Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost?

[Gikaseixas]

AMD would do the same without Intel. And there would be 'obscene' AMD pricing. Shareholders would boot out their directors if they didnt.

You nailed it. Both would try to take advantage. Competition stimulates progress and generates price wars.

 

[Scali]

Funny, the only times I bought AMD was when they offered $300+ CPUs... basically the only times that they were offering competitive performance at a better price than Intel.

I rarely buy CPUs of less than $300. I want the latest features and be reasonably close to the cutting edge as far as performance goes, so that my system gives a good overall experience and can last 3-4 years before the next upgrade.
Cheap/underpowered CPUs are just frustrating to use for me, and require an upgrade long before I feel they've delivered on their investment.

A lot of the time, AMD, VIA and other alternative CPUs simply fly under my radar for that reason.

 

[DominionSeraph]

And regardless of who dictated the terms, I still don't see how AMD is involved here.

Oh right and when Apple uses a proprietary BIOS to ensure that Mac OS can only be used on their hardware you of course see no way how this involves other hardware sellers.

Intel went proprietary. If their hardware position had been in any way comparable to what it was in the previous 15 years, they would have been able to dictate terms to the entire industry from behind a wall of protected IP. This is much preferable to only having the position of market domination, as that can change in a heartbeat.

 

[Scali]

Oh right and when Apple uses a proprietary BIOS to ensure that Mac OS can only be used on their hardware you of course see no way how this involves other hardware sellers.

That makes no sense whatsoever.
Firstly, unlike Apple, Rambus+Intel was not an exclusive license. AMD was free to license Rambus aswell, if they wanted to.
Secondly, DDR didn't even exist yet when Rambus and Intel signed the deal, let alone that they knew that AMD would choose to go with DDR, rather than also getting a Rambus license.
So trying to claim that it is a deliberate action to kill AMD is total nonsense.
If you claimed that Rambus was deliberately trying to kill DDR (and all other memory technologies), yes, I would agree with that.
But DDR and AMD are not equivalent. Nor are Intel and Rambus equivalent.
So your claim makes no sense.

Also, proprietary is not necessarily a nasty or evil thing. It's a shame that it has come this far.
x86 is proprietary aswell, now it is AMD's main reason for being the second-most successful CPU manufacturer in the world.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Funny, the only times I bought AMD was when they offered $300+ CPUs... basically the only times that they were offering competitive performance at a better price than Intel.

I rarely buy CPUs of less than $300. I want the latest features and be reasonably close to the cutting edge as far as performance goes, so that my system gives a good overall experience and can last 3-4 years before the next upgrade.
Cheap/underpowered CPUs are just frustrating to use for me, and require an upgrade long before I feel they've delivered on their investment.

A lot of the time, AMD, VIA and other alternative CPUs simply fly under my radar for that reason.

And why do you only mention alternatives as being cheap?
The $100 Celeron 300a would outperform the 5x expensive Pentium II 400, often even at stock clocks due to its full speed on die cache while the PII used half speed off-die. OC'ed to 500+MHz, the 300a stayed competitive for a VERY long time.

 

[Scali]

And why do you only mention alternatives as being cheap?

I don't. Quote me what you are referring to exactly? Because you lost me here.
I say "I rarely buy CPUs of less than $300".

 

[DominionSeraph]

That makes no sense whatsoever.
Firstly, unlike Apple, Rambus+Intel was not an exclusive license. AMD was free to license Rambus aswell, if they wanted to.

Apple isn't in an exclusive licence with itself. Other hardware manufacturers are free to licence Apple's BIOS+OS. Funny that Apple won't give them one.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Quote me what you are referring to exactly?

Cheap/underpowered CPUs are just frustrating to use for me, and require an upgrade long before I feel they've delivered on their investment.

A lot of the time, AMD, VIA and other alternative CPUs simply fly under my radar for that reason.

You used a generic term as a placeholder, then mentioned specifics and referenced back with "that."
A=A, thus "Cheap/underpowered CPUs," becomes, "Cheap/underpowered CPU's (i.e. AMD, VIA, and other alternatives)."

 

[Scali]

Apple isn't in an exclusive licence with itself. Other hardware manufacturers are free to licence Apple's BIOS+OS. Funny that Apple won't give them one.

No, Apple has made it clear that they don't license to others.
However, as we know from x86, if you have a monopoly on a crucial piece of technology, you will be forced to license it. If Rambus ever succeeded in capturing the market (which they didn't, so what are we talking about), no doubt they would have been forced to offer licenses.

But you skipped over a crucial piece of information here:
Intel put in DDR support in their i845 chipset, but just didn't enable it at first.
If Intel was intent on killing off DDR with Rambus, why would they have bothered to add it to their chipset in the first place?
It looks more like Intel didn't have the faith that Rambus would be a success, and had DDR as a backup plan. Not like Intel tried to kill DDR at all costs.

 

[Scali]

You used a generic term as a placeholder, then mentioned specifics and referenced back with "that."
A=A.

Well, since I don't buy CPUs under $300, this also includes a bunch of Intel CPUs that 'fly under the radar'... but in AMD/VIA's case, it's often that ALL their products fly under the radar, so I don't consider the brand as a whole. That doesn't hold for Intel. I consider the brand, just not their entire product line.
You really REALLY want to argue, don't you? Shame you're so bad at it.

 

[deimos3428]

Intel has never had a monopoly on CPUs, and likely never will. They are clearly the market leader, but they simply can't be everything for everyone.

If AMD wasn't there to fill the niche that they do some other small company would see an opportunity to fill it themselves and profit.

 

[lopri]

Well, since I don't buy CPUs under $300, this also includes a bunch of Intel CPUs that 'fly under the radar'... but in AMD/VIA's case, it's often that ALL their products fly under the radar, so I don't consider the brand as a whole. That doesn't hold for Intel. I consider the brand, just not their entire product line.
You really REALLY want to argue, don't you? Shame you're so bad at it.

