• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Speculation: i9-9900K is Intel's last hurrah in gaming

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Will Intel lose it's gaming CPU lead in 2019?


  • Total voters
    184
  • Poll closed .

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,034
305
126
The real problem, though, is the consumer has his/her own memory and for the most part isn't stupid. They know Intel could have offered something like that for the prior 10 years of dominance. They also know the only reason "Intel gave a decent answer" is because they were forced to.
Oh of course they could have,they could have released a full broadwell lineup with 6 cores while AMD was stuck on faildozer and not doing anything and a refresh with 6c/12t while AMD was stuck on faildozer and not doing anything,and then a skylake with 8 and it's refresh with 8c/16t while AMD was stuck on faildozer and not doing anything
...
...
and AMD would have packed their bags and left the business before even the broadwell refresh.
When, or if, AMD starts trying to gouge the consumer - which is typically inevitable because of the bean counters and shareholders - then consumers here will be a little more even handed with Intel.
/s
oh oh oh let me let me,AMD dropping their price of the 3900x to 410 shows that they could have offered that chip at that price from the beginning...Devils!!666!Burn them.
/s
 
  • Like
Reactions: killster1

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
705
277
136
Oh of course they could have,....
and AMD would have packed their bags and left the business before even the broadwell refresh.

oh oh oh let me let me,AMD dropping their price of the 3900x to 410 shows that they could have offered that chip at that price from the beginning...Devils!!666!Burn them.
/s
Riiiiiiggghtt. Intel held off better chips/pricing out of the kindness of their hearts because they're so fond of AMD. You know like when they did all those illegal practices against AMD and got caught - that was because they wanted to show how fond they are of AMD too, no doubt.

Dropping the price of the 3900X from $500 at launch, compared to $410 now after a year of aging and getting closer to a next gen release is gouging to you?

You are truly a marvel Elf. Please don't change.
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,247
232
106
The real problem, though, is the consumer has his/her own memory and for the most part isn't stupid. They know Intel could have offered something like that for the prior 10 years of dominance. They also know the only reason "Intel gave a decent answer" is because they were forced to. Consumers here aren't quick to reward getting screwed for all those years and buy even competitive Intel products. They'd do the same with Nvidia if they had an alternative.
When, or if, AMD starts trying to gouge the consumer - which is typically inevitable because of the bean counters and shareholders - then consumers here will be a little more even handed with Intel.
you base your purchases off of spite? i could see if a company uses its profit to do bad things (funding terrorism or something) but just because they want to profit and supply / demand cycle. everyone could do everything for a lower price always but they use the profit for the future tech (we hope), thats how we get progress. its not a one time offering fly by night company. i used to actually do some encoding, now with faster internet the need has gone down or become non existent and my projects dont really matter as much, the biggest concern is heat production in the summer ;( i even cap my cpu's performance
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
596
306
136
Intel used illegal tactics, price gouged consumers, stagnated as far as real innovation since basically the day the i3, i5 and i7 were released. Of course this was all facilitated by the lack of competition. Those days are gone forever I can assure you that. They may design some great cpu's in the future with this wake up call but they will never close the gap with TSMC unless something crazy happens.
 

amrnuke

Senior member
Apr 24, 2019
842
1,025
96
The real problem, though, is the consumer has his/her own memory and for the most part isn't stupid. They know Intel could have offered something like that for the prior 10 years of dominance. They also know the only reason "Intel gave a decent answer" is because they were forced to. Consumers here aren't quick to reward getting screwed for all those years and buy even competitive Intel products. They'd do the same with Nvidia if they had an alternative.
When, or if, AMD starts trying to gouge the consumer - which is typically inevitable because of the bean counters and shareholders - then consumers here will be a little more even handed with Intel.
My post isn't about trying to keep people from sticking it to Intel because they are mean. If you have a use-case where Intel would be better, and you choose AMD because you want to hurt Intel, that's your choice. For me, I use AMD because it's a better value for what I do. If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't doubt AMD would do similar things -- not sure they'd do them to the same extent, but I don't deceive myself that AMD are some goodie-two-shoes perfect corporation. They give a great product for me, and I buy it.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
705
277
136
My post isn't about trying to keep people from sticking it to Intel because they are mean. If you have a use-case where Intel would be better, and you choose AMD because you want to hurt Intel, that's your choice. For me, I use AMD because it's a better value for what I do. If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't doubt AMD would do similar things -- not sure they'd do them to the same extent, but I don't deceive myself that AMD are some goodie-two-shoes perfect corporation. They give a great product for me, and I buy it.
I understood your post completely. Your point wasn't so much about 1 use case being clearly superior, but more that Intel is actually pretty even/close to AMD in non-gaming stuff. So if the choices are pretty much even, most people are going to try and not reward Intel because they know where that will get them, once again, in the future.
But I wholeheartedly agree that if their roles were reversed, AMD would be pretty indistinguishable from Intel in their behavior.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,326
1,524
136
I understood your post completely. Your point wasn't so much about 1 use case being clearly superior, but more that Intel is actually pretty even/close to AMD in non-gaming stuff. So if the choices are pretty much even, most people are going to try and not reward Intel because they know where that will get them, once again, in the future.
But I wholeheartedly agree that if their roles were reversed, AMD would be pretty indistinguishable from Intel in their behavior.
First shouldn't we give people the benefit of the doubt. Allow them to screw up before assuming they. Part of the reason's why Intel did what they did is the culture they grew up under and an AMD in charge has a completely different backstory. Sure maybe AMD goes soft like Intel with the lead, I mean they did in the past but it had more to do with bad choices and not that they weren't trying to innovate and move forward.

