So, where's the Intel monopoly?

[Sunburn74]

console
such as?

I just double click on my video files and they play. OTOH, I can't play an .flv in Windows Media Player out of a fresh install.

Ubuntu is practically the easiest and least time consuming Linux distribution to install. Get a Windows 7 install disc and an Ubuntu install disc and go through the process of installing each on a computer. They're both on par in terms of how difficult it is to install.

For some things that's true (e.g. petroleum products). For other things it's not. And it's not necessarily that a particular item is quite good at what it does but rather that said item is good enough for what it does at a particular price point.

Or they just bought a machine from Best Buy with Windows installed, it works for them, and don't want or care or even know that the possibility exists to install something else (ie most of the people I work with). Had the machine been installed with some other OS the computer would have also worked for them (eg. Apple).

The question was "what can windows do that debian or unix can't do for free". I said play games. The reply "Console" really isn't an appropriate answer there. As for popular software, I look at my program list and there is not a single program I have that runs on unix (the software that is bundled with my sound card for example, or my little dvd to ISO ripper). I'm sure there are mimics and alternatives that do similar things work with debian or unix OS but the fact of the matter is if I choose a Unix based OS and I want to specifically run these specific apps, i probably can't. If I like girls, I'm not going to a school that is all guys no matter how well they argue the fact that they can wear skirts too.

I'm not going to get into a debate about how easy or uneasy ubuntu is to install and learn. My familiarity with linux extends to watching my roomates use it (roomates are 3 grad level math guys at a preppy university in the US) and how painful trying to have a movie night is because the projector is connected to their linux box upstairs. I have on 3 or 4 separate occasions asked them to show me how to get a DVD to play so if my girlfriend comes over we can watch a flick on the projector. I get a response that is a jargon of console commands that I of course cannot remember and have no idea what it refers to (I've never programmed a day in my life). Then I asked them to setup a simple icon on the desktop that would automatically play dvds if put in the drive. 7 months later, only excuses have been given to me about how difficult it would be to actually set that up. If there are variants of linux that are laymen ready, great. There is at least one variant out there that totally kicks my ass.

As for the apple argument you pose, doesn't much of the anti-MS crowd oppose apple and their OS for the same reasons? And don't people who buy apple's OS at some point or install windows as well because of some problem, inability, dysfunction of the apple os? I bring this up beause you pose the question of whether or not people choose microsoft or if they are forced (due to ignorance). They almost certainly choose imo because, life forces them to choose. Everyday you choose to keep something or to throw it away and turn your back to it. I've done it to clothes, I've done it to cars, I've done it to PC parts, and one day I may do it to windows. But I haven't yet and many people are like me. I suppose its a matter of philosophy really, but I firmly believe even if people don't know about other oses, they are still making a choice of whether to keep windows around or to turn their backs to it and start looking elsewhere.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Also, five years ago, the average consumer was in a much, much better position financially than they are today. The economy is still in terrible shape, and it's a lot easier to sell a $500 PC than it is to sell a $1,000 PC. Why replace a five year old Core 2 Duo that still works well when the $1,000 Core i5 rig can't open your email and let you watch YouTube videos any faster?

I think that's debatable. I just saw a Fujitsu Core i5 Sandy Bridge laptop, 4GB/500GB/14" screen at Fry's for $448. That is a hell of a lot of performance for less than $500. (Build quality - meh. I'm just sayin'.) At this point then upgrading is kind of a no-brainer. Building a desktop is considerably more costly but for lappies there has never been a better time to buy.

 

[IntelUser2000]

OP: I wouldn't go far as saying this is a flamebait thread, but definitely degrades the quality of the forum.

Lower CPU prices are related to volume. It won't go back to the time where $500 CPUs were the norm. What will probably happen is that prices will become more dynamic, just like in the other parts of the world. You have poor people, normal people, and rich people. Then there's the really poor, below-normal, above-normal, really rich, and really really rich.

AMD actually doesn't have pricing advantage on the low end either. It looks better because pricing is a bigger factor in the lower end than on the high end. ASPs of AMD chips are ~$80 and Intel is $100. Not a huge difference. It was known for a while that Intel's ASPs howevered in the $100-ish range for a decade or so. Certainly they don't ship to the manufacturers at the same price they sell it to individuals.

 

[PCboy]

How quickly people forget...

Indeed. Funny how present thoughts would be so different if BD lived up to its expectations.

 

[tommo123]

on the linux front - every few months or so, i try and get used to the newest ubuntu with virtualbox. there's always something that frustrates the hell out of me. last time around, was having to jump through hoops just to install handbrake as there was no precompiled file. gave up after seeing it was a 2 page guide on how to do it!

made things simpler now. anything at all that requires me to go into terminal = stop, try again in a year. gonna guess i'll be a windows boy for a fair bit longer in that case.

