Theres just too much talk here to go trough it all, but ill start five pages back and wind my way to the latest posts. Keep this in mind and try to read the whole thing before trying to debate or counter this post.
So? Different people have different opinions. Problem is that the AMD-camp doesn't tolerate different opinions.
I've been attacked over and over again in this thread, and then I mean me, not my arguments.
And this isn't the first or the only thread where this happens, and I'm not the only one who is subject to such attacks. There has also been quite a bit of moderation against this in various threads, lately.
I think you guys need to learn how to be more mature, respectful and tolerant.
And stop reiterating that you don't agree with me. I heard you the first time. Repeating it over and over again is not going to change anyone's mind. So stop repeating, and stop attacking people for having a different opinion.
Dear Scali, let me try to explain the viewpoint of so many people, whom to you, come across as AMD fanboys or whatever you`d like to term them, as evidently seen in your "i have been attacked by people, not my arguments, but me".
This is ofcourse a debate technique, one which has its ups, but also its downsides. The downsides are proven well when your confronted by evidence of doing the same thing your accusing others off or just staving off and steering away from subjects which are relevant to the topic, but which you dont like yourself.
As seen by the comments from alot of members, last of them being in this topic by Mem, there are opinions which differ from yours. As it should be. Noone needs to be forced into one or the other. If you like apples, fine. This doesnt look to be fine with you though.
There looks to be alot of posts where your only message, which you reiterate again and again, is that you would want AMD to act like Nvidia, do like Nvidia and be like Nvidia. A few examples to show my points:
Also, notice how i mostly quote your entire message, so as to not have any "your taking this out of context" whine.
That's the impression you're creating by focusing completely on the laptops they didn't replace/fix.
Originally Posted by
Janooo 
What I am saying it does not cover all the damage.
I think we all knew that long before this thread anyway. I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise...
No need to keep reiterating that.
Heck, when does such an action ever REALLY cover the damage? If you really want to go down that alley, you could argue that just replacing the hardware is not enough, because you may also have lost your work, and you may have lost valuable time because you had to wait for a replacement etc etc.
There's no way a company can ever win in such a situation. You can never do enough.
But let's make this the last post on this subject, and carry on with some of the other subjects instead.
Look here, change of topic and the technique of making your debatent look like he is repeating himself. Reprimanding someone else for doing something you dont like, while doing the same yourself.
Why do you want to change the topic btw? The reason the member brought up that point, was because you compared it to something from AMD and said AMD did worse. Did he prove his point, that Nvidias doing was worse and thus you wanted to change the topic, since you couldnt make a winning argument?
Anyway, enough of that. We can conclude that you lost that argument. here is another.
Why should I even need to do that?
I think it is common knowledge that nVidia outsources all production, GPUs, PCBs, everything (aka a fabless company, they only design the hardware, they don't build it). Which means that whatever soldering is being done on whatever part of an nVidia product, it's not being done by nVidia themselves, but by a third party.
This is in reply to Janoo asking you to name subcontractor which was responsible for the Nvidia bumpgate scandal. Your in reality saying, Nvidia was not responsibly.
yes, AMD and nVidia will probably have had some input on what to use exactly... but especially nVidia has no first-hand experience with making chips at all, so they will just have to go by what the fab advises (and TSMC has made quite a mess of their 40 nm process as well... both AMD and nVidia complained that the final product was nowhere near what they originally specced it out to be. It happens).
AMD may have had some extra inside-info from their own fabs, who knows?
And well, there's still people making decisions. It's all about evaluating risks (we've been over this before).
By the looks of it, either nVidia didn't estimate the risk as highly as AMD did, or nVidia was willing to take more of a risk than AMD was.
Ok, so now your saying Nvidia did have something to do with what materials were to be used on their cards. And lets assume for a second here that one business
rule of thumb says that if you can "get away with something, still making a hefty amount of cash and while winning some marketshare, its ok to screw the customer" that Nvidia DID know what was going to happen. Certainly it would look naive in many peoples eyes if you dont think they should know.
--- Your mentioning something about depreciation somewhere in this topic, ill just comment on that while im at the bumpgate discussion: This differs hugely, depending on big business og consumer parts. But it also differs in regions, as in the US versus the EU etc. And within each country there can be even heftier applications of this "depreciation" law.
In Norway almost all electronic equipment has a 5year warranty, if Nvidia doesnt cover it, the store you bought it from will. Everyone sees how these are interconnected.
So, NO Scali, i dont want hardware that lasts 2 years. I want hardware that lasts for as long as i need it to. If im someone who keeps my equipment clean, healthy etc and do everything i can to have Good, Working Hardware, i blood well EXPECT two products, each from different brands, to last just as long. Last i checked, it was not so with GPUs, as it is with Toyota versus Renault in the world of cars (yes i hate car analogies, but everyone is familiar with why Toyota has its reputation)
If in spite of taking well care of my hardware, one part, Nvidia GPU, burns out after 2 years, while one part, AMD GPU, lasts 5, then you better belive there IS a problem with Nvidia hardware and it should Not be occuring.
Not quite, unless some people have a strange idea of what responsibility means.