Second shouldn't it be the other way around personal bias, but I'd rather give the company that moved us forward, that needs the support to keep us from getting back into the core i flat movement. Rather than supporting a company that DID DO all of those crappy things, has shown us what they would do with a lead. Why give money to the Richest for being the richest, specially since they got there with horrible and in many cases illegal situations.
 

amrnuke

Senior member
Apr 24, 2019
842
1,025
96
I understood your post completely. Your point wasn't so much about 1 use case being clearly superior, but more that Intel is actually pretty even/close to AMD in non-gaming stuff. So if the choices are pretty much even, most people are going to try and not reward Intel because they know where that will get them, once again, in the future.
But I wholeheartedly agree that if their roles were reversed, AMD would be pretty indistinguishable from Intel in their behavior.
The choices aren't pretty much even, unless you use ALL of the CPU-based stuff on a routine basis. Very few are using VM, Veracrypt, WinRAR, Office, Blender, Keyshot, Photoshop, Premiere, and gaming on a frequent basis, so taking an overall average is silly.

Maybe I should have been more clear, but in reality, there are noticeable differences between Intel and AMD for individual use-cases. One can't simply take the average when you're spending your hard earned money. I'll buy the part that best fits my use and I think everyone else should too. Now, if the specific use case is close enough as to be nearly indistinguishable (e.g. 1440p gaming) then it makes no sense to pick one chip over the other when the differences are <5% and it's just for casual gaming, that's a case where you put your money where ethics lie, IMO.

But in many, many cases, there will be a discernible and noticeable (whether large or small) difference in value and performance, and if you want to use your money in spite of it, to buy a CPU that will do worse in the task at hand, that's a very personal, and not wrong (because morals matter), decision. I'm not saying that's a bad decision.

But this discussion has shifted far from chrisjames' original statement that the Intel chips are getting clobbered in everything outside of gaming, which is just not true.

First shouldn't we give people the benefit of the doubt. Allow them to screw up before assuming they. Part of the reason's why Intel did what they did is the culture they grew up under and an AMD in charge has a completely different backstory. Sure maybe AMD goes soft like Intel with the lead, I mean they did in the past but it had more to do with bad choices and not that they weren't trying to innovate and move forward.

Second shouldn't it be the other way around personal bias, but I'd rather give the company that moved us forward, that needs the support to keep us from getting back into the core i flat movement. Rather than supporting a company that DID DO all of those crappy things, has shown us what they would do with a lead. Why give money to the Richest for being the richest, specially since they got there with horrible and in many cases illegal situations.
AMD did get soft when they had a lead as well, and it doesn't matter why -- Intel made a bad choice to rest on their laurels, and made bad decisions leading up to 10nm. But if Intel had been able to deliver 10nm on time, we probably would be seeing a much different environment. Intel screwing up 10nm just like AMD's crapdriver fiasco were both technical problems -- I don't blame Intel for continuing to press on with 10nm given their investment in it. Just because AMD couldn't compete with them doesn't mean Intel should have bent over backwards to make concessions - look where that's gotten them with overclocked 10900K and power draw issues. Intel are still struggling with their technical issues with 10nm, and even when they enable SMT all over the place, people are still crapping on it. AMD did the same thing to the point of lawsuits with prior chips, so I just don't get this moral superiority argument.

