confirmed: AMD's big Navi launch to disrupt 4K gaming

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
That’s not how randomness works. Each year you have an x (amount of surveys they send) out of y (total number of Stream accounts) chance. The y increases every single year, giving you less of a chance as time goes on. Just because you don’t get it one year does not mean your chances to get it go up the next.
I understand how it works, lol. If the roulette wheel lands on black 6 times in a row, it still has a 50/50 chance on the next go. My point was its odd that others have seen it relatively often and I have never seen it at all. If it's sufficiently random and the # polled is enough to be useful, you would think by now I'd have gotten one at some point. I dont actually think it's a conspiracy, just an oddity,a one of the reasons I personally don't put to much weight behind the survey, to much is unknown about the polling.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
And you think this means something because?
I think it means I wasn't randomly selected.... in a large span that others where multiple times. It gives me reasonable doubt that their is sufficient randomness & sufficient #'s being collected to put much weight behind their results. Sure the #'s give a broad view of the landscape, but it's really hard to know with any sort of accuracy so I take those results with a big pinch of salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,197
I think it means I wasn't randomly selected.... in a large span that others where multiple times. It gives me reasonable doubt that their is sufficient randomness & sufficient #'s being collected to put much weight behind their results. Sure the #'s give a broad view of the landscape, but it's really hard to know with any sort of accuracy so I take those results with a big pinch of salt.
That isn't reasonable doubt. That is your mistaken assumptions about random sampling. People have assumptions about how random numbers distribute, and those assumptions are almost always wrong.

All kinds of apparently weird patterns can that can occur in random selection, at the individual sample level. I might be selected every year for 10 years in a row, while you are never selected during those same 10 years, and it could still be perfectly random.

It's the overall aggregate where the random sampled data smooths out, not on the individual samples.

Considering that Steam will largely be sampling different sets of people month-to-month, and that the data is relatively consistent month-to-month, indicates that Steam has a sufficiently large and sufficiently random sample, that it is indeed representative of their user base.

People complaining about the techniques here, are usually just unhappy with the result and trying to attack the source.

The Steam Survey data is by far the most accurate data we have on what HW is actually in the hands of people who play games.
 

nEo717

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
343
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, 0 in over 7 years (can't remember exactly), and I have had 4 accounts (mine + 3 kids) for a few years now and 0 on all of them. Seems odd as others have seen it a few times before. Guess I have no reason to buy lotto tickets with my luck!
-------

Steam Survey, it pops at least every couple of months, and sometimes monthly (which is fair given often systems I'm working with change) - I always say yes. My guess if someone asks Steam how they pull account names for Surveys they will tell.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Messages
1
Which games are straining a 1080 Ti or "old" cards?
I mainly play big single player adventure games, but most of them can't stay anywhere near my 100hz 3440x1440 UW. Some examples like Jedi Fallen Order, AC: Origins, AC: Odyssey, mostly run in the mid 70's. I'll usually crank to Ultra everything and see where I end up with frame rate and adjust from there. I almost always use RTSS to cap at something just below my stable average. I'd love to be able to make a nice step up to something I can push that monitor fully with settings mostly cranked.

I have a 1080ti OC'ed as far as it will go and am definitely ready for an upgrade. Never came close with anything Turing offered, the 2080ti was the only thing that would have been an upgrade and prices were stupid for that miniscule of an upgrade. Hoping to be in the 3080 range with Ampere to be able to push that monitor and frame rate and not have to pay for the ti.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,255
Respectfully disagree. There is a reasonable price, however the masses arent going to know what that is and marketing can inflate value. It is up to people that are more knowledgeable than me to push back on these inflated prices. $1200 is not reasonable. $699 is reasonable, $799 is status quo, $1200 is a joke.
Price per transistor only went down about 4% from Pascal to Turing, but the number of transistors went up about 58%. If you want a "reasonably priced" video card then you're going to be stuck with the same performance from 4 years ago and into the future unless the price per transistor scales down with the manufacturing process again.
 

