3rd gen Threadripper, big fail and missed opportunity for AMD.

sblantipodi said:
that is the point, AMD had the opportunity to crash intel with no brainer.
On the mainstread there is really few reasons to choose Intel over AMD, it isn't the same on the HEDT platform.

Intel 18cores at 999USD imho is a better bet than a ultra expensive 24cores or a stupidly high priced 2000 CPU that no one will buy.
Click to expand...

Is it? Because with 18 cores, why not buy a 16 core 3950X instead? With Zen's superior SMT yield, your multicore performance between the two is probably broadly similar, and for $250 cheaper. Single core - stock vs. stock - is similar.

AMD's product stack makes sense. They are taking the lower half of the HEDT segment and integrating it with their mainstream platform (3900X and 3950X), and dropping the prices, and extending out the core counts of their HEDT platform accordingly (eventually we will probably see 48 and 64 core offerings - but at the very least, 24 and 32 without a hobbled memory controller setup).

Prices are actually dropping and/or staying broadly similar here.

12 Core Zen CPUs:
1920X = $799 launch, 2920X = $649 launch, 3900X = $499 launch.

16 Core Zen CPUs:
1950X = $999 launch, 2950X = $899 launch, 3950X = $749 launch.

24 Core Zen CPUs:
2970WX = $1299 launch, 3960X = $1399 launch.

32 Core Zen CPUs:
2990WX = $1799 launch, 3970X = $1999 launch.

Only the 24 and 32 core products have gone up at all, and by a relatively modest amount (relatively speaking) - given the benefits of not having a hobbled, pass-through, hack-job of a memory controller on two of the dies, this is probably justifiable for those products. Everything else has dropped.
 
Last edited:
Side note: I get tired of the notion of AMD as somehow more charitable/less evil than Intel or something. They are both businesses. With Intel's superior brand strength, they can get away with more than AMD can, generally speaking, but where and when AMD can get away with charging a premium for their products, they will.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Side note: I get tired of the notion of AMD as somehow more charitable/less evil than Intel or something. They are both businesses. With Intel's superior brand strength, they can get away with more than AMD can, generally speaking, but where and when AMD can get away with charging a premium for their products, they will.
Click to expand...

Maybe not less charitable, but AMD has not been caught in "intel like schemes and scandals" so appears "less evil".
 
Ah using the BS claims that AMD is just like Intel rationalization. Crap sentiments like that justify the illegal shenanigans Intel does. Not impressed.
 
but AMD has not been caught in "intel like schemes and scandals" so appears "less evil".
Click to expand...

AMD was not over 50% of the market share for long enough to get any pull to have their own exclusive discount deals with OEMs. AMD is also a much smaller company.
 
I do agree that Threadripper is a wee bit expensive. I mean is it justified sure but it's still painfully expensive no matter how you shake it.
 
thesmokingman said:
Ah using the BS claims that AMD is just like Intel rationalization. Crap sentiments like that justify the illegal shenanigans Intel does. Not impressed.
Click to expand...

They are both businesses designed to make money.

Intel can pull more shenanigans at the present moment because it is larger, and has a stronger brand.

Doesn't mean AMD is a charity, or that they would be any different were the positions reversed.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
They are both businesses designed to make money.

Intel can pull more shenanigans at the present moment because it is larger, and has a stronger brand.

Doesn't mean AMD is a charity, or that they would be any different were the positions reversed.
Click to expand...

I think you need to look at the history going back to the need for 2 chip suppliers for IBM. Intel played dirty more than a few times to become the Monopoly it is.

Intel has like 4 judgements against them including the infamous FTC ruling. (How many does AMD have?)

Actually intel can't pull more shenanigans because it is in a Monopoly position.

False equivalence is false
 
schmide said:
I think you need to look at the history going back to the need for 2 chip suppliers for IBM. Intel played dirty more than a few times to become the Monopoly it is.

Intel has like 4 judgements against them including the infamous FTC ruling. (How many does AMD have?)

Actually intel can't pull more shenanigans because it is in a Monopoly position.

False equivalence is false
Click to expand...

Intel is not a monopoly, though for a time it was edging toward becoming one in the x86 space (during AMD's Bulldozer days). AMD's market position is improving at Intel's expense, and so if that ever was the case, it isn't anymore. And it's questionable if a lock on x86 is a full monopoly anyway. ARM and x86 are themselves competitors, after a fashion, though for now they have respective spheres of dominance.

