Does conflict free minerals affect your decision to buy Intel CPU?

[tential]

But can we rule out that intel is doing this solely for marketing?

What about the people who work at intel who claim to do this out of the goodness of their heart? intel must surely know that people are buying CPUs based on price to performance ratio?

Do you live in some fantasy land?

No corporation does anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Since when did a corporation have a heart?

If this practice hurt intel's bottom line in the long run, investors would demand an explanation. This practice is "marketing" and as you've already stated, it influenced you. So it apparently does work.

Corporations don't have hearts, they're built to make money.

 

[TechFan1]

I doubt Intel decided to use conflict free minerals for marketing reasons, although they will definitely trumpet that. They are doing very well as a business, which puts them in a position to do a few good deeds that don't cost them too much.

Would I buy there product over AMD's just because of this, no. Just because Intel has there product promoted as conflict free minerals tells me nothing about where the minerals of their competitor's come from. I would have to know of a company doing something egregious to not buy their product.

 

[positivedoppler]

Its probably feel good marketing nonsense. If Intel really did care, they would form a group and invite everyone including amd, nvidia, qualcomm, all the chipset makers etc to form a movement. Last time I check, the cpu has a really small footprint in terms of raw materials on a computer, laptop, or ever tablet. Having less than 10% of the material footprint on a device conflict free is pointless. Actually, that lithium battery that's needed to sale an Intel laptop or tablet has probably 100 more conflict material than a cpu ever would.

Or if intel really did care, they'll only sale cpus or offer their infamous contra revenue rebates to integrators who only use conflict free.

 

[TechFan1]

No corporation does anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Since when did a corporation have a heart?

Companies are made up of people. The CEO of my company does occasional small good deeds for the community without it increasing the profits of the company.

 

[positivedoppler]

Do you live in some fantasy land?

No corporation does anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Since when did a corporation have a heart?

Exactly. Corporations answer to shareholders. It annoys me to no end but that's just the way it is. Those commercials are driven by a need to mold its public image and sale more processors, not to help 3rd world countries.

 

[piesquared]

I am very serious and I can tell you there are many others like me. You would be amazed at the reasons people buy a product and stick to a particular brand.

You buy CPU etc based on strictly performance charts. My buying decisions go beyond that, we are all different.

For reals?? If someone was buying on principle, how in the world could they ever go near intel??

 

[FX2000]

For reals?? If someone was buying on principle, how in the world could they ever go near intel??

I agree.
*** Intel, their buisness principles are beyond macabre. They're a disgusting company.


Bad language is not allowed in the technical forums
Markfw900

 

[positivedoppler]

I agree.
***Intel, their buisness principles are beyond macabre. They're a disgusting company.

Intel does what any other company would do in their place if given the chance. Just all publicly trade companies are run by a bunch of old suite wearing douchebag board of blood suckers. They have no emotion. Their job is to line their pockets with as much cash as possible We are treated as consumers, which means whatever image/means the company can come up with to get us to fork over money for their bottom line they will do it. Employees of the company are treated like expandable resources.

It's funny how people on this board are so blindly loyal to their brand. You see the typical AMD, Intel, Nvidia defender pop into every single one of these threads turning it into a brand war and getting all wet over their favorit brand. It's ridiculous, laughable, and downright baffling how very intelligent people can act so silly. Either these people are investors clogging the board with nonsense or they received some free products from a particular company while they were in school and remain a loyal lapdogs for the rest of their lives. Rest assured if you or your family member is ever sick or even dies, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm , Samsung, whatever will not give a shit about you no matter how many time you defend them on the internet on how awesome their product is and how horrible their competitions product is. This type of blind obedient loyalty towards a bunch of corporate suites who absolutely don't give a rat's @ss about you makes less sense than cheering for professional sports. I mean, imagine if people piss on each other on the internet over Coke vs Pepsi, see how ridiculous that is?

That being said, Cyrix processor are the best. All other companies are suxor.


Edited out the bad word quoted above
Markfw900

 

[Ramses]

That being said, Cyrix processor are the best. All other companies are suxor.

I keep tellin, nobody listens..
6x86 rhymes with sex. how can you go wrong?

honorable mention to IDT

 

[BSim500]

Don't wish to bring politics here, but many "troubled spots" are fueled far more by misused international aid / oil revenue / being a proxy of a larger nation state / "behind the scenes" political agreements / "war industries" / general fundamentalist religious sh*t-stirring, or simply the usual ego-manic despots than micro-processor mineral revenue of any brand. Even if your CPU is "conflict free" - what about all the other bits (PSU, case, motherboard, memory, CPU cooler, dGPU, ODD, HDD, TV, fridge-freezer, car, mobile phone, even your imported clothes & food, etc). As frozentundra said : "I dont really worry about the ethics of the company, because I simply dont have enough information to make a decision" which is absolutely true. Half the people boycotting something on ideological grounds often have only half the facts at hand or do so on the back of "confirmation bias" that fits in with personal politics that are often applied inconsistently to similar issues in other countries that aren't part of the "political hobby horse of the day". There's generally far bigger "political stuff" to worry about when it comes to world peace.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I actually prefer my minerals go through a little conflict before making their way into my CPU. I find it makes them tougher and generally better over clockers

El. Oh. El. That's even better than the burn-in myth.

I keep tellin, nobody listens..
6x86 rhymes with sex. how can you go wrong?