MangoSeed

Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
705
I think it means I wasn't randomly selected.... in a large span that others where multiple times. It gives me reasonable doubt that their is sufficient randomness & sufficient #'s being collected to put much weight behind their results. Sure the #'s give a broad view of the landscape, but it's really hard to know with any sort of accuracy so I take those results with a big pinch of salt.
It’s not really hard to know at all. The steam survey is a massive sample of the population so is likely extremely accurate. Basic statistics at work.

Any suspicion you have of steam numbers has nothing to do with math.
 

Smoked Brisket

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
330
Price per transistor only went down about 4% from Pascal to Turing, but the number of transistors went up about 58%. If you want a "reasonably priced" video card then you're going to be stuck with the same performance from 4 years ago and into the future unless the price per transistor scales down with the manufacturing process again.
Not the only factor in cost. Nvidia and AMD are larger more efficient companies today than they were years ago. When products scale the cost generally goes down. Nvidia saw prices skyrocket during the mining craze and hoped(still hope) to keep prices at that level. With no real competition they thought enthusiasts would just have to eat it and smile until it seemed normal. Dont tell me that did not happen. I understand inflation not gouging. We see the truth every day with the likes of intel showing how much they were fleecing consumers when they slash prices on skews that are under siege by AMD. Before you whip out the charts, I respect that you know more than me on transistor cost. I contend that profits can be made even at reasonable prices, maybe just not 4th mansion and second beach house profits.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
That isn't reasonable doubt. That is your mistaken assumptions about random sampling. People have assumptions about how random numbers distribute, and those assumptions are almost always wrong.

All kinds of apparently weird patterns can that can occur in random selection, at the individual sample level. I might be selected every year for 10 years in a row, while you are never selected during those same 10 years, and it could still be perfectly random.

It's the overall aggregate where the random sampled data smooths out, not on the individual samples.

Considering that Steam will largely be sampling different sets of people month-to-month, and that the data is relatively consistent month-to-month, indicates that Steam has a sufficiently large and sufficiently random sample, that it is indeed representative of their user base.

People complaining about the techniques here, are usually just unhappy with the result and trying to attack the source.

The Steam Survey data is by far the most accurate data we have on what HW is actually in the hands of people who play games.
I have not once attacked the results, all I said is I take them with a pinch of salt not knowing about how they collect, who they ask, how many and other relevant information that is typically disclosed during polling. I even stated I'm sure there aggregate data is good enough to get a view of the landscape, but without more specifics nobody knows the actual accuracy. In understand that someone could be picked for every single survey at random, but if that happened would you question the randomness of the sampling? It's very unlikely and if your random sampling of getting the same person, maybe it's not as random as you thought. I am not saying their survey is useless and I'm sure their numbers are relatively close. If they are happy with the days they are receiving, then that's all that matters. But when you try to extrapolate the data and it's meaning without knowing it's accuracy or how it samples, it's ok in generalities, but you can't use it to be very specific (again, many unknowns).
My reasonable doubt statement that is if others are/were seeing it often, and it's not just one person who had said that, that means on average people where seeing it more than once. So if I haven't seen it at all, it leaves doubt in my mind that it's sufficiently random. I could be wrong, but without more information it's all I have to go from.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
It’s not really hard to know at all. The steam survey is a massive sample of the population so is likely extremely accurate. Basic statistics at work.

Any suspicion you have of steam numbers has nothing to do with math.
Sure, it's massive... How many people get asked, how often, how are they chosen and what percentage accepts? Fill in those blanks and I'll agree with you. You state basic statistics, then you say any suspicion has nothing to do with math. Ummm...
You used the # "massive" in your statement to prove I'm not using math in my argument. Man, that's some complicated geotrigocalcometry you got going on, sorry I can't keep up with such number crunching. :)

PS. Don't be offended, I'm just saying that there #'s for the survey can be semi useful but not to put to much stock into them unless you know how they do their polling. I'm not suggesting that they sent close to reality, just that we don't know how accurate. Could be .1% could be 5%, we don't know for sure.
 