I remember when nVidia (and ATI, after a fashion) was the "good guy" (to some) against 3dfx market dominance. Now, nVidia is often caught up in its own shady schemes, because they are the market leader in that space. AMD hasn't done much of this because it has never been in a dominant market position. This constrains their possible courses of action. Free them of such restraint, and I see no reason why they would not act similarly. This is a function of size and market dominance, not of one company being fundamentally more 'ethical' by some vague fanboy metric than another.

There is no false equivalence here, because I have made no equivalence save for saying both are in business to make money, and are constrained into certain courses of action by their respective market positions (which should be obvious, but I feel like it has to be stated when there is rampant fanboyism in the various PC market spaces online).

But you may burn your strawman if you wish. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Business is business, mang.

I'm pleased we have competition at the moment. But I'll never be on one team or the other.
Click to expand...

It's not about one team or the other it's about a level playing field. I like intel but history should not be glossed over.

The merits of technology should be celebrated while strong arm back door influences should be shunned.

Business is business is not an excuse.

Capitalism needs regulation otherwise you'll end up in a kleptocracy.
 
Lakados said:
I do support on the side for a few Drafting and Animation firms in the area and if half of the claims made by the AMD partners in their promotional videos are true then the ROI on the TR3 systems are less than 3 months for a some of them.... That is a huge deal and they certainly don't consider it too expensive, a high initial cost yes but they see it as a solid investment in growing their business. We are waiting for 3'rd party benchmarks and reports for sure but they are already budgeting accordingly for the upgrades.
Click to expand...
Been around live production at those scale of shoots often and it's something they would jump into like mad.. As you said the payback would be in months. Right now they have to compromise on visual quality a bit and still wait for re-renders. And that's not even the editing suite..
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Intel is not a monopoly, though for a time it was edging toward becoming one in the x86 space (during AMD's Bulldozer days). AMD's market position is improving at Intel's expense, and so if that ever was the case, it isn't anymore. And it's questionable if a lock on x86 is a full monopoly anyway. ARM and x86 are themselves competitors, after a fashion, though for now they have respective spheres of dominance.
Click to expand...

One can have less than half the market and still guilty be of monopolistic practices or declared a monopoly.

A major reason AMD's position is improving is the FTC judgement. Allowing them to go FABless and preventing intel from unleashing legal armageddon on their x86 license pretty much leveled the playing field.

DuronBurgerMan said:
I remember when nVidia (and ATI, after a fashion) was the "good guy" (to some) against 3dfx market dominance. Now, nVidia is often caught up in its own shady schemes, because they are the market leader in that space. AMD hasn't done much of this because it has never been in a dominant market position. This constrains their possible courses of action. Free them of such restraint, and I see no reason why they would not act similarly. This is a function of size and market dominance, not of one company being fundamentally more 'ethical' by some vague fanboy metric than another.
Click to expand...

Because they never had the chance, nor acted, or got caught acting in a similar way, it is a false equivalence by definition. One entity has a track record of such behavior, the other not as much. Yes this could change but until it does whatever reason you see would be rendered moot.

DuronBurgerMan said:
There is no false equivalence here, because I have made no equivalence save for saying both are in business to make money, and are constrained into certain courses of action by their respective market positions (which should be obvious, but I feel like it has to be stated when there is rampant fanboyism in the various PC market spaces online).

But you may burn your strawman if you wish. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...

DuronBurgerMan said:
Side note: I get tired of the notion of AMD as somehow more charitable/less evil than Intel or something. They are both businesses. With Intel's superior brand strength, they can get away with more than AMD can, generally speaking, but where and when AMD can get away with charging a premium for their products, they will.
Click to expand...

If you look at these statements with context of their history I stand by my false equivalence statement.

I agree with most of the facts you present and I too get tired of fanboish statements in the context of technical discussion. However glossing over or marginalization of history should be met with the facts.
 
Since we've gone down this rabbit hole.

One of the things that has peeked my interest. Intel has basically halved the price of their current lineup.

In one aspect this could be seen as a natural correction to AMD's new product.