:biggrin:

 

[DominionSeraph]

Well, since I don't buy CPUs under $300, this also includes a bunch of Intel CPUs that 'fly under the radar'... but in AMD/VIA's case, it's often that ALL their products fly under the radar

I thought you said you were objective. If you are blind to anything under $300, how is your judgment valid? You're throwing out the Celerons, Durons, Athlons, Athlon XP's, Athlon 64's, Athlon 64 X2's, Athlon II X2's, Athlon II X3's, Athlon II X4's...

Your reliance on price as the only indicator of anything leaves you with nothing but Intel's mid- to high-end in 90% of cases simply because Intel costs more and thus breaks your arbitrary price point.

 

[Gikaseixas]

A lot of the time, AMD, VIA and other alternative CPUs simply fly under my radar for that reason.

you should say:

A lot of the time, cheap Intel models, Cheap AMD, VIA and other alternative CPUs simply fly under my radar for that reason.

 

[Scali]

I thought you said you were objective.

I am. I'm not using the price as a criterium (I never said that, that's a conclusion you're jumping to), I just know from over 20 years of experience, I rarely (not never, rarely) buy anything under the $300 mark, because that appears not to be where the 'sweet spot' lies for me.
As already discussed, CPUs are priced to what people are willing to pay, and have little to do with the actual production costs or anything.

Since I've actually owned Athlons and Athlon XPs (albeit the most expensive ones at the time, remaining true to my 'sweet spot' in terms of minimum level of performance for personal experience and longevity of the system), your claims are completely baseless.

Again, nice try, but you're not very good at arguing.

 

[Scali]

you should say:

A lot of the time, cheap Intel models, Cheap AMD, VIA and other alternative CPUs simply fly under my radar for that reason.

The Intels were already implied by the fact that I rarely buy under $300. Everyone knows that Intel has plenty of CPUs under $300, right?

Now leave me alone.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm not using the price as a criterium (I never said that, that's a conclusion you're jumping to),

Well, since I don't buy CPUs under $300, this also includes a bunch of Intel CPUs that 'fly under the radar'

If they're flying under the radar for being under $300, how is price not a criteria?

Again, nice try, but you're not very good at arguing.

Try mastering internal consistency before you rate my debate skills.

 

[Gikaseixas]

The Intels were already implied by the fact that I rarely buy under $300. Everyone knows that Intel has plenty of CPUs under $300, right?

Now leave me alone.

relax dude

still you should be clear. Not everyone is as informed as you might think.

 

[Scali]

If they're flying under the radar for being under $300, how is price not a criteria?

You are confusing cause and effect.
Cause:
"I want the latest features and be reasonably close to the cutting edge as far as performance goes, so that my system gives a good overall experience and can last 3-4 years before the next upgrade."
Effect:
"I rarely buy CPUs of less than $300."

 

[Scali]

still you should be clear. Not everyone is as informed as you might think.

No, I shouldn't.
If you aren't informed, you hold your silence, rather than attacking someone. It's that simple.
How difficult is it to find out prices of Intel CPUs even if you wouldn't know them?
Google or newegg can help you there. You'd know in 5 seconds that there's a considerable number of Intel CPUs under $300. Inform yourself before you speak.
Don't expect me to post a complete listing of Intel CPUs and prices when it is completely beside the point. That is not my responsibility, that is your own.

 

[evolucion8]

When Intel introduced the i7 875K and reduced the price of the i7 860, showed clearly it's greed for profit and a great potential for the Phenom II X6 to steal their sales away. Which shows that Intel is competing agressively in a certain price, like the $300 price point and above where Intel really rules, but below it, Intel isn't doing much pressure, most Intel processors below that price point has met an AMD rival that can give competition.

 

[Gikaseixas]

No, I shouldn't.
If you aren't informed, you hold your silence, rather than attacking someone. It's that simple.
How difficult is it to find out prices of Intel CPUs even if you wouldn't know them?
Google or newegg can help you there. You'd know in 5 seconds that there's a considerable number of Intel CPUs under $300. Inform yourself before you speak.
Don't expect me to post a complete listing of Intel CPUs and prices when it is completely beside the point. That is not my responsibility, that is your own.

like i said it might be easy for us but there are others that come here, not even members, just to read and get informative stuff. If you keep on passing bad and inaccurate stuff how the hell does it helps??

i never asked you to post a list did i? (I would like to smoke some of that stuff you have over there) Be more specific, that's all. I was giving you much credit but now i can see how !@#$ you're.

and for the 2nd time, try to relax and let's not derail the thread any further (which is something you're a master given your track record here)

 

[Gikaseixas]

When Intel introduced the i7 875K and reduced the price of the i7 860, showed clearly it's greed for profit and a great potential for the Phenom II X6 to steal their sales away. Which shows that Intel is competing agressively in a certain price, like the $300 price point and above where Intel really rules, but below it, Intel isn't doing much pressure, most Intel processors below that price point has met an AMD rival that can give competition.

that's so obvious but yet someone refuses to see it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You are confusing cause and effect.

Well, since I don't buy CPUs under $300, this also includes a bunch of Intel CPUs that 'fly under the radar'.

Do you not know the meaning of the bolded word?
Since = Because. Not "Beeffect."

 

[Scali]

Do you not know the meaning of the bolded word?
Since = Because. Not "Beeffect."

That is not the original statement. At this point, the $300 was already established from the earlier statement.
And as a result, this also ruled out a number of Intel CPUs.

Really, stop trying, you can't win this argument. Pulling everything out of context is just poor form. Oh, there I rated your debating skills again... I just call 'em as I see 'em.