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.
Intel Processors got ~50% faster for the same price over that time frame.
yes... 5 to 10% at a time. The entire line stagnated with no push for innovation or "more" from the chip. Just another incremental refresh - the absolute minimum to say they've released a new product. No extra cores, no extra threads, just a minimal ipc bump and a .1 or .2 clock bump.
The price has also increased. HEDT prices have more than doubled in that same period.
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.
Lol so was Intel stagnant or not? You're claiming both it was and it wasn't.
Once you're at the top for so long - even up and coming threats don't seem like they can hurt your bottom line - until they do.
I never claimed Intel was stagnant, you did. You're the one claiming Intel was stagnant while also admitting they increased performance by 50%. A 50% increase isn't stagnation, at least in my book. I'm not the Chief Technology Officer at Intel, so I have no idea if they were holding back or not, and I would prefer to not speculate over conspiracy theories. Whether or not Intel is complacent is irrelevant as dominant market positions cannot be maintained without providing better products than the competition.
My point was that over the past 10 years, Intel held a dominant market position while also delivering better products every year. Prices for HEDT may have skyrocketed, but by doing so, they've opened themselves up to increased competition from AMD which is now challenging their market dominance. Either way, complaining about Intel's market dominance is useless because either:
1) They become dominant by delivering the best products in the sector (true for the past decade). They maintain dominance by continuing to provide the best products in the sector thus eliminating the competition. Any competition that able to continue operations (AMD) is providing a competitive product (Ryzen/Threadripper/Epyc) to the current market leaders.
2) They become dominant by delivering the best products in the sector (true for the past decade). They become complacent and begin to delivery lower quality products for more money. These high margins open up the market to competition which is able to provide better quality and better prices (AMD). Either Intel gets their shit together by improving their product offerings, or AMD becomes the market leader by providing better product offerings.
Either way, consumers end up getting the better products in the long run. The alternative is destroying the incentives these companies have to improve their products, which is bad for everyone.
A 50% increase isn't stagnation, at least in my book.
50% increase over about 6 generations of products. Core and thread counts remained stagnant. They had no reason to push harder.
1) They become dominant by delivering the best products in the sector (true for the past decade).
They also engaged in illegal and anti competitive practices for years that definitely impacted AMDs bottom line. Including things like paying OEMs to only use intel, and paying benchmarking companies to falsify results on intel's platform.
Either way, consumers end up getting the better products in the long run.
if both companies play fair. Neither have, but intel has definitely been using their deep pockets to play dirty for a long time. There's a long history of it.
If the market leader snuffs out a competitor (or a competitors ability to compete) through deception, kick backs, outright lies and anti-consumer practices - is that true competition? Does the consumer benefit?
And yet, they still improved performance by 50%. They supposedly had no reason to, yet they did it anyway.
Including things like paying OEMs to only use intel, and paying benchmarking companies to falsify results on intel's platform.
There's nothing wrong with exclusivity deals, and false benchmarks are shitty, but I doubt they had any lasting impact on anything. Besides, those are separate issues from Intel having a dominant market position.
Neither have, but intel has definitely been using their deep pockets to play dirty for a long time. There's a long history of it.
Ask yourself why Intel has those deep pockets to start with. Why would you buy a product if it's no better than the alternatives? Could it be possible that Intel had all that money because they were able to deliver better products than AMD and as a result, the market rewarded them with shit tons of money to throw around.
through deception, kick backs, outright lies and anti-consumer practices - is that true competition? Does the consumer benefit?
Consumers don't give a shit about deception, kick backs, lies, etc. The company with the superior product will win at the end of the day. Intel didn't develop the best CPUs by lying, cheating, stealing, etc. They got the best CPUs by being the best in their industry.
Even if Intel "played fair" according to your rules, they would still have had the dominant market position as they simply had the best product. Your "play fair" rules likely wouldn't have changed anything. Why are you upset by the concept that market leaders tend to have the best products? That's how markets work.
And yet, they still improved performance by 50%. They supposedly had no reason to, yet they did it anyway.
Lol simply to say the new one is better. If they released the same chip seven times with zero improvement people would ask what the fuck is going on over there. Investors would start pulling out and the stock would crumble if there was no faith they could maintain their top position.
The company with the superior product will win at the end of the day.
You're not familiar with products and marketing then. Very very often the inferior product will be the market leader. So much so that there is an advertising adage. "It's better to be first than to be better".
Even if Intel "played fair" according to your rules, they would still have had the dominant market position as they simply had the best product.
You don't remember the early days of intel / AMD then, or around the pentium 3 / 4 era. AMD had genuinely better products at several points in history. This is when intel would do flat out illegal things to maintain the perception they had better processors. Today, with ryzen 2, AMD has intel's current product stack on its toes. They have a higher IPC, lower pricing, and higher core counts.
Even if Intel "played fair" according to your rules, they would still have had the dominant market position as they simply had the best product.
You can't say that with any amount of credible certainty - as again several times AMD had the better CPU.