So, whats it gonna be then? Are the makers of these products responsible or not? The question "who is resonsible, if Nvidia isnt?", was asked and you replied that its third parties.
But you named no third parties, instead you jumped 3 series of cards and ended up at Fermi to reiterated the old "TSMC brought bad process to both discreet GPU makers".
This can be argued to not hold true, since AMDs Evergreen series, although it was available in less quantity than it should have been, still suffered WAY less than Nvidias Fermi. Different architectures ofc and a whole new one for Nvidia, but we`ve been over this before. I think everyone considers AMDs 4770 on 40nm to be the right way to approach a new process node. And in this light people have argued that it IS Nvidias failing that led to Way lower than expected yields, not something entirely or even overly TSMCs failure of process technique.
It's really simple. nVidia made the wrong choice, but that doesn't mean they did that deliberately. They did what they thought was the right choice. Hindsight and all that...
Read the part where I say that many people view this line of thinking as overly naive. Exactly what do you know about Nvidia not doing anything intentionally? Both AMD and Nvidia have intentionally done some shady stuff in the past. Lets be realistic, both companies are likely to act shady in the future aswell.
Hey we are getting somewhere. It seems we can agree on Nvidia making a mistake atleast. Thats a start.
Not really... Why do you think parents are being held responsible for their children?
A big part of it is that children won't be able to pay for any damages anyway, because they don't have an income.
There may be tons of reasons why you can't really make the party that caused it responsible, as I tried to demonstrate with my BP/Deep Horizon example. And I wouldn't really call them 'excuses and justifications', it's just common sense and accepted practice.
But if you want to over-simplify things... fine. Let's not discuss this further.
It seems apparant (to me) that you`ve made a bad analogy with "the kids broke something and the parents are held responsible", I have to assume, since your being this vague, that you mean Nvidia is the parent. Who are the kids? Are you blaming EVGA, XFX etc or are you blaming THE kid: TSCM?
Bad analogy i guess. But your BP analogy is not so bad. Its just weird that you in one sentence call it "common sense and accepted practice" while in another you say its not right that BP should be held responsible since the fault lay with one of their subcontractors.
In business you investigate or make sure that your subcontractors are reliable and if nessesary you include clauses in the contracts that make the subcontractor liable if something goes wrong.
Atleast you do in private busineses. State or national stuff is often just given to the least expensive firm aslong as they meet the minimum requirements.
In other words, BP was held responsible and TOOK the blame. Much like Nvidia i guess, Im not intimately familiar with either case, other than having read it trough the press on both accounts.
Now, let's substitute every instance of 'nVidia' with 'Intel':
That still makes as much sense as nVidia, doesn't it?
Problem here is that reality disagrees with you: AMD did partner up with Intel.
There is your flawed logic.
So my obvious argument here is this:
If, in light of your arguments against teaming up with a competitor, AMD still decided to go with Intel... by that same logic, AMD could (and possibly should) also have gone with nVidia.
Heck, AMD was even fighting Intel in court at that time. At least they weren't entangled with any legal issues with nVidia.
As I said before, AMD just got cornered. They could go with nVidia, Intel or Sony. They went with Intel and Sony... might as well also gone with nVidia while they were at it. I think it's called "Don't bet all your money on one horse".
Your problem is that you constantly ignore Intel in the story (that's why I say you're being nVidia-centric). Ofcourse that's convenient for your flawed logic, but it doesn't quite match up with reality.
I would assume he IS focused on AMD vs Nvidia, guess what read the topic. This isnt about Intel. Intel has 0 discreet marketshare. Intel is not a competitor to AMD in what was ment as the discreet GPU segment. You know this was ment, yet you twisted his post to your liking so YOU could have a shot at him being anti Nvidia.
Intel can and should be Ignored in the discreet GPU market. When the Sandybridge/Lhano or whatever AMD calls their cpu/gpu battle is well started, THEN you can start talking about competition in the GPU segments. Intel basicly owning the integrated market is a topic entirely outside this one.
What exactly is so hard in understand why AMD Can not go with Nvidia? It has been explained to you several times in this topic Scali, that if AMD embraced Nvidias phyxs standard, they would help increase phyxs adoption to 100% in the discreet GPU segment while also locking themselves to their main competitors whims and tech. You just dont do that in business. AMD can run (and adapt) havok stuff on their own processors. Amd can run phyxs on their GPUs, BUT would be at the mercy of Nvidia if there came a time of change in software/code path change.
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is that Intel IS being watched by many eyes for anti competitive stuff. Using Intels stuff is MUCH safer for AMD than using Nvidias stuff. Much safer.
Anyway, the list could go on forever quoting you.
In closing:
There is no need to attack you. Your arguments however and your discussion technique leave you open to harsher than needed replies.
You change subjects when you dont have any winning arguments or when you are proven to have spread misinformation or when you have contradicted yourself or amended your viewpoints to take into regard a confrontative argument from another member.
In one way, we really should get over this. But with the short intervals these questions pop up again, i doubt we will ever stop talking about these companies with our arguments of one being better than the other etc.
Its only natural.
Facebook
Twitter