Why does intel suck?

[ShintaiDK]

/me grabs popcorn

 

[CHADBOGA]

It's really sad how some people gleefully rejoice at the difficult position AMD is currently in.

The "glee" is a direct result of fanatical AMD supporters running amok, making fools of themselves for years on end.

No one wants to see AMD suffer, they just want to see their fanboys suffer.

 

[Idontcare]

The lawsuit was against MS, further exposing the ludicrous notion that Intel was to blame.

My memory is obviously hazy, at best, but if what you say is true then yeah, the party sued is obviously the party that was deemed responsible by people who would be far more knowledgeable of the issue than us (because they get to see all those internal documents during the discovery phase of the pre-trial).

So it was Ballmer then?

 

[hokies83]

It's really sad how some people gleefully rejoice at the difficult position AMD is currently in.

That is the thing.. I do not Rejoice in it all.

I wish there PD chips were better then they are and AMD Vs Intel was at battle like it was 2006...

Hardware was flying out back then and advances were coming out it was a good time for PC hardware.

 

[CHADBOGA]

No, i'll laugh as you choke on your words. Let's see now, how long have we all heard that story? Seems to be a never ending claim, sadly.

When Haswell comes out, it will give a clear pointer to the state of play, so let's revisit things when that happens, where all that will be required, is to imagine Intel then doubling the EU's on 14nm.

AMD might reclaim the lead back when they get to 20nm, but who knows when AMD will be releasing product on 20nm.

 

[AnandThenMan]

The "glee" is a direct result of fanatical AMD supporters running amok, making fools of themselves for years on end.

No one wants to see AMD suffer, they just want to see their fanboys suffer.

Classy.

 

[CHADBOGA]

My memory is obviously hazy, at best, but if what you say is true then yeah, the party sued is obviously the party that was deemed responsible by people who would be far more knowledgeable of the issue than us (because they get to see all those internal documents during the discovery phase of the pre-trial).

So it was Ballmer then?

Ballmer's been there for at least 10 years now, so it would have been him.

But going back to the Vista example, does it mean that when Crysis came out, that both AMD and Nvidia were making crap discrete GPU's? :biggrin:

 

[CHADBOGA]

Classy.

What do you expect, considering their woeful behaviour?

That people will want to love and embrace them?

 

[ctsoth]

I visit this forum because of a few knowledgeable people who really contribute. I learn a lot from people like IDC. There are many people in this thread, and the equivalently titled AMD thread, that I don't learn much from, as far as technical matters go. Instead I learn a lot about emotional attacks and ego.

 

[mrmt]

Answer your own question, it's ridiculous and anyone with a grade 6 education could likely figure it out. Crediting intel's graphical capabilities for the decline in attach rates is absurdly comical. Thanks for the laugh!

I went a little bit further than 6th grade but I still could not find an answer. Maybe you, as a smarter, more connected individual could help me with this one. What are *you* crediting for the lower attach rates and shrinking consumer GPU sales from AMD and Nvidia? I'd like to know, maybe you have the answer we are looking for our financial models of Nvidia and AMD.

 

[AnandThenMan]

What do you expect, considering their woeful behaviour?

What the heck are you talking about? Not everyone wants to suckle the teet of Intel no matter what comes out, and don't worship everything they do to the point of defending their brutal GPUs, especially in the Vista era.

 

[alyarb]

what a thread. stop acting like anyone is forcing you to buy intel. there are plenty of llano and trinity alternatives out there with superior graphics performance and an accordingly higher price.

good luck finding one that isn't 1366x768 though (also intel's fault)

 

[CHADBOGA]

What the heck are you talking about? Not everyone wants to suckle the teet of Intel no matter what comes out, and don't worship everything they do to the point of defending their brutal GPUs, especially in the Vista era.

You need to develop some perspective son, you sound like you are losing the plot and becoming deranged.

Explaining matters regarding IGP's, is just that, explaining matters.

Why is it that you seem so hot under the collar and wanting to attack Intel?

If they don't meet your needs, you can buy something else, no one is forcing you to stay with them.

 

[Ferzerp]

-2/10 would not read again.

fail troll is fail.

 

[AnandThenMan]

You need to develop some perspective son, you sound like you are losing the plot and becoming deranged.

You really are a classy guy. Keep up the name calling and wishing suffering on people, good stuff.

 

[CHADBOGA]

You really are a classy guy. Keep up the name calling and wishing suffering on people, good stuff.

The only suffering I wish on people, is that they be exposed to the truth.

That is what they can't handle, as evidenced by the bizarro reality worlds they create for themselves to live in.

 

[exar333]

These childish threads just digress into he same discussion over and over...

