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.