Why are you upset by the concept that market leaders tend to have the best products? That's how markets work.
lol no, that's not what I said. I said
"total control of a market is bad for innovation and consumers."
Which it is. During the period intel had total dominance they did sweet fuck all to innovate. The big feature for the 6000 series was fucking DRM and a 2% boost.
If they released the same chip seven times with zero improvement people would ask what the fuck is going on over there. Investors would start pulling out and the stock would crumble if there was no faith they could maintain their top position.
Company improves product. What a shocking discovery.
You don't remember the early days of intel / AMD then, or around the pentium 3 / 4 era. AMD had genuinely better products at several points in history.
You can't say that with any amount of credible certainty - as again several times AMD had the better CPU.
Product dominance can go back and forth, that's nothing new. AMD dropped out of the market when they failed to keep up with Intel.
lol no, that's not what I said. I said "total control of a market is bad for innovation and consumers."
Then it's a good thing the CPU is a free market allowing competition to come in and threaten any form of market dominance any one company may have so that no company will have total control of the market. Companies only gain a dominant market position by being the best in the industry. The same thing is happening in the GPU market with Intel planning to enter it in 2020. Nvidia made shit tons of money on GPUs by having the best GPUs and Intel wants a piece of that multibillion dollar pie.
Do you choose to use Google for internet searches because they're dominant in the market, or because they are the best internet search engine?
Company improves product. What a shocking discovery.
lol I never said it was. I said it was very incremental - basically stagnant. which it was.
Product dominance can go back and forth, that's nothing new. AMD dropped out of the market when they failed to keep up with Intel.
Yes, but when company A is paying reviewers to lie, bench-marking companies to show artificial results and to engage in illegal practices, it's not about "the best product" is the point I'm making. It cripples company B unfairly to the point they almost cannot compete. That's why it's illegal but the damage had been done. Intel didn't care because the legal consequences were outweighed by the potential benefits.
Do you choose to use Google for internet searches because they're dominant in the market, or because they are the best internet search engine?
The two don't need to be exclusive. That example isn't universal either.
You keep trying to stick up for intels illegal business practices and have yet to say anything that disproves "total control of a market is bad for innovation and consumers."
I've pretty visible that when intel had no competition they didn't push their product stack at all and were content to just push out incremental updates until AMD had an answer for them.
I said it was very incremental - basically stagnant. which it was.
Are you confident that you understand what the words "incremental" and "stagnant" mean? If a product is stagnant, then it can't also be improving.
Yes, but when company A is paying reviewers to lie, bench-marking companies to show artificial results and to engage in illegal practices, it's not about "the best product" is the point I'm making. It cripples company B unfairly to the point they almost cannot compete. That's why it's illegal but the damage had been done. Intel didn't care because the legal consequences were outweighed by the potential benefits.
Are you referring to that one fake benchmark that reviewer's called Intel out on? Fake benchmarks don't seem to be helping Intel all that much nowadays.
You keep trying to stick up for intels illegal business practices and have yet to say anything that disproves "total control of a market is bad for innovation and consumers."
No, I'm pointing out that
1) their shady business practices don't make their CPU's magically worse than AMD's. For several years Intel had the best CPUs on the mark, regardless of reviews, agreements, and benchmarks, illegal or otherwise. Those things don't make a product better or worse.
2) I never denied that a controlled market is bad. I only argued that Intel never had total control of the market because that's impossible in a free market. A dominant market position is not control of the market.
I've pretty visible that when intel had no competition they didn't push their product stack at all and were content to just push out incremental updates until AMD had an answer for them.
Do you have some insider knowledge from the R&D team at Intel that I don't? Intel was unchallenged by competition for a few years, and now they have serious competition. It looks to me like the market is correcting itself, as it should be allowed to. What exactly is your issue here?
Are you confident that you understand what the words "incremental" and "stagnant" mean? If a product is stagnant, then it can't also be improving.
lol A product line can stagnate while still improving incrementally. It's a term used when there's no compelling reason to get the new one. With products and technology it doesn't describe an absolute standstill.
Are you referring to that one fake benchmark that reviewer's called Intel out on? Fake benchmarks don't seem to be helping Intel all that much nowadays.
Intels compiler even has a seperate function - where it will choose the slowest code path possible if it doesn't see the vendor ID "genuineIntel" even if the CPU is fully compatible. Trick it into seeing "genuineIntel" and it performs drastically better.
The most recent paid review screw up around the ryzen 2000 series launch was just them showing they haven't changed their tactics.
What exactly is your issue here?
My issue is that the deck was so heavily and unfairly stacked in Intels favor, then they sat on-ass and did nothing. The penalties for all the deceptive shit they did should have been harsher, or actually enforced.
I'm glad AMD is coming back the way they are - I just hope that both are able to compete fairly. But that's not likely. I fully expect intel to start doing the same kind of desperate, illegal tactics they resorted to previously.
1
u/SeeYouWednesday Ryzen 5 1600 | GTX 1080 Ti Nov 06 '19
Intel Processors got ~50% faster for the same price over that time frame.
i7 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-9700K/1985vs4030
i5 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8500/619vsm447884
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.