 

[piesquared]

I went a little bit further than 6th grade but I still could not find an answer. Maybe you, as a smarter, more connected individual could help me with this one. What are *you* crediting for the lower attach rates and shrinking consumer GPU sales from AMD and Nvidia? I'd like to know, maybe you have the answer we are looking for our financial models of Nvidia and AMD.

Sure I can help you out, but it really isn't that difficult.

10 systems on the shelf, 8 are intel 2 are AMD. Considering that the overwhelming majority of consumers have no idea what a GPU is, what is that going to do to attach rates increase them or decrease them? It has nothing to do with GPU capabilities, of which intel has none.

 

[blastingcap]

The proper way to respond to a troll thread is to alert moderators, not create the mirror image of the troll thread. Wtf.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Sure I can help you out, but it really isn't that difficult.

10 systems on the shelf, 8 are intel 2 are AMD. Considering that the overwhelming majority of consumers have no idea what a GPU is, what is that going to do to attach rates increase them or decrease them? It has nothing to do with GPU capabilities, of which intel has none.

Hay I feel for ya man . PM me and I see if I can't get you a Official INTEL crying towel

 

[piesquared]

The proper way to respond to a troll thread is to alert moderators, not create the mirror image of the troll thread. Wtf.

It's not a response to a troll thread, it's a legitimate question. How come intel can't produce competitive graphics with all there resources is the question. If it's just because they WANT to produce the bare minimum to get by, how is that benefiting anyone but intel. But I think it's not that simple. More likely, they can't. Graphics capabilities are increasing much faster than CPU capabilities. intel likely just can't compete with the big power houses, AMD and NV. I'm sure they are trying real hard though, it's just that when you compete on a level playing field things are substantially more difficult.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Sure I can help you out, but it really isn't that difficult.

10 systems on the shelf, 8 are intel 2 are AMD. Considering that the overwhelming majority of consumers have no idea what a GPU is, what is that going to do to attach rates increase them or decrease them?

This has been the case now for over 20 years, why is it only when Intel has increased the abilities of their IGP's, that discrete attach rates have fallen?

It has nothing to do with GPU capabilities, of which intel has none.

I think you are getting confused with the FX range of processors.

 

[mrmt]

Sure I can help you out, but it really isn't that difficult.

10 systems on the shelf, 8 are intel 2 are AMD. Considering that the overwhelming majority of consumers have no idea what a GPU is, what is that going to do to attach rates increase them or decrease them? It has nothing to do with GPU capabilities, of which intel has none.

I'm not sure about what Intel share plays with this unless you are trying to imply that the more customers Intel get, the more the entire market becomes ignorant about GPU. But you wouldn't imply that, so answering your question If nothing changes on your premises and consumer profile the rate should stay constant, Intel currently sells 10 systems, 5 comes with dGPU and 5 without. You attract 10 more, those 5 new goes to dGPU, the other 5 don't.

Yet the rate is not constant, it is falling. You can explain that by arguing that consumer are giving less importance to GPUs, so no matter how bad Intel performance is, it doesn't matter as the consumer does not care. The other possible answer is that IGP is slowly but steadily eating the dGPU market from the bottom which implies to admit that to consumers Intel IGP is improving.

 

[CHADBOGA]

It's not a response to a troll thread, it's a legitimate question. How come intel can't produce competitive graphics with all there resources is the question. If it's just because they WANT to produce the bare minimum to get by, how is that benefiting anyone but intel. But I think it's not that simple. More likely, they can't. Graphics capabilities are increasing much faster than CPU capabilities. intel likely just can't compete with the big power houses, AMD and NV. I'm sure they are trying real hard though, it's just that when you compete on a level playing field things are substantially more difficult.

Of course Intel can compete.

We have already seen Apple dump both AMD and Nvidia for Intel's Haswell based IGP's.

It is one of the reasons why Microsoft have chosen Intel for their Surface Pro range of tablets.

Intel's IGP's are going to be taking more and more marketshare away from everyone else, as the next few years rolls along.

You can cling to your one off example of Vista all you like, it ain't going to save you from the reality that lies ahead.

 

[piesquared]

I'm not sure about what Intel share plays with this unless you are trying to imply that the more customers Intel get, the more the entire market becomes ignorant about GPU. But you wouldn't imply that, so answering your question If nothing changes on your premises and consumer profile the rate should stay constant, Intel currently sells 10 systems, 5 comes with dGPU and 5 without. You attract 10 more, those 5 new goes to dGPU, the other 5 don't.

Yet the rate is not constant, it is falling. You can explain that by arguing that consumer are giving less importance to GPUs, so no matter how bad Intel performance is, it doesn't matter as the consumer does not care. The other possible answer is that IGP is slowly but steadily eating the dGPU market from the bottom which implies to admit that to consumers Intel IGP is improving.

Nope it doesn't. Consumers will buy whatever is on the shelf, whether it has a discrete GPU or not, providing the price is right for them. They aren't getting a better GPU because of it.