 

[mosox]

Funny how everybody judges AMD from the point of view of the Western world which is also a pretty stagnant market. China has by far the biggest increase in the PC market, followed by India. And AMD is right where it matters:

China overtakes US in PC market

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...9918512_1_china-overtakes-pc-market-shipments

China takes up 50% of AMD Llano processor shipments

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111019PD212.html

 

[Arachnotronic]

OP: I wouldn't go far as saying this is a flamebait thread, but definitely degrades the quality of the forum.

I assure you, I have never, nor do I ever plan on, intentionally degrading the quality of the forum. I love this place and it's amazing to have so many like-minded individuals congregating on this message board to discuss things that I actually want to talk about. Especially in a world where every iPhone user suddenly thinks he/she knows everything about computer technology.

So if this post has done so, I apologize. However, I do still firmly believe that the fear that Intel will be stagnant in today's world in the face of AMD's temporary sidelining is unfounded!

 

[Cogman]

When AMD had a dominant market position, prices were actually higher than they are now. Intel is going to have strong pressure to keeps prices pretty close to what they are now, we'll just end up paying the same amount for less of a performance bump in the long run most likely.

fyi: this will be post-haswell. I think that there's a reasonable chance that low end haswell >= high end Bulldozer/Piledozer/Hammerhead Google Shark/etc. I don't what will happen then, but I suspect that it will be the end of AMD in the consumer cpu space.

AMD has NEVER had the dominant market position. The most they ever grabbed was something like 20% of the server market.

Not that your message is lost. I to remember the days of the x64 and X2. AMD had some pretty expensive CPUs during that time (because the pentium Ds simply sucked in comparison). CPU performance sort of stagnated for a while until conroe came out.

I sort of feel like we are in another performance stagnate period right now. Yes, the next generation CPUs are faster than the current. However, they aren't "Holy cow, this is a huge boost" faster. About 3 generations later, I am just barely starting to see a reason to upgrade my Q6600.

 

[formulav8]

I think Anand summorized it up nicely when talking about needing amd in the game, and what Intel has 'already' done, at least to us.

We all need AMD to succeed. We've seen what happens without a strong AMD as a competitor. We get processors that are artificially limited and severe restrictions on overclocking, particularly at the value end of the segment. We're denied choice simply because there's no other alternative. I don't believe Bulldozer is a strong enough alternative to force Intel back into an ultra competitive mode, but we absolutely need it to be that.

Intel has basically killed ocing or put major limits, outside of its expensive k chips. No more can you get a $50 and make it perform as a $90 cpu like you used to. They have tons of artificial limits on so many of their cpu's its nutty. Want to oc and have hyperthreading (+ 100mhz)?, it will cost you an extra $100. Want to get a lower cost dual core for ocing? Sorry not happening. (I think a k is in the works for a dual core.). Want a less crappy igp? You have to buy our expensive k chips for that to. The list goes on and on. So it has NOT been fine when AMD doesn't compete.

 

[Genny]

To the OP, there's a lot more involved than AMD. Supply and demand and the five forces largely determine price, even with a dominant position. Intel is basically pricing around equilibrium, as if price went up substantially, demand would fall off.

 

[bryanW1995]

AMD has NEVER had the dominant market position. The most they ever grabbed was something like 20% of the server market.

Not that your message is lost. I to remember the days of the x64 and X2. AMD had some pretty expensive CPUs during that time (because the pentium Ds simply sucked in comparison). CPU performance sort of stagnated for a while until conroe came out.

I sort of feel like we are in another performance stagnate period right now. Yes, the next generation CPUs are faster than the current. However, they aren't "Holy cow, this is a huge boost" faster. About 3 generations later, I am just barely starting to see a reason to upgrade my Q6600.

So true. I hear rumors that haswell will be a big step, but there is nothing concrete. How big of a step was conroe? 50%? Nehalem was probably 25% from higher ipc + higher clocks, and SB is about the same. If haswell is even close to that 50% numbert then it would be a big jump in my mind. My worry is that intel will continue to aggressively segment the market, so casaual/moderate users will get lumped together (sb), prosumers next (sb-e), and finally true professionals (xeon). AMD is so pathetic right now, we could very well see intel completely lock out overclocking in the low/mid range with haswell, forcing us enthusiasts back into that $$$$ market.

 

[Atreidin]

I assure you, I have never, nor do I ever plan on, intentionally degrading the quality of the forum. I love this place and it's amazing to have so many like-minded individuals congregating on this message board to discuss things that I actually want to talk about. Especially in a world where every iPhone user suddenly thinks he/she knows everything about computer technology.