MangoSeed

Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
705
Sure, it's massive... How many people get asked, how often, how are they chosen and what percentage accepts? Fill in those blanks and I'll agree with you. You state basic statistics, then you say any suspicion has nothing to do with math. Ummm...
You used the # "massive" in your statement to prove I'm not using math in my argument. Man, that's some complicated geotrigocalcometry you got going on, sorry I can't keep up with such number crunching. :)

PS. Don't be offended, I'm just saying that there #'s for the survey can be semi useful but not to put to much stock into them unless you know how they do their polling. I'm not suggesting that they sent close to reality, just that we don't know how accurate. Could be .1% could be 5%, we don't know for sure.
I think you’re missing the point. When you use a massive sample then all the other factors you mention become irrelevant. That’s what I mean by “basic statistics”.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,255
Not the only factor in cost. Nvidia and AMD are larger more efficient companies today than they were years ago. When products scale the cost generally goes down. Nvidia saw prices skyrocket during the mining craze and hoped(still hope) to keep prices at that level. With no real competition they thought enthusiasts would just have to eat it and smile until it seemed normal. Dont tell me that did not happen. I understand inflation not gouging. We see the truth every day with the likes of intel showing how much they were fleecing consumers when they slash prices on skews that are under siege by AMD. Before you whip out the charts, I respect that you know more than me on transistor cost. I contend that profits can be made even at reasonable prices, maybe just not 4th mansion and second beach house profits.
I don't know about the economic strategies of these various tech companies, but at least for NVIDIA I would assume that they wanted to keep profit margins similar to keep up the level of R&D in all the sectors they've expanded to. You did make a good point that the masses are not going to understand pricing strategy and I agree that they generally don't care about what it looks like on the supply side. They just see the price go up on a product that has traditionally and reliably been within a certain pricing structure and get outraged without wanting or needing to know what cause the prices to increase. From my perspective I think the pricing of both NVIDIA's and AMD's products are reasonable when considering all the factors involved in bringing such a tech product to the market, especially one with limited competition.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,625
I think you’re missing the point. When you use a massive sample then all the other factors you mention become irrelevant. That’s what I mean by “basic statistics”.
Wow, here we are again in another thread arguing about the validity of Steam stats? :D Well, Big Navi will put that to rest.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,625
I don't know about the economic strategies of these various tech companies, but at least for NVIDIA I would assume that they wanted to keep profit margins similar to keep up the level of R&D in all the sectors they've expanded to. You did make a good point that the masses are not going to understand pricing strategy and I agree that they generally don't care about what it looks like on the supply side. They just see the price go up on a product that has traditionally and reliably been within a certain pricing structure and get outraged without wanting or needing to know what cause the prices to increase. From my perspective I think the pricing of both NVIDIA's and AMD's products are reasonable when considering all the factors involved in bringing such a tech product to the market, especially one with limited competition.
Except that their prices nearly doubled from one year to the next. And nope, mining did not to it. :)
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,255
Except that their prices nearly doubled from one year to the next. And nope, mining did not to it. :)
GTX 1070 launch price = $379
RTX 2070 launch price = $499
Price difference = +31.66%

GTX 1080 launch price = $599
RTX 2080 launch price = $699
Price difference = +16.69%

GTX 1080 Ti launch price = $699
RTX 2080 Ti launch price = $999
Price difference = +42.92%
 

Auer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,521
GTX 1070 launch price = $379
RTX 2070 launch price = $499
Price difference = +31.66%


GTX 1080 launch price = $599
RTX 2080 launch price = $699
Price difference = +16.69%

GTX 1080 Ti launch price = $699
RTX 2080 Ti launch price = $999
Price difference = +42.92%
Knowing what I know now, I would have easily opted for the RTX2070 at $500 over a "GTX2070" at $379 if such a thing would have been available.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,459
2080Ti was at least $1199 at launch.
Exactly. Sure there might have been one SKU that was $999, but it was rarely available and used poorly binned chip that didn't boost well at all. If you wanted a good boosting GPU, you had to pay in the $1199 range.