On the other this could also be seen as dumping. The merits of this are not cut and dry, but when you sell your product at artificially low levels it can be perceived as such.

The whole premise of this thread seems to put AMDs new lineup in an artificially devalued position.
 
If they're selling chips below cost in the attempt to keep/raise market share that would be dumping. Dropping prices due to AMD's market correcting value chips is simply showing that Intel can no longer command a premium for sub-standard parts.
 
Intel financial figures state a profit margin of 27%. Halving you price suggests intel is selling for a 23% loss now. Dumping.
 
Mega6 said:
Intel financial figures state a profit margin of 27%. Halving you price suggests intel is selling for a 23% loss now. Dumping.
Click to expand...

If that can be proven, sure. Speculating keyboard warriors? I'm not in the market for that.
 
Mega6 said:
Fuzzy math? Sure. Does it make total sense? Does to me.
Click to expand...

Y'all need to get your stories straight. Most keyboard warriors here claim Intel has a 60+ percentage profit margin on each chip. Dropping the chips 50% leaves them with at least 10% and change. If you could simply prove that Intel is dumping by your math, AMD would be all over it like flies on shit.

The fact of the matter is Intel can no longer command a premium as Intel is now out-classed on almost every level by AMD. Only people who need the edge cases that Intel is still good at (and I do mean edge) or clueless fanbois will purchase Intel over AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Algrim said:
Y'all need to get your stories straight. Most keyboard warriors here claim Intel has a 60+ percentage profit margin on each chip. Dropping the chips 50% leaves them with at least 10% and change. If you could simply prove that Intel is dumping by your math, AMD would be all over it like flies on shit.

The fact of the matter is Intel can no longer command a premium as Intel is now out-classed on almost every level by AMD. Only people who need the edge cases that Intel is still good at (and I do mean edge) or clueless fanbois will purchase Intel over AMD.
Click to expand...


Lets see how much intel can take before it cuts again. So let’s take your figures and see how low it will go before we can say dump.
 
As someone who was waiting for a new build/upgrade until I could see both the Ryzen 3950X and Threadripper 3000 series, I admit I'm a bit confused and perhaps disappointed as well given what we've seen thus far.

First a word of "AMD being the good guy" - AMD has demonstrated both vs Intel with CPUS and vs Nvidia with GPUs that they've tended to be more user/customer focused - better value when others would exploit pricing, less issues with vulnerabilities and "putting their finger on the scale" benchmarking, greater attention to open source/spec (ie FreeSync) and privacy etc... and these are reasons why I generally would prefer to support AMD vs the other two. Up until recently, supporting the "ethical side" meant often giving up a TON of performance/features, but thankfully the gap has closed a bit which means more people can do so. We should absolutely support AMD doing the more ethical and user-focused things and reward them with our business. We should NOT just accept that when they come anywhere near to or have a leg up on the other guys, they're to be expected to "act just as bad because they can now". Falling into that trap ruins it for everyone! Likewise, we shouldn't signal to Intel/Nvidia that all they have to do is drop prices to deal with real competition from AMD and people will go back to buying them. We should expect better from AMD (and though possible if not likely idea, demonstrate to Intel and Nvidia as well) that their more ethical and user focused way of doing things should be rewarded, not simply exist as a bullet point to use when they can't technically compete and then be thrown away when they can! We should be pushing for AMD to succeed and go farther down the road both technically and ethically (ie removal of the PSP entirely, for one), while making quality products.

All that said, onto Threadripper 3000. Like many having watched Zen/Zen+ Threadripper, I was looking forward to Zen2. I was expecting that, following TR2000 series, there would be both "X" type chips (aka perhaps lesser cores, but higher per-core speeds, HEDP enthusiast gaming/multiuse type, - 2950X ) and "WX" type chips (Maximum cores, lesser frequency, made for workstation-ish tasks predicated on high multicore exclusively use, 2990WX) . Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to place the current offerings. On the CPU side, only the 24c $1300 model, and 32c $2000 model are available - are they supposed to be "X" or "WX" types? Many people figured that, much like how things "slid down from WX to X" between gen1 > gen2, that the same would happen here. That at very least this time the 24c would be like the $700+ model and the 32c would be the $1000+-ish model, with the upcoming 64c/128t model to be the new WX costing the big bucks ($2000+). However that's not what we got - it used to be that you could get onboard Threadripper for under $1000 - now $1300 is the ground floor? I think that's whats a bit disappointing especially if we don't know where these are supposed to "fit".

