I don't know why you feel the need to defend Intel, which clearly has the stronger brand and marketing.
AMD processors in the past decade were clearly inferior products, and thus sold less and at a lower margin than their Intel counterparts. Considering AMD has been in the business of losing money for years and years, I don't think you can make the argument that they are "ripping people off" like Intel.
MASSIVE Difference, AMD is broke and on full survival mode, they are selling the best they had, bulldozer and derivatives we're poor performing in single thread yes, but they were/are dirt cheap, they offer decent MT performance especially when first released, later derivatives made power efficient APUs, graphics wise AMD out did Intel for the most part so it wasn't all bad.Explain why FX9590 was released at $900, Explain why AM1 happened at all, explain why they keep selling sub performing FX for so long. Yes, Intel has been ripping off customers, personally i whould have never considered 6900 or 6950X, because if i needed more threads, there where better options in the Xeons. But AMD has been doing the same thing, im just pointing that out, and you are trying to defend a company that are ripping people off, "At least not to the same extend"? WTF, since when that matters? /period
Because selling FX and AM1 for years was not a rip off. Come on, selective memory.
Explain why FX9590 was released at $900
Explain why AM1 happened at all
explain why they keep selling sub performing FX for so long.
Yes, Intel has been ripping off customers, personally i whould have never considered 6900 or 6950X, because if i needed more threads, there where better options in the Xeons. But AMD has been doing the same thing
MASSIVE Difference, AMD is broke and on full survival mode,
I think he's referring to the period over a decade ago when the Athlon 64 4200+ prices were really high and the first FX. Prices then ranged from 250ish to mid 700s.No they haven't. AMD couldn't command prices like that, period. The FX-9590 and FX-9370 proved that, as did the Quad Father platform years earlier. AMD has had poor margins for years.
Tell that to the people buying 2650/AM1 that cost just $30 less than a Celeron at sub C2D performance. Or the people that even today are buying FX8350 at I5 prices.FX and AM1 were both cheap, low-margin products for most of their respective runs . . .
Only reason they could not keep that up was Intel products, they tryied to do it.To OEMs. Retailers were marking the chips down and selling them as tray procs for less than $400 less than two months after launch. Nobody knows how many were sold at launch price, but it can't have been very many.
They had the embedded and BGA AMD products based on the same cat core, AM1 existed because they needed to sell the failed tablet cat core because BT came out and no OEM wanted it, so they dumped in the desktop market, making a new world record for lowering the low end bar, and they are a cancer that my country will be unable to get rid off for at least 2 more years.The European and Asian markets wanted low-cost socketed platforms as an alternative to embedded/BGA stuff, VIA products, and so forth. I think AM1 did most of its sales in Asia actually. Beyond that it was a dumping ground for cat cores that couldn't make it elsewhere.
Thats great, maybe could have been even better if they stopped selling those crappy FX about 2-3 years ago and consentrated on FM2/APU, maybe not canceling desktop carrizo?They gave up on doing any better in about 2012, putting all their eggs into the Zen basket instead.
Never said that what AMD did was better or worse, i said they both did it, and to me they are just as bad, im not going to fall as low as to try justify this kind of thing. And that was never the point btw.No they haven't. AMD couldn't command prices like that, period. The FX-9590 and FX-9370 proved that, as did the Quad Father platform years earlier. AMD has had poor margins for years.
What fact?? AMD realised the product was over priced and a couple of months later introduced a more reasonable price, you could say they were testing the market, besides it shipped with a water cooler after a couple of months it was decent value, unlike intels HEDT.Still doest change the simple fact, i dont care who has been doing it more than the other.
In the same article what were the high end intel processors being sold for? Memory serves me until core 2 duo they were lower performing no?I think he's referring to the period over a decade ago when the Athlon 64 4200+ prices were really high and the first FX. Prices then ranged from 250ish to mid 700s.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/processor-price-performance-12-15-06,1883-3.html
P4s were as expensive or more expensive and performed far less than AMD's offerings.In the article what were the high end intel processors being sold for? Memory serves me until core 2 duo they were lower performing no?
For the record im not knocking intels products as a whole, they make fantastic processors, its the business practices that peev me.
Yes, the price came down because it was nothing but a factory overclocked FX 8350 at three times the price, and Intel was selling an i5 at slightly over 200.00 that was far more efficient and gave similar or better performance in any workload that wasnt hugely multithreaded. They also charged outrageous prices for the athlons when they had the performance lead. I actually have no problem with intel prices, except for the three top chips in the HEDT line-up, which are obviously overpriced. Especially adjusted for inflation, the mainstream chip prices are quite reasonable.What fact?? AMD realised the product was over priced and a couple of months later introduced a more reasonable price, you could say they were testing the market, besides it shipped with a water cooler after a couple of months it was decent value, unlike intels HEDT.