Knowing what I know now, I would have easily opted for the RTX2070 at $500 over a "GTX2070" at $379 if such a thing would have been available.
I would say exactly the opposite. A $379 mid range card minus RTX would have been the go to card for many people.
 

Tengis

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,924
Knowing what I know now, I would have easily opted for the RTX2070 at $500 over a "GTX2070" at $379 if such a thing would have been available.
Huh.... you would rather pay over $100 extra for the same thing with a feature set that is basically unusable? I have exactly zero interest in ray tracing and I do not personally know a single person that does. If that feature set came with no performance hit then sure, I wouldn’t mind it, but I still wouldn’t pay extra for it.

I game at 1080p because I value a high frame rate over pristine visuals. I have a good 1440p monitor as well as a good 4K monitor, but I’m not willing to drop the cash to game at those resolutions comfortably (while still coming in at a lower frame rate then 1080p). Free sync / Gsync kind of levels this playing field but I wont have a solid opinion until my next system upgrade that’s coming soon.
 

Auer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,521
Huh.... you would rather pay over $100 extra for the same thing with a feature set that is basically unusable? I have exactly zero interest in ray tracing and I do not personally know a single person that does. If that feature set came with no performance hit then sure, I wouldn’t mind it, but I still wouldn’t pay extra for it.

I game at 1080p because I value a high frame rate over pristine visuals. I have a good 1440p monitor as well as a good 4K monitor, but I’m not willing to drop the cash to game at those resolutions comfortably (while still coming in at a lower frame rate then 1080p). Free sync / Gsync kind of levels this playing field but I wont have a solid opinion until my next system upgrade that’s coming soon.
Different strokes :) Game on.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,025
I understand how it works, lol. If the roulette wheel lands on black 6 times in a row, it still has a 50/50 chance on the next go. My point was its odd that others have seen it relatively often and I have never seen it at all. If it's sufficiently random and the # polled is enough to be useful, you would think by now I'd have gotten one at some point. I dont actually think it's a conspiracy, just an oddity,a one of the reasons I personally don't put to much weight behind the survey, to much is unknown about the polling.
Actually a bet on Red or Black in Roulette only has a 47.37% chance, everybody forgetts abouts those pesky 0's.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,025
GTX 1070 launch price = $379
RTX 2070 launch price = $499
Price difference = +31.66%

GTX 1080 launch price = $599
RTX 2080 launch price = $699
Price difference = +16.69%

GTX 1080 Ti launch price = $699
RTX 2080 Ti launch price = $999
Price difference = +42.92%
Mining didn't do it, Investors demands, and fabrication times did, nVidia and AMD both have access to limited fab time and there are only a limited number of facilities that are cabable of producing these GPU's on the new fab processes. As such they have to front load all their orders warehouse and distribute them over the course of their lifespan and as t hey don't want to be left holding a large number of obsolete chips they have to make sure they maximize everything they can get from the few they do produce. To do less would only enrage their investors which would cause them to get sued and their precisous CEO's fired. They have very complex formula's to determine that if they produce X number of chips to sell at Y price gets them to sell out by C date. so they maximize profits minimize costs and reduce the chances of being left holding unsellable stock in warehouses.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,197
I have not once attacked the results, all I said is I take them with a pinch of salt not knowing about how they collect, who they ask, how many and other relevant information that is typically disclosed during polling. I even stated I'm sure there aggregate data is good enough to get a view of the landscape, but without more specifics nobody knows the actual accuracy. In understand that someone could be picked for every single survey at random, but if that happened would you question the randomness of the sampling? It's very unlikely and if your random sampling of getting the same person, maybe it's not as random as you thought. I am not saying their survey is useless and I'm sure their numbers are relatively close. If they are happy with the days they are receiving, then that's all that matters. But when you try to extrapolate the data and it's meaning without knowing it's accuracy or how it samples, it's ok in generalities, but you can't use it to be very specific (again, many unknowns).
My reasonable doubt statement that is if others are/were seeing it often, and it's not just one person who had said that, that means on average people where seeing it more than once. So if I haven't seen it at all, it leaves doubt in my mind that it's sufficiently random. I could be wrong, but without more information it's all I have to go from.
Going on about "take them with a pinch of salt", and "reasonable doubt" is attacking the veracity of the results, based on nothing but your incorrect assumptions about statistics.

