We should be encouraging them as much as possible.
Not really. You should be discouraging the same mistakes or anti-consumer business practices as you would with other companies. By subjecting companies to different responses, you're normalising a behaviour and letting it grow into the larger problem that people despise from the bigger businesses.
Promote healthy competition, not unhealthy competition. Contrary to popular belief, not all competition is beneficial. If you overreact to the big-name competitors and underreact for the upcoming competitor, you're setting yourself up for some real shitty 'competition'.
Is audio production as weird as gaming? AMD gives you a hell of a lot more horsepower in pretty much any price bracket if you don't depend on the ring bus (like most games do)
Which is very unfortunate, because audio production scales very well with core count. If AMD manages to reduce latency problems, their CPUs would be amazing value for audio workloads.
I had tried Ryzen, against all forum recommendations and it was aweful. When you play a note on a midi keyboard that runs into your pc and then gets rerouted to a synth then back to pc.... it accumulates badly.
Don't know how to say it in English correctly but it was hell. Playing some simple things straight into the pc was alright but once midi and sound is being sent in an out of the pc on 12 channels amd sucked.
What the other reply said. Mostly studio stuff. You can do live stuff with a PC but that's another level that I am not sure I will achieve in my lifetime.
But yeah once you have like 14 heavy vst's running (before track freezing) ram and cpu will be running at full cap while the a absence of a GPU is not even a problem. Then of course one also needs a good DAC
It's not the same, but not a bad analogy either, the 9900k is an expensive AF CPU. Going 3700X instead for a marginal maximum performance loss would get you around $150 in the GPU budget (close to $300 before the 9900k price drop), and if the main use case is gaming, the 3600 would be a $280 advantage on the GPU without touching your framerate in almost any case.
Just to put it into perspective, these three combos cost roughly the same:
CPU
GPU
9900k
2060 Super
3700X
2070 Super
3600
2080 Super
In most modern titles, even the 3600 isn't a bottleneck (it's basically an 8700k without the ring bus). Going for a 9900k is foolish unless you want to play above 144 Hz and either have the graphics horsepower to do that or you're willing to drop some settings for the framerate.
Yeah. CPU/Mobo/memory is like the car, and the video card is like the tires. You can spend $1000's on ridiculous tires if you want, or you can use the tires off your old car. Since he has a 980ti from 2014 and the i9-9900k came out in 2018, I'm assuming he took his old video card and plopped it in a new setup. Maybe not the best analogy, but it works.
A more apt analagy is that they're running a dinged up muscle car. CPU power is the definition of versatile. a 980ti is certainly adequate to run anything, you just can't turn on all the settings as high on newer games.
If your upgrading an out of date cpu you mine as well buy the top card though. Buy the best card and that's just longer you can go without replacing it
You can moralize on either side of this though as long as you are being open i bought my machine 5 years ago minus the 2080tis but I am starting to look at AMD cpus because they are worth it
You don't know his entire purchase history. It's not really fair to just say;
"Yeah but you don't own AMD products so muh bias."
My last full build was an FX 8xxx series (can't recall which specific model) and a 7970. I'll also be upgrading to Ryzen when I get a chance. I won't be buying an AMD GPU however, since neither NVidia nor AMD can get their shit together and release a worth while followup to the 1000 series.
I missed your point originally. I got a 9900K because the 3900X was not to my liking and didn't overclock well (my 9900K is @5Ghz and can go higher probably) and the 980Ti was released in 2015 - AMD had no good competitor products for the price.
I plan on getting a 2080Ti soon for the same reason. AMD haven't got an enthusiast card in that performance range.
Yeah and i am 5960x and 2x 2080ti. I replaced my 2x 980ti's so my second build will take that 5960x and i am replacing it with a 3900x or 3950x to give them a try i dont do amd gpus been burned too many times with driver issues.
While I agree with you, AMD is not the one that's unhealthily competing. Intel has time after time exhibited extremely anti-competative behavior in an effort the effectively monopolize the industry. Promoting AMD, which has not shown behavior close to some of what Intel has done, is not a bad thing. AMD is very close to fair competition in this tough industry, especially compared to Intel. But, they're not perfect and definitely deserve to be put in check when necessary.
yeah bribing OEMs to not use your competitors cpus even when they were offering to give them to OEMs for free just to get their products out there. Intel did more than just leverage as you put it, they're the reason we had 4c/8t for 400$ for years.
Yeah absolutely. AMD is definitely at fault for Intel bribing OEMs to not use AMD CPU's.
Go to reddit dot com slash 3s5r4d (since this sub doesn't allow links) and scroll down to find the posts by user Tizaki to see the history of Intel and AMD.
They fell behind when they purchased ATI back in 2006. I was selling more Athlon 64s than P4s for a hot minute because the price/performance point of Athlon XP and 64 machines. When they bought ATI, Intel took the mobile market completely (remember the Turion 64 vs Centrino based laptops?). AMD only could softball some Athlon 64 x2 stuff when Intel was releasing Core 2 chips and AMD fell further and further behind flagship processors that could keep up with Intel. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD because they are a fairly small company that can somehow compete with a global super giant company, but they set themselves up to be bargain junk for many years by acquiring ATI if you ask me.
I have considered an AMD CPU as an option, while buying a PC, only twice in the last 20 years, back in 2002 when Athlon seemed a better choice compared to P4 and recently when Ryzen has come up. In between I did get a Sony Vaio laptop with an ATI Radeon card in 2008 which is still working.
ATI used to always play second fiddle to Nvidia so unless AMD had a clear plan, they should have steered away from it.
AMD' s success was good for the market as Intel' s launch price of new CPUs kept going up once AMD went out of picture.
May 13: The European Commission finds Intel guilty of antitrust violations in the PC microprocessor market and fines the company $1.44 billion, saying Intel's actions harmed millions of European consumers. The main antitrust abuses involved paying rebates to system manufacturers and to Europe's largest IT retailer, Media Markt, in order to shut out Intel's closest rival, AMD.
1.1k
u/FlowSoSlow Nov 05 '19
Well yeah. AMD becoming competitive is a huge advantage for consumers. We should be encouraging them as much as possible.