So if this post has done so, I apologize. However, I do still firmly believe that the fear that Intel will be stagnant in today's world in the face of AMD's temporary sidelining is unfounded!

I think enough has been said in this thread, and I am not going to reiterate it, but I believe you are naive.

 

[podspi]

I am going to take a less extreme view. On the high-end desktop market, Intel doesn't have a lot of competitive pressure. On the low-end (/low-power) Intel is getting its you-know-what handed to it.

Bobcat is better than Atom, hands down. Llano is a strong contender to the i3 (people DO care about graphics performance), even though manufacturing issues are hindering AMD's ability to compete. And perhaps most importantly, the ARM hoard is breathing down Intel's neck, and growing up quickly.


Overall, I would say Intel is facing more true competition now than ever. Just not in the enthusiast market, which is what many care about.

 

[rgallant]

You have to expect to pay something for a product. Prices won't fall to nothing either.

And FYI a legal copy of windows can cost as little as 29 USD if you are a student and as low as 15 USD if you work for certain corporations and universities.


Dunno... play games, run popular major software, play a simple video without needing a command terminal and a C++ manual nearby?

I kid somewhat, but this logic does offend me on an intellectual level. You act as if everything you can possibly grab for free you do regardless of how difficult, time consuming, or inconvenient it is which is far from true. You cherry pick microsoft in this regard; in regard to a million other things that you could get for free had you chosen to put the same time and effort as you did into learning Debian, Unix, programming languages etc, you most likely have callously subconciously said "meh I'd rather just pay for it because it works as it is". The fact of the matter is, there is a certain gestalt people enjoy by being against the grain, not mainstream, being different. Strangely but truely, its very hard to accept by a lot of people that many things that are popular and used by the majority of society often are that way and reached that position because they are quite good at what they do. I don't know what your computer needs are specifically but don't knock Microsoft for putting out their product because I assure you for everyone like you who hates paying for it to where they feel the need to purge it from their homes, there are 999,999 who will gladly will.

As for intel and their so called monopoly, the fact of the matter is they still fall under the laws of supply and demand. Nobody needs cpus (unlike things like food and water which don't fall cleanly under those laws). People want them and if the cost is too high people will find a way around them to get what needs to be done done. This will serve to naturally check cpu prices. Ask yourself what will happen if all the silicon in the world began to run out next year. CPU prices will go up, technology will find ways to get around needing cpus, and cpus will either fall in price or become irrelevant. Its no different if intel artificially raises prices. Sure it'll hurt a little in the meantime that prices go up, but people and technology will always prevail.After all, its why we are still here as a species after all this time.

-well said

 

[Tanclearas]

I think Anand summorized it up nicely when talking about needing amd in the game, and what Intel has 'already' done, at least to us.



Intel has basically killed ocing or put major limits, outside of its expensive k chips. No more can you get a $50 and make it perform as a $90 cpu like you used to. They have tons of artificial limits on so many of their cpu's its nutty. Want to oc and have hyperthreading (+ 100mhz)?, it will cost you an extra $100. Want to get a lower cost dual core for ocing? Sorry not happening. (I think a k is in the works for a dual core.). Want a less crappy igp? You have to buy our expensive k chips for that to. The list goes on and on. So it has NOT been fine when AMD doesn't compete.

Bingo.

Intel is artificially restricting many aspects of their chips for the sole reason that there is no competition. Another element to the K/IGP issue is VT-d. You have to upgrade to the K to get the better IGP, but none of the K models have VT-d.

If you believe we're not suffering right now because of AMD's poor showing, you just aren't looking at every angle.

 

[jhu]

The question was "what can windows do that debian or unix can't do for free". I said play games. The reply "Console" really isn't an appropriate answer there. As for popular software, I look at my program list and there is not a single program I have that runs on unix (the software that is bundled with my sound card for example, or my little dvd to ISO ripper). I'm sure there are mimics and alternatives that do similar things work with debian or unix OS but the fact of the matter is if I choose a Unix based OS and I want to specifically run these specific apps, i probably can't.

The original contention was that MS has a monopoly on operating systems. This is clearly a false premise.
Sure many Windows games don't run anywhere else other than on Windows. But there are also many programs that cannot be run on Windows too. But for other programs, functionality is what is important, not necessarily the actual program. DVD rippers are present for Linuxes. You can't run Final Cut Pro on Windows, but there are functional equivalents that do.

If I like girls, I'm not going to a school that is all guys no matter how well they argue the fact that they can wear skirts too.

That's a false analogy. You like girls that do things one way but are unwilling to consider girls that do the same thing some other way.