They charged outrageous prices for the athlons? Really i must have missread that AMD/INTEL price history article then, because i swear i saw pentium 4s being sold for over 1000$ vs $700 ish higher performing athlons?Yes, the price came down because it was nothing but a factory overclocked FX 8350 at three times the price, and Intel was selling an i5 at slightly over 200.00 that was far more efficient and gave similar or better performance in any workload that wasnt hugely multithreaded. They also charged outrageous prices for the athlons when they had the performance lead. I actually have no problem with intel prices, except for the three top chips in the HEDT line-up, which are obviously overpriced. Especially adjusted for inflation, the mainstream chip prices are quite reasonable.
In any case, why cant AMD fan just be happy that they have apparently a very competent chip coming out at great prices, and not feel it necessary to villify their competitor.
I think he's referring to the period over a decade ago when the Athlon 64 4200+ prices were really high and the first FX. Prices then ranged from 250ish to mid 700s.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/processor-price-performance-12-15-06,1883-3.html
Tell that to the people buying 2650/AM1 that cost just $30 less than a Celeron at sub C2D performance. Or the people that even today are buying FX8350 at I5 prices.
Only reason they could not keep that up was Intel products, they tryied to do it.
They had the embedded and BGA AMD products based on the same cat core, AM1 existed because they needed to sell the failed tablet cat core because BT came out and no OEM wanted it, so they dumped in the desktop market, making a new world record for lowering the low end bar, and they are a cancer that my country will be unable to get rid off for at least 2 more years.
Thats great, maybe could have been even better if they stopped selling those crappy FX about 2-3 years ago and consentrated on FM2/APU, maybe not canceling desktop carrizo?
Never said that what AMD did was better or worse, i said they both did it
If im going to A64 times im petty sure i can find even better examples, but im not gona do that, its not needed.
What I find amusing is that certain pro-monopolist posters were very insistent that Intel was sufficient competition to itself (by way of its installed base) to keep prices down for the maximum benefit of consumers. The timing and magnitude of Intel's price cuts show how much BS that assertion was.
What I find amusing is that certain pro-monopolist posters were very insistent that Intel was sufficient competition to itself (by way of its installed base) to keep prices down for the maximum benefit of consumers. The timing and magnitude of Intel's price cuts show how much BS that assertion was.
They cut Q6600 price by half when AMD was still competitive.
This stuff needs to stop. No corporation is going to price anything for the "maximum benefit of consumers" because that price is $0 or less than $0. There is a huge difference from the common refrain that Intel is/was an evil monopoly and the reality, which was Intel priced products in line with market conditions. Yes, competition will decrease prices. The supply of goods increases, so the price decreases--it is basic economics. That doesn't mean Intel was evil for pricing products higher before AMD could muster up some level of competition.
Yay for strawmen!!!
The point of that post was that there were some on here claiming that Intel competes with itself (competition from others not needed) and would even lower the prices even more if AMD wasn't in the picture because moar volume!11!!!
Unable to, you got that bit right, AMD had a better product yet Couldn't get major OEMs to sell them even when offering to give them away, why was that?Intel does compete with itself, which does provide some pressure on prices. But, by the same coin, more competition creates more pressure so prices drop. It isn't really an either or scenario. I'm all for AMD re-entering the space. It is great and fun. I'm just tired of this board demonizing Intel, the one company that has actually been driving innovation and performance increases (especially in the laptop sector) while the rest of the competition is been unable or unwilling to.
I don't think any such games are going to work with RyZen, anyway. It's clearly quite competitive in performance, and priced much lower.Unable to, you got that bit right, AMD had a better product yet Couldn't get major OEMs to sell them even when offering to give them away, why was that?
Hint; antitrust lawsuits may point you in the right direction.
Edit, intel earned the 'demon' (your words)tag on their own steam, people have every right to be suspicious.
i'm going to need something other than microcenter pricing before i believe intel is cutting prices. microcenter prices stuff cheap anyway. $360 for the 6800k is actually an increase in price at microcenter, which has been selling it for $330 in november and december. the 6700k has been $260 or lower on and off since last november and december as well. 7700k got a price drop, but from $330 to $300, not the $380 to $300 as reported.What I find amusing is that certain pro-monopolist posters were very insistent that Intel was sufficient competition to itself (by way of its installed base) to keep prices down for the maximum benefit of consumers. The timing and magnitude of Intel's price cuts show how much BS that assertion was.
In a sense, AMD is giving chips away again, compared to Intel.
Sometimes things can be too cheap, though.
It probably never was. I'm fairly sure that the OEM builders it was meant for were getting it for prices similar to FX-8350 (basically use the price they later started to sell for in retail as hint) and the allegedly leaked high prices were only a trick supposed to make the resulting boutique PCs look more attractive when they sold for less than they should with "look, such an expensive CPU". Or, make them more profitable to the makers if the price was kept high, which was probably the incentive needed for them to even build with FX.Explain why FX9590 was released at $900
I don't think any such games are going to work with RyZen, anyway. It's clearly quite competitive in performance, and priced much lower.
In a sense, AMD is giving chips away again, compared to Intel.
Sometimes things can be too cheap, though.