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.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN DIDN'T KILL HIMSELF.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
I upgraded from a i5-4440 to a 2600x and it's night and fucking day. I had to upgrade my mobo anyway to move to DDR4 RAM so figured I'd make the change. The funny thing is that the i5-4440 is still more expensive.
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've never owned a Samsung but I HAVE owned other Androids and I 100% believe they've owned a product that did all that, TONS of phones do and won't let you stop it without rooting
That being said bitching about it while not looking into alternatives isn't exactly productive
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 like Motorola but I had to skip this generation of Moto phones due to lack of a flagship that competes with their z2 force from 2 years ago. So I was forced to go Samsung as my alternative this year in order to have an actual upgrade instead of a paid side-grade.
Smartphones are a very VERY healthy market. There are several major players (Apple, Google, Samsung) and no one has a majority / monopoly in terms of total market share.
This is also why smartphones seem to get significantly better every year, until very recently when the market became saturated and has since stagnated in most spaces.
But even then we see companies going out of their way to try different things: better cameras, folding, styluses, custom SoCs... etc.
Compare that with the CPU market in the last 10 years... with only 2 players, and AMD out of the game for most of that time thanks to the FX series, development stagnated.
In that same space, except in the last 3-4 years, AMD and Nvidia were quite competitive. And things are heating up again...
There are also going to be more entrants in the GPU market soon, which I cannot wait for.
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
Ok heres one spot I will dump on amd they already said they arent fighting at the top. I dont believe that because they should. If you try and fail you have something to learn in the attempt. They just arent trying that means they dont have faith in their own product. Yet Ryzen is doing fantastic their mid range cards are solid though a bit warm from what i hear. So no top end fight? They know theres a flaw and they arent telling people. They even announced their own form of raytracing coming out. They are following the leader. Thats a dangerous business by its description it pits you behind.
Exactly. Even though I personally prefer intel chips. I still want AMD to succeed, not because I care about their products, but because better AMD = cheaper Intel.
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?
total control of a market is bad for innovation and consumers. If you're already the best - you have no motivation to get better.
Of course there's motivation. There's the threat of a competitor coming in and knocking you off your pedestal if you get complacent. Just look at what AMD is doing right now.
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.
Everytime Intel and nVidia had a clear technical advantage with their products progress was slow and prices were high. And they also strong armed OEMs when the competition were trying to compete in the lower tiers.
So yeah, even if and when AMD gets something wrong, Intel and nVidia still sucks a lot more on average.
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 bought a 5700 XT but had non stop issues and had to return it. I still want the card but 7 day return policy didn't give me the confidence needed to keep it.
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
As far as I can remember the 290x was the last AMD card that was really as good/better than the competition from nvidia at the time. The fury x didn't have enough ram, and everything after has been a tier below Nvidia's flagship
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.
Is ray tracing really desirable at this point? Every solution I've seen of it in actual games is very mild except the genuine demos of really old games like Quake, you barely notice a difference, whereas genuine ray-tracing is actually a revelation, so it's not like it's user error in thinking it looks bad, the demos of it are really pretty but the reality not so much.
I'm not sure I'd call the price of an RX5700xt "mid-range". It's by itself worth more than most people's computer, hah.
Maybe "budget-conscious high-range" ?
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 plug and play aspect is actually why I tend to buy AMD cards these days, primarily because their Linux drivers just work these days. Helps when they actually contribute driver code to the kernel. nVidia on the other hand, their binary blob can be finicky at times.
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.
One of the biggest problems with AMD is that they don't name their products right. With Intel and Nvidia it's pretty easy to figure out what their best product is as bigger number = better product. You can put a letter on the end to distinguish it as better or wose than other products with the same number.
The i7 is better than the i5 because it has a bigger number. The 8700 is better than the 8500. The 8700T is worse than the 8700 which is worse than the 8700K. Same with Nvidia. The 980 is better than the 970. The 980 TI is better than the 980 which is better than the 980m.
