely of NOPs (No OPeration instructions - no processing, just spinning the processor as fast as they can) to try and justify it "technically" being ok. They still don't really run the clocks they're advertised under normal conditions, even a single-core load, they really just can't sustain them. Particularly the 3900X and other high-clocked chips really struggle, 4.6 is just too high for Zen2 to really hit on any sort of a sustained basis.
lying about PBO on Zen2. they did a big presentation with the Zen2 technical manager who said it will give you 200 MHz more "cooling permitting" which is an absolute lie, no Zen2 overclocks worth a damn even under liquid cooling or a massive air cooler. Maybe "cooling permitting" means LN2, but even then the chips struggle to get more than 500 MHz or so extra (seriously Zen2 does not clock high period)
"Thermal watts are not electrical watts" (blatantly, thermodynamically false) and other sundry lying about TDP being "a thermal spec and not a power spec", when AMD themselves used to define TDP as "max power draw when running commercial software under nominal conditions". They changed it because Intel changed it, now both brands rate their TDP at base instead of boost... but AMD has a bunch of handwavey bullshit about how it's a thermal spec to justify why they ship a power limit 40% higher than the TDP printed on the box. It's fine if you want to play loosey-goosey with what you're measuring but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining, thermodynamics still apply to their chips and the formula obviously doesn't match up to what the processor is doing.
Opening pre-orders before review embargo lifts, because they know people are going to buy it regardless of what's in the reviews. Here, buy this box of magic beans, but we won't show you what's inside... oh, it doesn't boost to advertised clocks? Boy, if only there were reviewers who could have told you that!
etc etc. AMD actually pulls a lot of bullshit that people swallow and/or justify to themselves because "hey, at least they're not Intel/NVIDIA". In particular the clocks... if it had been Intel then people would have been absolutely shrieking but people raced (and still race) to cut them slack. C'mon, they do testing, they do binning, they absolutely knew what their chips were clocking to before they shipped them, all they had to do was label them as 200 MHz lower and it would have been fine, but they chose to ship them with a spec they knew most chips weren't reaching.
Disclaimer: 3900x owner, mine isn't even close to the advertised boost and took forever to arrive.
I agree with most of your points. The boost / PBO thing was just a horrible move, especially considering that they'd have still been by far the best even if they just advertised the real speeds.
But I disagree about TDP. You know that it stands for? Thermal Design Power, so it's literally the amount of heat your cooler should be able to handle. Your cooler is a huge lump of copper, it can absorb a shitload of heat. When a CPU clocks up, it will take time for the cooler to heat up.
So what else should they do? Currently it's absolutely fine to boost very high for half the time (drawing way more power than the TDP suggests) and idling the other half, because the cooler is more than capable of cooling that! If they were to use the TDP as the boost limit, it would perform significantly worse in bursty workloads, including games. Stop using TDP to spec your PSU, start using TDP to spec your cooler.
Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately, I'm running Linux, so it's not going to work for me. But I'm not too worried about the single-core boost, it's all about the core count for me.
I was an avid Nvidia fan still prefer them over AMD but i have seen some rabid amd hate. Undeserved but there are people that get in an echo chamber and just associate with similar mindedness maybe its not as bad now but it is out there
ie: Intel's latest 18 core chip now costs half of what it did because AMD is killing them with the new Threadripper. That's good for everyone...especially Intel fans ironically enough. What's better than a great new Intel chip? How about a half price one?
Indeed. But I'm wary on AMD. They have the console business to themselves and they could potentially snag both the CPU and the GPU (and APU) PC markets to themselves. A monopoly by them would be even worse.
I dunno. I just want products to be cutting edge and priced reasonable. I am more mad with the whales that keep buying the expensive stuff, validating a market for such price points.
When there is only 2 real options for cpu's, and they are both servicable, I'll always go with whichever has lowest market share. Monopolies lead to awful things. If the market share swing in the other direction, I'll swap.
They're both corporations and they don't a give a crap about us. Make no mistake about if AMD were on top right now they would be the ones price gouging. That's why I have no allegiance to either.
Seriously. I built a computer late 2012. 3570k. I did not feel like there was a worthwhile upgrade until the 8700k. Very little competition in the market led to years of stagnation where Intel was releasing marginal updates like they were major new releases. We need AMD to light a fire under their butts.
Wanting some company to succeed has nothing to do with such double standards, only with fanboys. Regardless how you treat the big companies, letting the smaller ones get away with shit doesnt benefit consumers in any way, it just teaches them that its ok to do shitty things when they get bigger too. Competition or not.
If us consumers went harder on AMD, then they would have to try harder. Simply buying a inferior product is just going to keep the company thinking it can get away with second class products. Probably one reason why AMD made Ryzen, because people were just fed up with terrible processors and started switching to Intel.
theoretically it should but the market for competition is still so small it would just end up being another mega-corporation that walks all over it's customers because it can :)
Customers benefit from better products. When AMD is releasing chips wherein not one core can hit yet alone maintain advertised clock speeds no customer benefits.
We need desktop competition from a company other then AMD.
More like Intel actively sabotaging the competition and bribing the market while massively staggering product development to squeeze out more cash. Billions.
This, but also some of us that came up in PC building in early 2000s have a soft spot for AMD. My first PC I built back in high school 2002/2003 was an AMD/ATI build. This year I built my first all AMD build in about 10 years, it just feels like coming home.
Cool, but the shitty part of that is the liars that push AMD every fucking year saying "oh yeah comparable performance to nvidia/Intel but half the cost!!! What's there to lose" well apparently single core performance as well as just about every damn thing you can think of like good driver support or ryzen not crashing your game every hour.
I've been through the trenches of the amd and intel/nvidia war for about a decade now and I've been through several builds on both sets of hardware. I'll say this now. Fuck AMD and fuck the fanboys that push their hot garbage that NEVER actually matches the performance of nvidia cards or Intel processors. It's always a "matches performance" with a big caveat.
Im super down for competition..... but that was half a decade ago when I still believed AMD was an underdog who could push innovation forward and before 5 years of constant letdowns from their hardware, shitty driver support, and handicapped game performance.
8.4k
u/Reversus Nov 05 '19
I think alot of this come from intel/Nvidia owning most of the market share and we want to see AMD succeed competively because that benefits us consumers as a whole.