In the end, I give money to the richest when they make the better part for my use. I'm not going to overspend on a processor that doesn't suit my needs. AMD suits my needs right now, and I'll keep using them until they don't.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
705
277
136
Second shouldn't it be the other way around personal bias, but I'd rather give the company that moved us forward, that needs the support to keep us from getting back into the core i flat movement. Rather than supporting a company that DID DO all of those crappy things, has shown us what they would do with a lead. Why give money to the Richest for being the richest, specially since they got there with horrible and in many cases illegal situations.
Yep, I agree and that's precisely my point - that most consumers (who aren't brand new to PC building) have memories and think this way.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,326
1,524
136
AMD did get soft when they had a lead as well, and it doesn't matter why -- Intel made a bad choice to rest on their laurels, and made bad decisions leading up to 10nm. But if Intel had been able to deliver 10nm on time, we probably would be seeing a much different environment. Intel screwing up 10nm just like AMD's crapdriver fiasco were both technical problems -- I don't blame Intel for continuing to press on with 10nm given their investment in it.
It makes a difference. Like Intel with the P4 vs Core i series. The P4 is them screwing up a design. There is a little more into it then just them making a bad design decision early. Like their plans for Itanium using the P4 as a temporary solution till Itanium was ready to be the sole CPU option (and then eliminating all competition because only they would be able to create IA64 chips). But the P4 was an attempt to innovate and move forward, but not a great solution. Vs. The Core i series. Where they realized they had a lead for a long time and left consumers with no real general improvements for 6-8 years. As die shrinks they went out of their way to gatekeep improvements to much higher margin options to the point that they figured out they had to increase die size to support the tracelinks for the pinout. Perfect opportunity to increase core count right? Nope. They chose iGPU improvements. Not because they thought it was important, but solely to increase die size rather than increase core count. These are the issues with them in charge. Phenom could have been better, BD was a disaster. But it was a small company with low resources even when they had success trying to move the industry forward but falling on their face.
Just because AMD couldn't compete with them doesn't mean Intel should have bent over backwards to make concessions - look where that's gotten them with overclocked 10900K and power draw issues. Intel are still struggling with their technical issues with 10nm, and even when they enable SMT all over the place, people are still crapping on it. AMD did the same thing to the point of lawsuits with prior chips, so I just don't get this moral superiority argument.
Ok this tells me you are only look at the most recent Intel. This isn't just about Intel not giving us what we want. This isn't just about Intel going into a stall post 900 series i till the 8k series (so yeah no improvements CPU wise outside 5% clocks per tick for 7 gens). Read up on all the things Intel did to get their lead from 1990-2010. Again not saying we sit back and say hey purchase AMD just because they helped us out in the past, at a real detriment to our computing experience, if they stumble in the future. I am also not suggesting under a setting they are the big guy they might not stagnate as well. But on the morale level the real illegal poop that Intel commited to get to where they are. We shouldn't be supporting that, by buying them because of their previous superiority or size considering how they got there, just because they were there when its basically break even on performance.
In the end, I give money to the richest when they make the better part for my use. I'm not going to overspend on a processor that doesn't suit my needs. AMD suits my needs right now, and I'll keep using them until they don't.
And that is a decision only you can make. I would just say that in general I think people that blindly choose a product sold by a company that not just made poor choices for the sake of their stock prices. But committed actually evil and illegal practices under the idea (that worked) that their success would heavily outweigh any penalties. This is like all the car companies ignoring dangerous situations in their cars, because the bean counters figured out that it would be cheaper to pay settlements for the deaths rather than doing a recall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,013
599
136
This is like all the car companies ignoring dangerous situations in their cars, because the bean counters figured out that it would be cheaper to pay settlements for the deaths rather than doing a recall.
Accept for the small matter that no one died due to any CPU shenanigans.
 