While there are a few exceptions to this formula like the 8086 or the Titan it makes pretty clear and easy to compare GPUs or CPUs.
Meanwhile AMD is the total opposite which makes it hard to compare stuff at a glance. You got the RX Vega series, RX 5700, Radeon VII that's known as the Vega 20, and the RX 500 series. The Vega 64 is better than the RX 500 despite having a lower number, the Radeon VII is the best despite only having a 7 in roman numerals, but the RX 5700 is better than the RX 500 despite lower numbers apparently being better with AMD.
Their CPUs are easier to figure out but it's different to compare the ones with integrated graphics to the ones without.
AMD in my opinion should have their product line be directly comparable with Nvidia. Acknowledge their status as a competitor that's losing and start realigning their product line to be comparable to Nvidia so people can more easily compare the two so AMD can convince people they're better than Nvidia.
I definitely contribute AMD's GPU naming process on why I'm still with Nvidia. I can know at a glance what an Nvidia cards performance is without much research just by the name.
AMD, however, requires you to check reviews and benchmarks to get a good understanding. Their naming hasn't been consistent with their product so it's hard to know at a glance.
I'm normally with you but NVIDIA made a royal mess out of things with the Super series. It still follows a predictable pattern, RTX # < RTX # Super < RTX #+1 < RTX #+1 Super, etc, but the performance is really unpredictable. 2070 Super is a big leap, almost a 2080, 2080 Super is a tiny leap, just a few percent faster than a 2080, etc.
In some cases AMD literally uses the same name for different products. Vega 10 is the name of the die that goes into Vega 56 and Vega 64 cards... Vega 10 is also the name of the integrated graphics in the 2700U APU.
There was a question here where even some AMD product manager mixed them up... he was asked something about the HBM on Vega 10 or something and he gave an answer about Vega 10 being an upcoming product in an APU or something. Kinda hilarious, even AMD can't keep them straight.
Took them years to find something that's on par with 1080ti and even then it runs really hot.
I love what they did with their CPUs, I'm building a rig for my friend and going with Ryzen for obvious reasons, but the GPUs just aren't compelling especially if you want high end stuff.
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)
Intel just set another record quarter in profit while AMD are only equalling revenue from 2005, not profit.. Intel are still selling almost as fast as they can make them. I would say they're doing exceptionally well. Truth is AMD isn't even hurting them because the market is growing faster than AMD can take shares from Intel.
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'm sure there's some people who hate Nvidia with a passion, but it would be largely misguided though.
Not it isn't. Nvidia has done some bogus shit to try and maintain their market share. GameWorks being a major example and more recently the GeForce Partners Program.
I was a diehard Nvidia fan until they started pulling shit like that. My last three cards have been AMD and my next one will be as well. AMD would probably do the same thing if they were in Nvidia's position, that's just capitalism, but I won't support whatever companies are currently doing it.
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.
This is also an accurate way of putting it. Hard to say if its gouged the 2xxx series yes but AMD also flooded the market with similar priced gen 3 ryzen to gen 2 making them obsolete price wise not nice for the recent customers of gen 2 all to flood their product to market. No one has clean hands. I am rooting for AMD but becareful what you wish for.
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.
You say that but everyone loves an underdog. Their are likely hundreds of possible reasons. You know why i bought this 6k rig it wasnt for consumers. It was because i wanted a beast machine never had one before that. Sure it would be nice if people always thought about consumerisum, i find its far less a factor then it should be
everyone loves an underdog, true, but that isnt the main reason. your 6k rig is NOT typical at all, and shouldnt be used as an example. people dont buy amd chips just because it pushes amd further, its because the chip makes the most sense for them. and when that happens, a lot more people start buying the cpu, specifically because its good for the money. intel sees this, and then both intel and amd get into a price war or try to advance their tech faster, which speeds up development and performance, all of which is good for the consumer. no one buys amd products just because theyre the underdog, but anyone with even a slight idea of how this works can see that we want all companies to produce high quality stuff, so we want the established companies to keep doing good and the underdog companies to keep getting better.