Chipsets further confuse things - the $1300/$2000 CPUs have been announced alongside TRX40 chipsets, which seem to have high end branding (ie Asus ROG Zenith 2 and similar ) which raises questions. Recently there were rumors of other chipsets, notably the TRX80 and WRX80, that would also be ready for Threadripper. Presumably, TRX40 was the "entry level enthusiast" TRX80 was "High end enthusiast" and WRX80 was for "High end workstation " use, by the naming conventions. Did they get rid of the other chipsets? With the huge price of Zen2 Threadrippers so far, plus the really high prices of the TRX40 based motherboards...we're supposed to believe they're the "low end" version, with the "high end" stuff to come soon?! Its confusing and possibly disappointing that Threadripper has seemingly jumped significantly in price this generation, with lots of details still up in the air.
 
Not sure what the real issue is here, the prices are actually fantastic for what one is getting. Intel has nothing, not even close to what AMD is about to unleash. Put in PCIe 4 SSD's, PCIe 4 next Gen Nvidia professional video cards or AMD's, fill up those slots and there is just no comparison. AMD's lowest TR CPU smacks Intel's highest end into oblivion. WTF? Just compare Apple workstations to what you can build and have a real chuckle over how well you will do overall with TR. I don't see pricing as bad at all for what you are getting, do see the lower end option not available as in a $899 high speed 16 core (would work great for video editing) as something that maybe AMD could release.
 
noko said:
Not sure what the real issue is here, the prices are actually fantastic for what one is getting. Intel has nothing, not even close to what AMD is about to unleash. Put in PCIe 4 SSD's, PCIe 4 next Gen Nvidia professional video cards or AMD's, fill up those slots and there is just no comparison. AMD's lowest TR CPU smacks Intel's highest end into oblivion. WTF? Just compare Apple workstations to what you can build and have a real chuckle over how well you will do overall with TR. I don't see pricing as bad at all for what you are getting, do see the lower end option not available as in a $899 high speed 16 core (would work great for video editing) as something that maybe AMD could release.
Click to expand...
16 core TR is redundant when you can do it with a 3950X in a much cheaper X370-570 board...

If you need the memory bandwidth for niche use case the 24 core and up are not a problem for you to afford..
 
I think the existence of this thread and the disposition of the original poster affirms the outcome that there was some level of manipulation. If intel didn't cut their future prices in half during the run up to threadripper's release, the value of AMD's processors would of been seen as at least worthy of AMD's valuation. (see 121) Instead you have FUD swinging around, some of it rational, some of it not so much. (cough cough ddr5 usb4).

One must realize that the price of processors is not limited to their performance but also their availability. If for whatever reason the spot market sees a demand and AMD is unable to fill that, prices will go up. Conversely, if intel which has far more production capabilities undercuts that supply and demand, prices will go down.

Finally there is a perceived value to any good and or service. All companies are selling a suite of products hardware, support, software, infrastructure, etc. Most know that the prices intel advertises are far from the actual prices partners pay especially in the server/HEDT market. If one company is only able to sell in the spot market while another can rely on existing relationships and long term agreements. The damage is already done.
 
All I can say is that I upgraded to an 8c/16t Ryzen 3700x today for the same money Intel would charge me for a 4c/8t years ago if Ryzen hadn’t come into light. Thank you AMD.
 
n370zed said:
All I can say is that I upgraded to an 8c/16t Ryzen 3700x today for the same money Intel would charge me for a 4c/8t years ago if Ryzen hadn’t come into light. Thank you AMD.
Click to expand...

I would say the reverse was also a part of it. Since AMD did not have a CPU that was better than Intels 4C / 8T Intel did not need to release higher core count CPUs for years.
 
drescherjm said:
I would say the reverse was also a part of it. Since AMD did not have a CPU that was better than Intels 4C / 8T Intel did not need to release higher core count CPUs for years.
Click to expand...

Yep - it's called being lazy and complacent.

"did not need to" - guess they should have..
 
Intel does not want to put AMD out of business before Ryzen 1 they were very close to do so. However that was more of poor management / decisions from AMD than Intel's competition.


