![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What you call "fantasy" is precisely why antitrust laws exist.
This is because to get another 1% more performance, you'd need a lot of R&D to do so. Most consumers aren't willing to spend hundreds or thousands for a few percent, but data centers would in a heart beat.
Right now, AMD is the most efficient and the fastest. The ARM chips are cheaper, so they do win in price performance but it's likely that AMD and Intel will price their products accordingly to compete. In other words, competition is good.
Like what? Ray Tracing which kills performance? DLSS which kills image quality? CUDA is about the only thing Nvidia has done right, and I'm not into AI to care.
You do know that AMD and Nvidia have colluded to price fixing in the past? AMD is no saint.
You can call Intel evil, but inferior products? That's only something you can say since maybe 2019, when AMD released Zen3. Before that, Intel was ahead.
The reason Intel would never work out on mobile is because they charge too much. The allure of ARM is that you can make some really cheap chips. Everything else about ARM was secondary. If Intel wanted to compete then they'd license out x86.
Apples ARM chips are only good because the OS is making use of every single accelerator and extension to optimize every possible aspect of the hardware/software integration.
Another way Intel has stiffed innovation. (half joking). Remember that time in the 90s when Intel started doing software to take advantage of their fancy new MMX extensions and the like. When they started making software that made Microsoft look terrible. Intel caved and said ok ok MS we'll stop making software to show off our hardware.
This has some truth as Asahi Linux tends to run a bit slower compared to MacOS. This is probably one of the most interesting benchmarks I've seen so far. These guys did tests on x86 hardware running Debian 12 and with Apple hardware that could use Asahi Linux and MacOS. Even the guy managing this has said that the gap would only widen if he ran Windows, and you'd get similar performance benefits if you ran MacOS on AMD and Intel hardware.
Lakados and other industry insiders. Is Gelsinger's claim credible? But I seem to recall reading that TSMC got a 60% yield in one of their advanced fabs.
That's where it gets fun, TSMC got 60% but the chips they were making were tiny, so we are talking about 60'ish percent on chips like the A17, but the M series chips were so low yield that TSMC was only charging Apple for functional chips instead of the full wafers like they do for others.
So was Gelsinger being scapegoated for failures across the company? To be clear, I use only AMD CPUs, done that for years now, and I certainly don't own any Intel stock. (Don't own any individual stocks any more. I can't outsmart the professionals.)
Not scapegoated, but I’m betting the board wanted him to cut back on the fab upgrades, increase orders to TSMC and prioritize military contracts for the new Intel advanced nodes.
Willingness to spend top money for few % performance gain used to be true for most of the PC era until its peak in 2011, and is still true to some degree among gaming enthusiasts. Datacenter was always this way. Nowadays, no more. So this explanation doesn't hold water I think.
On the contrary, Chrome OS is excellent. It enabled $200 x86 and ARM notebooks which is the most that many people were willing to spend on a PC, and it would be fine for web browsing, word processing and other basic tasks. Compare this to $200 Windows notebooks which were universally painful to use. For a long time, Chromebooks were the only growing segment in an overall declining PC market.
AMD doesn't hold a candle to M4 even in real-world testing, not until Strix Halo (and possibly not even then). Maybe in the sub-$800 laptop market where Apple doesn't compete, AMD and Intel are still king.
You don't care about ray tracing and DLSS maybe. (Perhaps you want take another look: The tech press used to be critical too initially, and are now praising DLSS.) But even if you narrow your view into performance only: It is undisputable that NVIDIA used their massive earnings not only to pay shareholders, but to actually make their products faster, and not stagnate like Intel did between Sandy Bridge and Skylake.
This was ATI, not AMD. The acquisition of ATI by AMD was only completed in October 2006, and the reported price fixing happened before that. ATI was a somewhat shady company, but far from NVIDIA level shady.
AMD was also ahead between Thunderbird (1999) and Windsor (2006). Both the reduced consumer choice and the inferior products of AMD between Barcelona and Zen were the result of Intel anti-competitive practices which were detailed in the EU antitrust case. Intel preventing AMD products from reaching the market meant that AMD had less revenue to re-invest in product development.
I told you to google "Intel contra revenue".
You know what else would do all that and a lot more? A GNU/Linux based laptop. ChromeOS is just Google trying to lock people into their... web browser ecosystem? It's seriously a stupid OS.
Max Tech isn't exactly someone I like looking at for benchmarks. Right now the Ryzen AI HX 370 stupid ass name, is not as good as Apple's M4. Just not the world of difference that these reviewers are claiming. Mostly because these reviewers use stupid benchmark tools, like Max Tech. For Gaben sake, the dude ran Geekbench's GPU test and Apple's M4 Pro won. Then when he ran 3D Mark and Blender, which were both much faster on the RTX 4070. 3D Mark is not a good representation for gaming performance even still. Just get a game and run that. How hard is it? Apple's M series chips now have a decent enough games ported where you can stop using 3D Mark and Geekbench.