amrnuke

Senior member
Apr 24, 2019
842
1,025
96
It makes a difference. Like Intel with the P4 vs Core i series. The P4 is them screwing up a design. There is a little more into it then just them making a bad design decision early. Like their plans for Itanium using the P4 as a temporary solution till Itanium was ready to be the sole CPU option (and then eliminating all competition because only they would be able to create IA64 chips). But the P4 was an attempt to innovate and move forward, but not a great solution. Vs. The Core i series. Where they realized they had a lead for a long time and left consumers with no real general improvements for 6-8 years. As die shrinks they went out of their way to gatekeep improvements to much higher margin options to the point that they figured out they had to increase die size to support the tracelinks for the pinout. Perfect opportunity to increase core count right? Nope. They chose iGPU improvements. Not because they thought it was important, but solely to increase die size rather than increase core count. These are the issues with them in charge. Phenom could have been better, BD was a disaster. But it was a small company with low resources even when they had success trying to move the industry forward but falling on their face.
Ok this tells me you are only look at the most recent Intel. This isn't just about Intel not giving us what we want. This isn't just about Intel going into a stall post 900 series i till the 8k series (so yeah no improvements CPU wise outside 5% clocks per tick for 7 gens). Read up on all the things Intel did to get their lead from 1990-2010. Again not saying we sit back and say hey purchase AMD just because they helped us out in the past, at a real detriment to our computing experience, if they stumble in the future. I am also not suggesting under a setting they are the big guy they might not stagnate as well. But on the morale level the real illegal poop that Intel commited to get to where they are. We shouldn't be supporting that, by buying them because of their previous superiority or size considering how they got there, just because they were there when its basically break even on performance.

And that is a decision only you can make. I would just say that in general I think people that blindly choose a product sold by a company that not just made poor choices for the sake of their stock prices. But committed actually evil and illegal practices under the idea (that worked) that their success would heavily outweigh any penalties. This is like all the car companies ignoring dangerous situations in their cars, because the bean counters figured out that it would be cheaper to pay settlements for the deaths rather than doing a recall.
I hesitate to post a lot of this, but I think in talking about impending Intel last-hurrahs, it makes sense.

Overall, I agree. Yes, Intel did really immoral and in some cases illegal stuff. Things that were anticompetitive. Agree. They were fined and punished for it, and are under ongoing scrutiny too.

How long is, or should be, our memory on this? Intel had 3 CEOs from 1990-2010, and they're no longer with the company. If we remember the negative, do we also remember Gordon Moore and use that to influence our purchases, or does recency cover all history? If recency covers all history, then what "bad" has Intel done in 2019 and 2020?

However, if history still plays a role, then we must also consider AMD's torpedoing of Palit as a GPU partner, etc. We must also consider the B450 Zen3 fiasco - it was almost certainly done in order to force upgrades and help board partners. That's not pro-consumer. Their backtracking is only because they realize they're the underdog, and they have the smaller marketshare, and their position is very fragile still. If they were in Intel's shoes market-wise they would have likely shoved it through.

You bring up the car analogy. I think honestly people care more about VW's emissions scandal than the fact that the company was founded with Hitler laying the first brick, and its founders being Nazi sympathizers. People care more about Ford's tire fiasco with Firestone than they do about Henry Ford authoring and publishing several antisemitic articles stoking fear of Jews. That speaks a lot to what we're dealing with in regards to corporate morality, right? And I think people couldn't give two craps about Tesla's Clean Air Act violations and working conditions so long as the product is good. And I don't think anyone passes up Shell stations for gas because they had an anti-pipeline protester hanged, and people don't pass up BP stations any more after Deepwater Horizon. And people don't pass up ExxonMobil stations because of Exxon's decades-long history of being anti-science and burying climate change evidence, not to mention their hundreds to thousands of millions of dollars in fines for False Claims Act violations, and EPA violations, and intentional deception surrounding its chemical releases into communities. I don't see people taking Lyft because Uber spied on journalists.

But obviously it's good to think about the morality behind these companies. Most of them are hyper-focused on profit and marketshare at all costs. Which leads to unethical decision-making, as we've seen from all of them, AMD included. And we should use our money to pick the right company as well as the right product.

But what is the time limit on which we should view things? 10 years? 30 years? Never? Intel clearly did a LOT worse things than AMD. But as time goes on, and the people involved are long gone from the company, at what point do we agree that things are different? When do we give a second chance? VW and Ford historical corporate morality doesn't seem to have played any role in any recent consumer purchase decisions, but their recent product morality issues seem to have done so. Even then, both companies are doing exceedingly well now, with the F150 being the best selling truck and VW being the largest automaker in the world by sales several years running. Oil companies don't seem to really be affected at all by it, even with viable and equal alternatives.