Intel also highly underestimated what good leadership could do at AMD.
 
Last edited:
Putting you on ignore just on principle.
Click to expand...

I am neither a fan of Intel or AMD. At work in the last few months when possible I have purchased Ryzen 2000 and now 3000 systems. In a few weeks I will have a Ryzen 3600 or 3700 desktop here at work for myself to replace a ~9 year old G2 i7. However for a laptop, I am in no way a fan of AMD's current APUs. I don't want a quad core anything any more from either company.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
schmide said:
One can have less than half the market and still guilty be of monopolistic practices or declared a monopoly.

A major reason AMD's position is improving is the FTC judgement. Allowing them to go FABless and preventing intel from unleashing legal armageddon on their x86 license pretty much leveled the playing field.
Click to expand...

If you have less than half the market, you are not a monopoly in that market. AMD's position is improving because they are releasing good products again. Most customers have no idea about the FTC case. As for going fabless... that has pluses and minuses. Not sure how that really looks for them, long term. For now it is working out fine, though. It wasn't until this generation that they escaped (partly) from under GloFo - their old fab business - anyway. Most of AMD's problems in the market were self-inflicted. Bulldozer was a terrible design, and there's no getting around that.

Because they never had the chance, nor acted, or got caught acting in a similar way, it is a false equivalence by definition. One entity has a track record of such behavior, the other not as much. Yes this could change but until it does whatever reason you see would be rendered moot.

If you look at these statements with context of their history I stand by my false equivalence statement.

I agree with most of the facts you present and I too get tired of fanboish statements in the context of technical discussion. However glossing over or marginalization of history should be met with the facts.
Click to expand...

One entity has had the opportunity to do such things, the other has not. If that is your definition of false equivalence, it applies equally well to your position. In any event, you are trying to declare a certain ethical or moral superiority judgment on a business over another, and I am telling you that this is a category error. Businesses are in it to make money for shareholders/owners. That AMD has aligned with social favor more is a coincidental function of it being the market underdog. Correlation is not causation, and all that jazz.

Agree re: fanboyism. If anything, I am more biased to favor AMD because I like competition and options. And I'm running an AMD rig for my desktop. But that'd switch to Intel in a hot second if the calculus for my use case and budget favored them.
 
I am more biased to favor AMD because I like competition and options. And I'm running an AMD rig for my desktop. But that'd switch to Intel in a hot second if the calculus for my use case and budget favored them.
Click to expand...

This pretty well describes my current position.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
If you have less than half the market, you are not a monopoly in that market. AMD's position is improving because they are releasing good products again. Most customers have no idea about the FTC case. As for going fabless... that has pluses and minuses. Not sure how that really looks for them, long term. For now it is working out fine, though. It wasn't until this generation that they escaped (partly) from under GloFo - their old fab business - anyway. Most of AMD's problems in the market were self-inflicted. Bulldozer was a terrible design, and there's no getting around that.
Click to expand...

That's complete obscurification and factually wrong.

This isn't about Bulldozer nor any failures at GloFo. One could equally surmise that Bulldozer and lack of new socket during the AM3 era (#97) was directly a result of intel's anti-competitive practices. This isn't about technical failures. This is about anti-competitive practices.

You are a monopoly when you have the ability apply illegal influence on a market. There are many cases where this is true. Moreover nation states can apply monopolistic practices without actually being in the market. It is in no way as simple as you make it out to be.

DuronBurgerMan said:
One entity has had the opportunity to do such things, the other has not. If that is your definition of false equivalence, it applies equally well to your position. In any event, you are trying to declare a certain ethical or moral superiority judgment on a business over another, and I am telling you that this is a category error. Businesses are in it to make money for shareholders/owners. That AMD has aligned with social favor more is a coincidental function of it being the market underdog. Correlation is not causation, and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

That's complete bullshit. One has done these things. One has not. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy and should be treated as such and all that jazz.
 