Just because you haven't been asked to participate, is NOT grounds for "reasonable doubt" in the survey.

You really should be applying more of that skepticism where it is really warranted. Like to WCCF Tech and similar rumor mongers, and in this case to companies hyping their own products. Now those are things which you need a pinch of salt and then some.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
That’s not how randomness works. Each year you have an x (amount of surveys they send) out of y (total number of Stream accounts) chance. The y increases every single year, giving you less of a chance as time goes on. Just because you don’t get it one year does not mean your chances to get it go up the next.
It also means it should be highly improbable to be selected many times in a few years.

That isn't reasonable doubt. That is your mistaken assumptions about random sampling. People have assumptions about how random numbers distribute, and those assumptions are almost always wrong.

All kinds of apparently weird patterns can that can occur in random selection, at the individual sample level. I might be selected every year for 10 years in a row, while you are never selected during those same 10 years, and it could still be perfectly random.

It's the overall aggregate where the random sampled data smooths out, not on the individual samples.
In a perfectly random sampling you should have massively more chance of not being selected ever than being selected 10 times. The fact that many people reported to have been selected many times indicates, but doesn't prove, that Steam's survey isn't sufficiently random.

Considering that Steam will largely be sampling different sets of people month-to-month, and that the data is relatively consistent month-to-month, indicates that Steam has a sufficiently large and sufficiently random sample, that it is indeed representative of their user base.
The latter is just your assumption and the former would be true even with a biased selection.

People complaining about the techniques here, are usually just unhappy with the result and trying to attack the source.
There's nothing to complain about since the techniques are unknown.

The Steam Survey data is by far the most accurate data we have on what HW is actually in the hands of people who play games.
You have nothing to base that on. It is probably the largest data, but until it's transparent we know nothing about its accuracy.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,440
GTX 1070 launch price = $379
RTX 2070 launch price = $499
Price difference = +31.66%

GTX 1080 launch price = $599
RTX 2080 launch price = $699
Price difference = +16.69%

GTX 1080 Ti launch price = $699
RTX 2080 Ti launch price = $999
Price difference = +42.92%
GTX 1070 was actually $350, but no cards were had at that price for a long time (closer to $380 as mentioned). RTX 2070 was $550.
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,747
2080Ti was at least $1199 at launch.
Base model to base model, it is accurate. I bought a $769 (plus or minus $10 forget exactly) and the comparable 2080Ti was ~ $1299.

It's (lets round up even) about a 70% price increase when comparing the more expensive iterations of the cards. It's a lot no doubt, but it was not "double". Double = 100% increase.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,625

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
Going on about "take them with a pinch of salt", and "reasonable doubt" is attacking the veracity of the results, based on nothing but your incorrect assumptions about statistics.

Just because you haven't been asked to participate, is NOT grounds for "reasonable doubt" in the survey.