I guess... why is it such a big deal regarding CPUs, especially if your use case better leverages a more-immoral company's chips? How many years of good will are needed? Because (and you may see this differently) I think 2019's price drops and 2020's SMT enabling and 10xxx series chips seem to be making steps in the right direction. You might think they're only doing it because their hand is forced, but in reality, they're driven by the same thing AMD is - getting your money in their pockets. AMD is exploiting a market that was ripe for exploiting (I mean exploit in a good sense). They didn't do it to make consumers happy, they did it because it was a way to make money and there was a viable route to be competitive.
 
Last edited:

amrnuke

Senior member
Apr 24, 2019
842
1,025
96
How long should we remember Intel's shenanigans? Pretty simple - until they change.
Problem is - what constitutes change? They've lowered prices and enabled SMT across a wider range of products. They continue to roll out their advanced node, which is roughly equivalent technically to TSMC's 7nm.

What have they done in 2019 and 2020 to warrant saying they haven't changed? I'm not an Intel defender, and really despise what they did in the past -- even the recent past -- but I have a lot of issues with this logic.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,446
1,264
136
Problem is - what constitutes change? They've lowered prices and enabled SMT across a wider range of products. They continue to roll out their advanced node, which is roughly equivalent technically to TSMC's 7nm.

What have they done in 2019 and 2020 to warrant saying they haven't changed? I'm not an Intel defender, and really despise what they did in the past -- even the recent past -- but I have a lot of issues with this logic.
Only offering SMT with one Coffee Lake Refresh CPU? Hardly the worst thing ever but that was a dumb move. I wonder if was because of security reasons. That would be excusable.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,333
8,030
136
Problem is - what constitutes change? They've lowered prices and enabled SMT across a wider range of products. They continue to roll out their advanced node, which is roughly equivalent technically to TSMC's 7nm.

What have they done in 2019 and 2020 to warrant saying they haven't changed? I'm not an Intel defender, and really despise what they did in the past -- even the recent past -- but I have a lot of issues with this logic.
I don't see any actual change. Lowered prices ? To sell something. Enabled SMT ? well, the extra joice is there... With all the security flaws. Roll out something on 10 nm ? With the drip of products coming out, I don;tt see that yet, and again, they still have a lot of the basic security flaws, they have only scratched the surface with their fixes.

Now when the day comes, when they introduce a product you can buy (the 10900k is still OOS everywhere), and it has a fresh design, with efficiency and security in it, is priced competitively, and is actually competitive in performance, with realistic marketing, THEN I will agree they have changed. Right now everything they have done is a poor excuse for a company in all respects.

And notice, I did not say anything about which nm they come in at. 14 (likely NOT), 10,7,5, I don;t care. I just want to open a review on a new product, be so impressed, I am not sure whether to buy this or the competitor, go to newegg or Amazon or some other major distributor, and put it in my cart, and actually have it ship in a couple of days. 3 years ago, I wouldn't touch AMD, and now most of my farm has been converted to AMD. Perfect example.

@Thunder 57 , that SMT enabling could make security worse, but give a shade more performance.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,326
1,524
136
I hesitate to post a lot of this, but I think in talking about impending Intel last-hurrahs, it makes sense.

Overall, I agree. Yes, Intel did really immoral and in some cases illegal stuff. Things that were anticompetitive. Agree. They were fined and punished for it, and are under ongoing scrutiny too.
Like I said and why I made the car company comparison, was due to the fact that any penalties that they received they profited much more on those actions. Think about the actions for 10-15 years to keep AMD down. Limited their ability to build fabs, which killed their ability to supply OEMs. This meant less resources to development. Which is why AMD makes weird moves like Phenom and BD. They are attempts to use their limited their resources but move forward. That isn't meant to eliminate AMD's culpabilities in their own demise over time. But Intel got themselves into position where they can have a P4 moment and keep profits high. AMD screws up on a CPU and they almost die. That is the position Intels illegal activities put AMD. Hell in the EU for example AMD settled for probably a fraction of what Intel would have been penalized for because they were desperate for cash. This isn't a person that served their time in prison and deserving of a second chance in public.
How long is, or should be, our memory on this? Intel had 3 CEOs from 1990-2010, and they're no longer with the company. If we remember the negative, do we also remember Gordon Moore and use that to influence our purchases, or does recency cover all history? If recency covers all history, then what "bad" has Intel done in 2019 and 2020?