My familiarity with linux extends to watching my roomates use it (roomates are 3 grad level math guys at a preppy university in the US) and how painful trying to have a movie night is because the projector is connected to their linux box upstairs. I have on 3 or 4 separate occasions asked them to show me how to get a DVD to play so if my girlfriend comes over we can watch a flick on the projector. I get a response that is a jargon of console commands that I of course cannot remember and have no idea what it refers to (I've never programmed a day in my life). Then I asked them to setup a simple icon on the desktop that would automatically play dvds if put in the drive. 7 months later, only excuses have been given to me about how difficult it would be to actually set that up.

Honestly, they're idiots if they can't setup an icon to play DVDs since that has been a solved problem ever since the DVD encryption method was cracked a decade ago.

As for the apple argument you pose, doesn't much of the anti-MS crowd oppose apple and their OS for the same reasons? And don't people who buy apple's OS at some point or install windows as well because of some problem, inability, dysfunction of the apple os?

Among the people I know and work with, the answer is no. At work they use Windows due to the infrastructure. At home they use their Apple computers without issues. Of course they're also the same types of people to have a separate device(s) to play video games and watch movies on their 60 inch TVs.

 

[DeathReborn]

I know it's not CPU but still, how many companies does Intel allow to make chipsets for their Core i# series of processors? Intel artificially choked off 3rd party chipsets & will not licence the "connection" technology for anything other than the combined wealth of the Fortune 500 (slight exaggeration but you get the point).

If there is a way to remove competitors from the market, Intel have either done it or are doing it, sometimes without getting caught. That's not to say they don;t make good CPU's, they would just be better if they loosened their grip slightly.

 

[toyota]

I think Anand summorized it up nicely when talking about needing amd in the game, and what Intel has 'already' done, at least to us.



Intel has basically killed ocing or put major limits, outside of its expensive k chips. No more can you get a $50 and make it perform as a $90 cpu like you used to. They have tons of artificial limits on so many of their cpu's its nutty. Want to oc and have hyperthreading (+ 100mhz)?, it will cost you an extra $100. Want to get a lower cost dual core for ocing? Sorry not happening. (I think a k is in the works for a dual core.). Want a less crappy igp? You have to buy our expensive k chips for that to. The list goes on and on. So it has NOT been fine when AMD doesn't compete.

jeez, around 200 bucks for the fastest cpu that you buy for gaming with room left over for overclocking seems like a damn good deal to me. plus its efficient and even has freaking gpu in there if high end gaming is not your thing or you are between cards. when has AMD ever offered a cpu that could do all of that for around the same price?

 

[formulav8]

jeez, around 200 bucks for the fastest cpu that you buy for gaming with room left over for overclocking seems like a damn good deal to me. plus its efficient and even has freaking gpu in there if high end gaming is not your thing or you are between cards. when has AMD ever offered a cpu that could do all of that for around the same price?

I'm glad $200 isn't alot of money to you.

 

[toyota]

I'm glad $200 isn't alot of money to you.

for the fastest gaming cpu in 2011, no its not a lot money. a 2500 will be a good cpu for many years and AMD still has nothing on the horizon to beat it for the same money. you are being ridiculous bitching that you cant buy a $50 cpu and oc it to match the best cpus out there. hell a freaking tank of gas for my car is nearly 50 damn bucks and that's gone in a few days.

 

[formulav8]

for the fastest gaming cpu in 2011, no its not a lot money. a 2500 will be a good cpu for many years and AMD still has nothing on the horizon to beat it for the same money. you are being ridiculous bitching that you cant buy a $50 cpu and oc it to match the best cpus out there. hell a freaking tank of gas for my car is nearly 50 damn bucks and that's gone in a few days.

Yawn... And me liking to take a $50 cpu and make it perform like a $90 cpu I don't think means I expect to make a $50 perform like the best cpu's.

 

[toyota]

Yawn... And me liking to take a $50 cpu and make it perform like a $90 I don't think means I expect to make a $50 perform like a $200-$300 cpu?

so in your world you want to take a $50 cpu, get a good mobo that allows overclocking and a $30-$40 cpu cooler so you can get the performance of a $90 stock cpu? sounds real logical.

 

[formulav8]

so in your world you want to take a $50 cpu, get a good mobo that allows overclocking and a $30-$40 cpu cooler so you can get the performance of a $90 stock cpu? sounds real logical.

OK

 

[ioni]

Here you go http://guru3d.com/news/intel-retailers-raise-cpu-prices-after-bulldozer-launch/

 

[podspi]

Here you go http://guru3d.com/news/intel-retailers-raise-cpu-prices-after-bulldozer-launch/

I know lots of people who were waiting for BD to upgrade their machines. All of those people are now buying SB :biggrin:

Simple supply and demand at work here, no conspiracy. Just as we expect BD's price will fall after the early-adopters have all gotten theirs, by next month or so I'd expect prices to be back to normal.