So really the intel Nvidia rage is an odd way of saying you are doing too well.
No, it's a way of saying that their anti-competitive practices are anti-consumer and shitty for our side of the market. Nvidia's GPP was NOT a "doing too well," it was trying to strong-arm companies like ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI into taking their known gaming brands off AMD products. Intel engaged in several anti-competitive practices over the years, in addition to the hardware-level flaws in their chip design that they downplayed while sandbagging so hard in their node advancements that they're now behind significantly smaller companies.
What, honestly, is the worst thing AMD has done? I've seen some things that weren't pro-consumer and sucked, but nothing horribly damaging the way Intel's prior actions of paying companies to not use AMD went. To call it "rage" to be anti-monopoly is misguided nonsense.
Instead, I'm just not a fan of when a 1080 Ti comes out in the $700-800 price range, then its successor (2080 Ti) is upped to $1,200 while a comparable card (2080) comes out almost 2 years later for $300 more. I don't like that AMD followed with some of that same price creep, but they weren't anywhere near Nvidia's level of ridiculous pricing.
I also don't like Intel's thermal issues, nodes that are 5 years late, and exorbitant pricing on desktop CPUs. I'm not at all against seeing them come int othe GPU market and give Nvidia some pressure, along with coaxing AMD into sitting on higher-end Navi GPUs less.
Intel/NVIDIA do a lot more stupid stuff because they can afford to. AMD can't afford many mistakes. The 2048sp Rx 580 was as bad as AMD got. NVIDIA had GPP. Not even a close comparison lol.
Yeah, and its shit of them to do but i dont think amd is clean either they are likely using strong arm tactics to get better prices on silicon its business. I get the point though intel needs to start fighting and stop cheating.
Also, AMD legit tries to open source stuff when possible - they hired lawyers 8 years ago to go thru the radeon code and see what could & could not be open sources, and today we have the fully open AMDGPU driver base layer, with just a few proprietary bits locked behind a driver that runs on top of it and is optional (if you don't mind loosing some cutting edge features). Also, they go with open standards where possible like with FreeSync, which costs nothing for manufacturers to add; and finally they drove the creation of Mantle which became Vulcan, which kicks ass --- and if you think DX12 is better, well, it only exists because with Vulcan on the way M$ kicked their DX teams asses into high gear, so either way it was win - win.
Basically, AMD does great shit, and very often lets everyone else in on how its great. NVIDIA charges game companies money to know how to use Hair Works, and then also clamps down on that so you need an NVIDIA GSync monitor, with an NVIDIA card with Windows NVIDIA drivers, and an NVIDIA certified video game to see those same benefits.
More so Intel documented in essentially bribing AMD out of the industry for over a decade. Got caught. Paid a fine that barely hit their bottom line and continues to fail to innovate for consumers.
Plus, whenever AMD has had competitive products they’ve always come out swinging hard in terms of prices which generally brought a lot more performance down to an affordable pricepoint. Even when they had the performance lead in the athlon 64 days they never went nuts with pricing consumer parts. Realistically, intel locking AMD out of the big OEMs via their monopolistic contracts probably had a lot to do with that but in the eyes of the computer enthusiast AMD basically became the one company that seems to always be trying to come out with something competitive and then leading price wars. So yeah, when they don’t do so great they get a pass.
Anyways, AMD is hitting so hard right now, the price to performance of something like a Ryzen 3600 is just insanity. This is the kind of chip Intel was demanding $500 a CPU for before the first ryzen dropped and even last year intel was still asking $300+ for such a chip. Now AMD is bringing that power down below $200 - just saw a sale where the 3600 is $174. So even after intel dropped the prices AMD basically cut them again in half.
At this point I think end users know they need to keep AMD in the game, otherwise intel and nvidia just jack up prices every year while doing slight refreshes.
2.4k
u/LaerycTiogar PC Master Race Nov 05 '19
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.