RanceJustice said:
...
All that said, onto Threadripper 3000. Like many having watched Zen/Zen+ Threadripper, I was looking forward to Zen2. I was expecting that, following TR2000 series, there would be both "X" type chips (aka perhaps lesser cores, but higher per-core speeds, HEDP enthusiast gaming/multiuse type, - 2950X ) and "WX" type chips (Maximum cores, lesser frequency, made for workstation-ish tasks predicated on high multicore exclusively use, 2990WX) . Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to place the current offerings. On the CPU side, only the 24c $1300 model, and 32c $2000 model are available - are they supposed to be "X" or "WX" types? Many people figured that, much like how things "slid down from WX to X" between gen1 > gen2, that the same would happen here. That at very least this time the 24c would be like the $700+ model and the 32c would be the $1000+-ish model, with the upcoming 64c/128t model to be the new WX costing the big bucks ($2000+). However that's not what we got - it used to be that you could get onboard Threadripper for under $1000 - now $1300 is the ground floor? I think that's whats a bit disappointing especially if we don't know where these are supposed to "fit".

Chipsets further confuse things - the $1300/$2000 CPUs have been announced alongside TRX40 chipsets, which seem to have high end branding (ie Asus ROG Zenith 2 and similar ) which raises questions. Recently there were rumors of other chipsets, notably the TRX80 and WRX80, that would also be ready for Threadripper. Presumably, TRX40 was the "entry level enthusiast" TRX80 was "High end enthusiast" and WRX80 was for "High end workstation " use, by the naming conventions. Did they get rid of the other chipsets? With the huge price of Zen2 Threadrippers so far, plus the really high prices of the TRX40 based motherboards...we're supposed to believe they're the "low end" version, with the "high end" stuff to come soon?! Its confusing and possibly disappointing that Threadripper has seemingly jumped significantly in price this generation, with lots of details still up in the air.
Click to expand...

I get the sense that AMD wasn't expecting intel to drop prices quiet so hard or fast. I have to agree that $1300 for the base option is steep, especially when there are use cases for TR platform that do not require that many cores. The extra confusion regarding TRX40 vs WRX/TRX80 is irritating as well. AMD should have addressed these rumors in some way. Much harder to adopt a new platform when you hear rumors that a superior model is potentially being released next quarter. Is it worth waiting on this, could I make use of XYZ feature? As of now, there is no way to know.

N4CR said:
16 core TR is redundant when you can do it with a 3950X in a much cheaper X370-570 board...

If you need the memory bandwidth for niche use case the 24 core and up are not a problem for you to afford..
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 16 core is redundant, TRX40 should have had a less expensive option in some form IMO.

Personally, the lack of a cheaper entry point to TRX40 means I may stay on X399. I am an edge case, but I actually use all those PCIe lanes that X399 gets me (2x GPU, 2x 16x SSD cards, additional M.2 SSDs). to move down to the 570 mainstream platform would mean less bandwidth or less storage. Zen 2 would be great - as would PCIe 4, but TRX40 and a 24c/48t cpu are overkill for my processing needs.
 
schmide said:
That's complete obscurification and factually wrong.

This isn't about Bulldozer nor any failures at GloFo. One could equally surmise that Bulldozer and lack of new socket during the AM3 era (#97) was directly a result of intel's anti-competitive practices. This isn't about technical failures. This is about anti-competitive practices.

You are a monopoly when you have the ability apply illegal influence on a market. There are many cases where this is true. Moreover nation states can apply monopolistic practices without actually being in the market. It is in no way as simple as you make it out to be.
Click to expand...

A monopoly has a specific definition. It is possible to illegally influence a market without being a monopoly. Bulldozer was a poor design, and there are no excuses to be made for it. AMD competed just fine - in fact DAMNED WELL - even against earlier shady Intel behavior from 1999 to 2006 or so. But you will recall, that when they had the fastest products in the market, and began approaching that 50% market penetration number, they charged a premium price for them because they could.

That's complete bullshit. One has done these things. One has not. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy and should be treated as such and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

Again, you're making a category error. You know, I see this shit all the times these days. People trying to put a moral and ethical spin onto a corporation. It's like when Nike endorses some dude making a popular political statement and people think "OMG Nike is such a good company because they support [some dude]." No, they don't. They're just trying to sell some shoes to somebody, and gullible customers are buying into this spin. Intel, and to lesser extent, Nvidia have done shady things because they are in dominant positions, and wish to stay there, not because they are more or less moral than the competition. I tell you this, because if AMD continues to excel, at some point they may establish a dominant market position...

...and then you will find the shoe is now on the other foot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top