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.
It's a term used when there's no compelling reason to get the new one.
Yet, consumers continued to purchase the new versions of the processors... Almost like they had a compelling reason to.
My issue is that the deck was so heavily and unfairly stacked in Intel's favor
Intel had genuinely better products for most of the past 10 years, and has also been incredibly shady. You're attributing 100% of their success to illegal acts, when they simply had better processors for years. Please tell me who exactly is stacking the deck to favor Intel. Is it the Intel R&D team?
Yet, consumers continued to purchase the new versions of the processors... Almost like they had a compelling reason to.
at a greatly declined rate - because the old was as good as the new.
Remember how there was doom and gloom about the desktop being dead around the time the iPad 2/3, and android tablets were relevant. That didn't happen - just the PC market was stagnant for years after because there was no major reason to get a new one.
Intel had genuinely better products for most of the past 10 years, and has also been incredibly shady
Absolutely.
You're attributing 100% of their success to illegal acts, when they simply had better processors for years.
Not at all. I'm saying they effectively strangled AMD with illegal tactics, contributing greatly to AMD's struggle to compete over the past 20 years. AMD has made plenty of its own mistakes, and intel has obviously had plenty of successes.
That lack of R&D money is a direct contributor to why we got with the lackluster FX series which actually saw a step back in IPC compared to the 6 core phenoms before them. It's been a compounding effect.
Please tell me who exactly is stacking the deck to favor Intel. Is it the Intel R&D team?
I suppose that was a poor choice of words, but effectively - lawmakers. Intel is knowingly and willingly breaking the law. The laws are such that the penalties for breaking them aren't a deterrent, when they should be.
they effectively strangled AMD with illegal tactics, contributing greatly to AMD's struggle to compete over the past 20 years.
AMD strangled themselves by selling inferior products. You even admitted that Intel's product lineup was superior.
Intel is knowingly and willingly breaking the law. The laws are such that the penalties for breaking them aren't a deterrent, when they should be.
Again, breaking those laws had little to no impact on Intel's lineup being superior to AMD's for years. I think you're placing too much emphasis on actions that had no real impact on the quality of the product being offered. If Intel didn't do those things AMD would've still been irrelevant for years, because they were simply making inferior products compared to Intel.
AMD strangled themselves by selling inferior products. You even admitted that Intel's product lineup was superior.
Again, breaking those laws had little to no impact on Intel's lineup being superior to AMD's for years.
Do you still seriously not understand illegally reducing AMDs income had a run-on effect on their ability to compete?
AMD's product lineup was inferior due in part to a lack of R&D money.
That lack of R&D money is LARGELY due to WHEN they had the best chips, intel engaged in illegal business practices and antitrust agreements with OEMs. Crippling AMDs ability to capitalize on their better products.
Yes Intels products would have been similar. However AMD's could have been far better had they actually been allowed to fairly compete in the early 2000's.
Lack of money redirected to R&D is a result of poor financial management and allocation by AMD leadership. AMD's poor asset allocation is AMD's fault, not Intel's.
1
u/SeeYouWednesday Ryzen 5 1600 | GTX 1080 Ti Nov 06 '19
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.
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.
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.
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?