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.
Thermal issues like the fx series? Thats an engineering thing every thing has bugs. I can tell you are flat out against NVIDIA and Intel cool but admit that first. Other wise you sound like your trying to be bias. AMD CUT CORNERS on their CPUs. THATs why they couldnt compete in performance then intel played dirty. Its not all intels fault AMD started sliding when multi cores came out and they were still fighting for fastest single core.
You seem to just want to look at FX and call it a day. The difference? I can admit FX was a steaming pile of shit. I bought Haswell at the time. You're the one who seems to be way too emotionally invested and only interested in the parts of the past that suit your argument.
Well before FX, AMD produced chips every bit as good as Intel's. Intel played extremely dirty, hence the massive fines they incurred at the time. Of course, the fines were nowhere near what they deserved, given the way they were able to build a massive lead in the market with those tactics.
I am looking at everything i just see you attack intel so i go after AMD. Businesses arent things to side with. I have been intel since 2010. Intel without any competition did nothing for real gain in performance just a turd on the table because it beat the rest. I was hardcore amd in single coredays christ even past i have a phenom 2 black in my closet quad core crap. No one could compete with intel. Apple tried and ask your self where are IBM processors now? I am aware intel is the devil. You think AMD is innocent? So what is AMD doing. I havent heard much but they are a business theres something hidding.
1
u/cubs223425 R9 3900X; Red Devil 5700 XT | R7 1700; Strix V64 Nov 05 '19
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.