If only they had released the 6x69 processor.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I agree.
**** Intel, their buisness principles are beyond macabre. They're a disgusting company.

LOL. Their business principles are no different to any other company in their position.

Try to gain some perspective.



Edited out the bad word quoted above
Markfw900

 

[witeken]

I agree.
**** Intel, their buisness principles are beyond macabre. They're a disgusting company.

Care to elaborate?



Edited out the bad word quoted above
Markfw900

 

[dealcorn]

It may be wrong to infer that Intel's conflict free strategy targets consumers. Intel can not thrive without access to many of the world's most talented PhD's. Intel's recruitment strategies require that it be perceived as a desirable place to work. A strong conflict free strategy appeals to many of it's preferred employment candidates. If this policy enhances Intel's ability to access top notch talent, it makes good economic sense. As an aside, I suspect Intel's decisions to variously support or not support the Boy Scouts are similarly motivated.

 

[FX2000]

Care to elaborate?

Ex. During the P4 era. They scammed people into buying their mediocre pile of dung CPU's. They hurt AMD, which can be seen now. Yes good goyims. Enjoy your 2% cpu increase each year. This is the result of good Introll harming AMD that much, that they have no $ to innovate.

 

[bronxzv]

Intel spends a lot of money and resources on going down this path.

how much money and resources ? what is "a lot" for you ?

Just marketing?

no, after a quick look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resource
my understanding is that they must disclose to the public their use of RDC conflict minerals anyway (reports to the SEC in the US)

in one of the ads they disclose that Intel and its partners still use around 45% [1] conflict minerals

these ads are quite well made, they can make one think that they are "conflict free" already or that it's an Intel led initiative

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZDsNXtM-rk 1:48

 

[witeken]

Ex. During the P4 era. They scammed people into buying their mediocre pile of dung CPU's. They hurt AMD, which can be seen now. Yes good goyims. Enjoy your 2% cpu increase each year. This is the result of good Introll harming AMD that much, that they have no $ to innovate.

Doesn't that show that those companies who bought those CPUs are just as bad if they succumb for the scams (it was their choice)?

Also, care to remember how long ago that was? If you dig deep enough, you'll find such things for any company, but that isn't representative for Intel in 2014, a decade or so later, is it? Also, even if AMD had 50% market share, that wouldn't change much if anything with regards to performance increases. It will probably even slow down technology improvement because R&D isn't cheap, and AMD would greatly reduce Intel's income, and thus ability to spend R&D dollars, if it had ~50% market share.

So I'd rather want Intel to have 100% market share so they can further walk down Moore's Path at good pace. Also, if you think Introll doesn't innovate, you are probably blind of an ISA, and its widespread support, from a company called Acorn RISC Machine.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Whats this thread even about besides to stir the pot. (And looking on the posts its obviously working.)

Everyone suddenly cares and got a bad coincience in terms of a CPU purchase? While their food, clothes etc is based on animal abuse and slave like labour.

 

[ch424]

Doing "nice things" with no directly obvious motive is pretty standard for large companies. It's called corporate responsibility. There are lots of hard to quantify reasons for doing it, and I think it's fair to treat it with a bit of cynicism. Most of the reasons mentioned in this thread are on the wikipedia page, along with some others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility#Potential_business_benefits

And here's Intel's summary for last year (with several mentions of conflict minerals)
http://csrreportbuilder.intel.com/P...ort.pdf?_ga=1.141233778.1765282644.1420025544

 

[Haserath]

People don't even care to keep their own bodies healthy, why are they going to care about someone else's...

 

[Nothingness]

So I'd rather want Intel to have 100% market share so they can further walk down Moore's Path at good pace.

Yeah sure, we all want that as consumers. Monopolies are good for us.

 

[Blain]

This has spun out of control for a "CPUs and Overclocking" forum.

Please move this thread over to the OT or Politics & News forum.

 

[witeken]

Yeah sure, we all want that as consumers. Monopolies are good for us.

Moore's Law isn't only good for consumers. It's also great for companies: a lower cost per transistor can be used to get higher margins. So the interests of consumers and semiconductor companies are aligned: Moore's Law is good for the company, and the coincident Dennard Scaling makes the consumer happy. Monopolies are simply necessary in the semiconductor industry. I don't say competition is bad, I'm just saying that a complete monopoly is still better than 50/50 share when there isn't enough money, revenue, to feed 2 bleeding edge IDMs.

 

[Nothingness]

Moore's Law isn't only good for consumers. It's also great for companies: a lower cost per transistor can be used to get higher margins. So the interests of consumers and semiconductor companies are aligned: Moore's Law is good for the company, and the coincident Dennard Scaling makes the consumer happy. Monopolies are simply necessary in the semiconductor industry. I don't say competition is bad, I'm just saying that a complete monopoly is still better than 50/50 share when there isn't enough money, revenue, to feed 2 bleeding edge IDMs.

I see your point, but I certainly hope this will never happen and that we'll still have at least 2 camps for the foreseeable future, because we all know how a single company will behave if it was a monopoly, be it Intel or any other.

 

[skipsneeky2]

People can get over stuff so quick, Ford as a company was in bed with the Nazis and well people still buy Fords.Maybe not a good comparison but people will buy what they want,even if Intel designed military processors that will go into North Korean missiles lol.