You really should be applying more of that skepticism where it is really warranted. Like to WCCF Tech and similar rumor mongers, and in this case to companies hyping their own products. Now those are things which you need a pinch of salt and then some.
Oh, I apply my skepticism everywhere. I was saying I wasn't attacking the results meaning I don't suggest they are biased or misleading, they are just results from a poll which I don't have the information on how it's conducted. Ergo, I question the results. The fact that I've seen 0 questions on 4 accounts is just an oddity, for better or for worse it makes me question the randomness. I even admit (and still agree) their results are probably good enough, but I'm not wrong saying that you don't know how accurate or what the margin of error is. I take anything wccf tech says with a bucket of salt and even stated I don't care what is said until I see real benchmarks, so not sure what you are even saying about this as I'm not discrediting steam and saying I believe rumors. I don't believe hyped and rumors, I believe real products and (multiple verified) 3rd party benchmarks. I also rely on my own experiences, if those differ to you then we can easily find ourselves in disagreement, but I'm not suggesting that they are misleading, just that without more information I don't just put my blind trust in someone or some company. If you want to believe their results are 100% accurate without knowing how they are collected, good on you for having that much trust in a company without any proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
It also means it should be highly improbable to be selected many times in a few years.


In a perfectly random sampling you should have massively more chance of not being selected ever than being selected 10 times. The fact that many people reported to have been selected many times indicates, but doesn't prove, that Steam's survey isn't sufficiently random.


The latter is just your assumption and the former would be true even with a biased selection.


There's nothing to complain about since the techniques are unknown.


You have nothing to base that on. It is probably the largest data, but until it's transparent we know nothing about its accuracy.
Yay, someone gets it :). Yes, the fact that others got it a bunch and myself none doesn't prove anything, but it does leave some doubts on how random it truly is. This doesn't prove one way or the other, and the results probably (likely) are pretty close, but nobody here can say for sure. We can't prove it either way since we don't know enough about it.
 

idiomatic

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
103
Yay, someone gets it :). Yes, the fact that others got it a bunch and myself none doesn't prove anything, but it does leave some doubts on how random it truly is. This doesn't prove one way or the other, and the results probably (likely) are pretty close, but nobody here can say for sure. We can't prove it either way since we don't know enough about it.
If you sample some accounts repeatedly over time you get cohort data which you don't get from only randomly sampling.
 

Ready4Dis

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
774
Actually a bet on Red or Black in Roulette only has a 47.37% chance, everybody forgetts abouts those pesky 0's.
Haven't ever played, not into gambling. Can't even win a steam survey, lol. But the point is still valid, the chances don't change based on past behaviour, but over time they should trend towards red/black being even.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,779
Haven't ever played, not into gambling. Can't even win a steam survey, lol. But the point is still valid, the chances don't change based on past behaviour, but over time they should trend towards red/black being even.
Not really. Each spin has a set percentage of landing on red, black, or 0 but that doesn’t mean it will always average out to that percentage. Assuming the exact same force and motion is used each time, 100 spins is not always going to result in the final numbers coming out to the normal percentage. Same with 1000 spins or a million. True random variables have zero logical pattern.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,445
Knowing what I know now, I would have easily opted for the RTX2070 at $500 over a "GTX2070" at $379 if such a thing would have been available.
What do you know that we don't? Keep in mind your talking about a RTX2070.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,343
Funny title on the first link. AMD hasn't "disrupted" anything on the CPU side. They simply released a set of products which are somewhat faster than what was already on the market. If Big Navi is going to be "similarly disruptive," then that just means it's going to offer not quite enough performance for AAA 4K - just like the 2080 Ti that came out two years before it.

With AMD aiming to match 2 year old Nvidia performance, it sounds like they're still stuck in the rut of being the low-cost GPU maker rather than the high performance one.
Lol hey its your opinion.

I can tell you that I have spent a lot of time in microcenter. Almost every single person in there ask about AMD. They dont sell Intel nearly as much and all thier shelves are stuffed with AMD chips and just a few Intel parts. But hey thats just one place but seems pretty disruptive to me.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,460
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, 0 in over 7 years (can't remember exactly), and I have had 4 accounts (mine + 3 kids) for a few years now and 0 on all of them. Seems odd as others have seen it a few times before. Guess I have no reason to buy lotto tickets with my luck!
Had about 4-5 of them since few months after Steam launched on one account..
 
Top