Just ignore all the people criticizing DLSS, along with FSR and TAA.
Is that with or without 8GB of VRAM? Is that with or without the RTX 4060? You do know that the RTX 3060 12GB is faster in a lot of titles compared to the RTX 4060 8GB, and costs less too?
This is the same company that also wanted to make Windows 10 Mobile-based phone. Guess they couldn't see the software was outdated too. I had an Asus Zenphone with an Intel x86 chip and it worked well. I'm actually in the process to replace the battery since it's completely dead. I like keeping my old things running, even if I don't use them.
It's progressively gotten worse too, fewer plugins, and more reliance on the Android App store and the apps don't always work well at all.
I have a 7950x So yes I do hope intel fails. I work offshore and i can que up all my cpu tasks via remote desktop and have everything done when i get home. So yes I do hope intel fails and goes under 7950x is under $500 so I am good if i ever wanted another. I am also a 13900k owner and got fucked HARD. so YES I DO HOPE THEY GO UNDER.
This is a bit of a strange inference to make here....
By the time Intel goes under if it does, a 7950x will have been irrelevant for a while.
Well Pat is responsible imo for the down fall of Intel dating back to his time as CTO... he put so much into motion that has bit them in the ass for 20 years now.
Kids in school end up with these Chromebooks and want to know if they can have Windows installed. The devices are locked to the school and they have no plans to ever give them back. The device is now ewaste. These devices are such cheap junk that it isn't worth the time to figure a way around it.
Not to overly defend ATI. The whole price fixing stuff. People need to remember how small ATI... and for that matter Nvidia were back then. Its easy now to think AMD the big x86 player, they power Sony and MS consoles big big. Nvidia they are for real the highest valued company in the world. They colluded EVIL. Accept at the time in question ATI was sturggling to stay alive. Nvidia, AMD, PowerVR, Intel, Matrox were all in the GPU business. Margins were stupid low cause no one really saw the value in crazy expensive GPUs. ATI had bought ARTx which got them a nintendo console contract but the margins were so slim any hicuup in production would cause looses. ATI had to make products like the wonder line to try and eak out some extra profit.
At some point an insider from Intel will tell people the reasons. Your explanation would make the most sense.
That is what they had done internally. After Intel face planted for the first year trying to sell fabrication to third parties... they realized no one was going to trust Intel fabrication with their designs. The possibility of Intel stealing from you was just way to high. So Pat did wisely decouple the design and fab teams. I mean that probably did make life a little harder for Intel, it was required to get real business for the fab.
I thought all the ATI-Nvidia fixing price mins went back to like 2006-2008 type time frames. Back when ATI was still selling things like wonder cards.. and most PCs didn't even have 3D acceleration. But I could be wrong.
Yes lot of card were really cheap back then, because iGPU did not replace yet all of the not for gaming card.
Fair. Still was a much much smaller market... and they had nothing close to a monopoly. As the article you linked stated... Of the six GPU makers—Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, Matrox, VIA, and SiS.
Yes but like the article say:
Yes must have been prior to 2006 and quite a bit let alone 2008 if they were not a duopoly yet, last serious 3dfx attempts was in summer 2000 maybe, Nvidia bought them at the end of 2000.
Those law suits were brought in 2008. They were not based on sales from 2008. We are talking about sales from 2000-2006. Yes in 2002 when 3dFX was bought they had a massive part of the market. PowerVR was actually still shipping cards. Matrox was still selling gaming cards. Intel hadn't folded on the idea of selling cards yet.
Nvidia start to buy 3dfx in 2000:
Well that still true today, they are less a duopoly now than in 2006 (intel has now 60% of the gpu market) under that logic, for regular consumer dGPU they were already pretty much all the market.
I’m literally in the process of phasing out some 1500 Chromebooks because Google’s been pulling features, and rolling back support dates for software updates. But all those Chromebooks were part of the Google Education platform which still uses the Intel N platform. The latest 2024 model being based around the N4500 with at most 8GB ram and 64GB of storage, all soldered.
You can get mad about this or you can just do what I did and be happy. Picked up a 12900K for 240 bucks, RMA'ed my 13900K and Intel cut me a check for nearly 700 dollars. Took em about 2 months but they made good on their end. I would say it's a 5-8 week process if they approve you for the processor. Initially they were handing out 14900K's for your trouble.
And not just size, an Nvidia H100 can have 20% of its cores not working and still being a successful on the worked column of the yield column (14,592 out of 18,432 cores are enabled), size + error tolerance are needed. And his the error rate the same for cache transistor part, logic part.
Depends how and a bit of a long shot and depends what people mean, if it is quick and sold their asset-patents and the state force a deal with the buyer and AMD for the x86_64 licensing (or we can get away from a fully closed ISA....), there could be.