However, if history still plays a role, then we must also consider AMD's torpedoing of Palit as a GPU partner, etc. We must also consider the B450 Zen3 fiasco - it was almost certainly done in order to force upgrades and help board partners. That's not pro-consumer. Their backtracking is only because they realize they're the underdog, and they have the smaller marketshare, and their position is very fragile still. If they were in Intel's shoes market-wise they would have likely shoved it through.
Again big difference in not making the most Prosumer decisions. AMD has been guilty of that. That isn't in question and an AMD in charge is likely to make stupid bean counter decisions. I disagree on the B450 issue. I think AMD was trying to balance their the struggles of 2k and 3k support in the past. It was while a shift from what we expected. I think they will be smarter when they move to AM5. But assuming the worst from AMD on that, versus everything they have done. Even sending out CPU's for flashing new bioses with the 2k and 3k launches. It seems shortsighted. But that isn't AMD doing illegal things to screw over their competitors so that they can limit the ability they can compete with them. Again not great decisions, vs outright illegal and Anti-competitive actions.

You bring up the car analogy. I think honestly people care more about VW's emissions scandal than the fact that the company was founded with Hitler laying the first brick, and its founders being Nazi sympathizers. People care more about Ford's tire fiasco with Firestone than they do about Henry Ford authoring and publishing several antisemitic articles stoking fear of Jews. That speaks a lot to what we're dealing with in regards to corporate morality, right? And I think people couldn't give two craps about Tesla's Clean Air Act violations and working conditions so long as the product is good. And I don't think anyone passes up Shell stations for gas because they had an anti-pipeline protester hanged, and people don't pass up BP stations any more after Deepwater Horizon. And people don't pass up ExxonMobil stations because of Exxon's decades-long history of being anti-science and burying climate change evidence, not to mention their hundreds to thousands of millions of dollars in fines for False Claims Act violations, and EPA violations, and intentional deception surrounding its chemical releases into communities. I don't see people taking Lyft because Uber spied on journalists.

But obviously it's good to think about the morality behind these companies. Most of them are hyper-focused on profit and marketshare at all costs. Which leads to unethical decision-making, as we've seen from all of them, AMD included. And we should use our money to pick the right company as well as the right product.
Understanding that lots of companies do illegal or unethical actions. Doesn't mean we should support them when we know about them. Assuming AMD will do it, again seems like one of those things where we should actually you know catch them doing it before assuming they would.

But what is the time limit on which we should view things? 10 years? 30 years? Never? Intel clearly did a LOT worse things than AMD. But as time goes on, and the people involved are long gone from the company, at what point do we agree that things are different? When do we give a second chance? VW and Ford historical corporate morality doesn't seem to have played any role in any recent consumer purchase decisions, but their recent product morality issues seem to have done so. Even then, both companies are doing exceedingly well now, with the F150 being the best selling truck and VW being the largest automaker in the world by sales several years running. Oil companies don't seem to really be affected at all by it, even with viable and equal alternatives.

I guess... why is it such a big deal regarding CPUs, especially if your use case better leverages a more-immoral company's chips? How many years of good will are needed? Because (and you may see this differently) I think 2019's price drops and 2020's SMT enabling and 10xxx series chips seem to be making steps in the right direction. You might think they're only doing it because their hand is forced, but in reality, they're driven by the same thing AMD is - getting your money in their pockets. AMD is exploiting a market that was ripe for exploiting (I mean exploit in a good sense). They didn't do it to make consumers happy, they did it because it was a way to make money and there was a viable route to be competitive.
Because we especially don't get Comet Lake and maybe not even Coffee Lake - R if it wasn't for AMD. Look I am not saying no one should ever purchase Intel. But Intel is in an infinitely more stable situation with their OEM and DC markets. What I personally think us as enthusiasts should do is support the company that is A.) Not the company that sat around doing nothing without competition, who is finacially stable, who by what we saw as early as 2017 was fine sitting around if the other company was gone. B.) Not defualt to the company that used illegal tactics to get themselves to the point where they could sit around do nothing and get year after year record sales. C.) Support the company that made the choices we have now, has forced actual price drops and is actively pushing boundries on computing capabilities not just for datacenters but for everyone. Now this isn't saying that we screwed up by not buying BD because AMD is not Intel. But when all things are equal or near equal and your not trying to create unrealistic scenarios to sell yourself on a bias, yeah to a degree I think its in our best long term interest to support AMD as enthusiasts.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,039
4,997
136
Problem is - what constitutes change?
For me, I would want them to go back to what they were like pre-1997. Let them open x86 back up, or at least their sockets. Used to be you could get a Socket 7 system from Intel, AMD, Cyrix, or IDT/Centaur. And possibly others I'm not remembering! Intel killed that with the Pentium II.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY