A great victory for AMD! Intel forced to pay for bribing.

  • 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for airshocker
#101 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

None of this really has to do with the fact that Intel CPUs spank AMD's every single day of the week. Maybe when AMD puts out a new selection of video cards will I consider giving those a try, but for now I'm an Intel/Nvidia guy.

Avatar image for Couth_
#102 Edited by Couth_ (10369 posts) -

Well it's a loss to all those poor people who are going to be suckered into buying crappy AMD PC's..

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#103 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (19572 posts) -

For recording gameplay via software, I think my FX-8350 does better, much better than the Intel CPUs. It'll be that way until games that utilize all cores start appearing.

Avatar image for BPoole96
#104 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 posts) -

This won't stop me from buying Intel cpus . Their products are just flat out better than AMD's offerings. I am happy with AMC in the GPS space, but I don't even consider them when I recommend CPUs

Avatar image for schu
#105 Posted by schu (9450 posts) -

@b4x said:

AMD can Jaguar their ass down the road.

Weak ass company has always been weak.

They can't touch NVidia or Intel. Fact.

They write drivers like Sony writes PS software.

that isn't entirely true..they had a run where they were not weak ..athlon 64

Avatar image for osirisx3
#106 Posted by osirisx3 (2113 posts) -

@BPoole96 said:

This won't stop me from buying Intel cpus . Their products are just flat out better than AMD's offerings. I am happy with AMC in the GPS space, but I don't even consider them when I recommend CPUs

unless you have a work station its a waste of money to go intel.

Avatar image for mikhail
#107 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

Maybe AMD should concentrate more on making their products better. I'd hate to see a market with only one company selling CPU's - Intel needs a little bit of competition in the marketplace to keep innovating.

As someone who has owned both AMD and Intel CPU's, and both AMD and Nvidia GPU's...AMD is behind in both categories. Big time.

Avatar image for MK-Professor
#108 Edited by MK-Professor (4110 posts) -
@clyde46 said:

Yea, thats nice. Now call me when AMD can actually make a CPU that can compete with Intel.

Rumors are saying that in 2015 AMD will release a new CPU generation that will surpass intel's i7 4xxx series at least by 30%. They are saying that is going to be the biggest jump in CPU perfomance.

Avatar image for Ballroompirate
#109 Posted by Ballroompirate (25181 posts) -

Hopefully this helps AMD so they can stop making crappy products.

Avatar image for anderswhk
#110 Edited by anderswhk (123 posts) -

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Avatar image for b4x
#111 Edited by B4X (5660 posts) -

@Xtasy26 said:

@b4x: AMD APU's trash intel's especially when it comes to gaming because the intel graphics are a JOKE. If you want to talk about driver's intel graphics driver's are a LAUGHING STOCK.

Their GPU's are competitive with nvidia that's a fact. Your fanboyism is showing through.

AMD's driver suck? What is the late 90's/early 2000's?

That doesn't change the fact that intel is a dirty, cheating company that cheats to win. That is a FACT.

Those are all facts that you posted.

I'm talking about Desktop processors from Intel. Not graphics?

Here's the thing. If I'm building a PC today. I'm going Intel and NVidia.

The last ATI card that I bought and then returned locked up constantly in WOW. I could duplicate the drivers crashes in certain zones and instances 100%. The last boss in Blackwing lair. If you looked at the back wall where the dragons come out of the gates. The card would lock up 100% of the time. This was a 40 man raid that took everyone in the group to beat at the time. At that point I was done with ATI. You may have had better results. I didn't.

I'll never buy another ATI graphics card. I have given them several chances dating all the way back to the Rage.

Everything you posted is true though.

Avatar image for b4x
#112 Posted by B4X (5660 posts) -

@schu said:

@b4x said:

AMD can Jaguar their ass down the road.

Weak ass company has always been weak.

They can't touch NVidia or Intel. Fact.

They write drivers like Sony writes PS software.

that isn't entirely true..they had a run where they were not weak ..athlon 64

That is 100% correct. The sad part about that most motherboards were running VIA controller chipsets...Don't even remind me. /rage!!!

Avatar image for lamprey263
#114 Posted by lamprey263 (31028 posts) -

So is that money being paid in fines to some government regulator agency or is that money being paid to AMD in revenue loss damages as their result of antitrust actions to dominate the market? Anyhow, I think that fine is rather small considering this practice went on for years.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#115 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (19572 posts) -

@b4x said:

That is 100% correct. The sad part about that most motherboards were running VIA controller chipsets...Don't even remind me. /rage!!!

VIA chipsets were more of a concern with the Athlon XP. By the time the Athlon64 came along, the Nvidia nForce was becoming the dominant chipset. Too bad AMD didn't exert more influence and forced more motherboard makers to use its own chipset, the AMD 760/761.

I have a 2001 ASUS A7M266 motherboard (AMD 760 Northbridge) that preceded the Via KT-series chipsets. It outlasted those and the nForce-series. The A7M266 still works up to now while all my motherboards with Via and nForce have all died.

One legend of a board.....

Avatar image for Jawad2007
#116 Posted by Jawad2007 (669 posts) -

I Love AMD , it offers a good price with Great performance , going to stick with it for now .

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#117 Edited by sSubZerOo (45980 posts) -

@anderswhk said:

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Yet you would be completely fine with one of the two major competitors going bankrupt leading to a monopoly in which Intel and Nvidia could charge to what ever they want for their products? This entire post makes me face palm.. This money AMD has received can now allow them to be more competitive, leading for a win for every one, even if you don't like AMD products.. The over all hostility towards AMD from some of these posts are baffling.. Intel already started doing this SH!T with locking cores in forcing people to pay extra just to be able to overclock.. Gone are the days for intel in which you could buy something like a I3 equivlent and overclock it to levels of much more expensive chips...

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#118 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (19572 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

Gone are the days for intel in which you could buy something like a I3 equivlent and overclock it to levels of much more expensive chips...

I haven't seen that since the Celeron 300A. Perhaps these fanboys should do a read on why it was so popular back then. Hint: You paid through the nose for a decent Intel CPU. Imagine paying $500 (in late 90's $) for a CPU (by itself) which was barely midway up the product line. The upper half were in the $700-$1000 range. That's just for the CPU. The Intel prices didn't start going down until AMD came out with its Athlon and Duron.

Avatar image for anderswhk
#119 Posted by anderswhk (123 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Yet you would be completely fine with one of the two major competitors going bankrupt leading to a monopoly in which Intel and Nvidia could charge to what ever they want for their products? This entire post makes me face palm..

That's not what i said. What i said was i don't care about dirty tactics like this. It won't make my CPU any faster or slower, just becaue Intel uses dumb racketeering tactics. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#120 Posted by sSubZerOo (45980 posts) -

@anderswhk said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Yet you would be completely fine with one of the two major competitors going bankrupt leading to a monopoly in which Intel and Nvidia could charge to what ever they want for their products? This entire post makes me face palm..

That's not what i said. What i said was i don't care about dirty tactics like this. It won't make my CPU any faster or slower, just becaue Intel uses dumb racketeering tactics. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Your making your self look even dumber.. If Intel's tactics had succeeded, they would control the entire market and charge what ever they want for their chips.. Meaning huge price hikes because they do not have to compete against a competitor with similar performance.. Meaning to get faster cpu's you would in fact have to SPEND more money... Can people not understand these basic principals what so ever?

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#121 Posted by sSubZerOo (45980 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@sSubZerOo said:

Gone are the days for intel in which you could buy something like a I3 equivlent and overclock it to levels of much more expensive chips...

I haven't seen that since the Celeron 300A. Perhaps these fanboys should do a read on why it was so popular back then. Hint: You paid through the nose for a decent Intel CPU. Imagine paying $500 (in late 90's $) for a CPU (by itself) which is barely midway up the product line. The upper half were in the $700-$1000 range.

.. I was more thinking along the lines of the Core 2 duo days with chips like the E4300, a sub $100 chip you could overclock +50% of it's regular clock speed..

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#122 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (19572 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

I haven't seen that since the Celeron 300A. Perhaps these fanboys should do a read on why it was so popular back then. Hint: You paid through the nose for a decent Intel CPU. Imagine paying $500 (in late 90's $) for a CPU (by itself) which is barely midway up the product line. The upper half were in the $700-$1000 range.

.. I was more thinking along the lines of the Core 2 duo days with chips like the E4300, a sub $100 chip you could overclock +50% of it's regular clock speed..

Oh. Okay. Oh well. I still miss the days when the Celeron 300A was the overclockers' darling.

The Celeron 300A did something similar, also exceeding 50% overclock. Four years after it came out, the Celeron 300A was still being reviewed.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2002/09/29/celeron_300a_review#.U9JTJmPQr30

I tend to keep certain computer parts that were legendary in their day: 3dfx Voodoo, ASUS A7M266 mobo, GF4 Ti-4200. The Celeron 300A is among the elite group.

Avatar image for anderswhk
#123 Posted by anderswhk (123 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Yet you would be completely fine with one of the two major competitors going bankrupt leading to a monopoly in which Intel and Nvidia could charge to what ever they want for their products? This entire post makes me face palm..

That's not what i said. What i said was i don't care about dirty tactics like this. It won't make my CPU any faster or slower, just becaue Intel uses dumb racketeering tactics. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Your making your self look even dumber.. If Intel's tactics had succeeded, they would control the entire market and charge what ever they want for their chips.. Meaning huge price hikes because they do not have to compete against a competitor with similar performance.. Meaning to get faster cpu's you would in fact have to SPEND more money... Can people not understand these basic principals what so ever?

What are you getting so fired up about? It's not like AMD is on the way out, now is it?

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#124 Edited by sSubZerOo (45980 posts) -

@anderswhk said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Yet you would be completely fine with one of the two major competitors going bankrupt leading to a monopoly in which Intel and Nvidia could charge to what ever they want for their products? This entire post makes me face palm..

That's not what i said. What i said was i don't care about dirty tactics like this. It won't make my CPU any faster or slower, just becaue Intel uses dumb racketeering tactics. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Your making your self look even dumber.. If Intel's tactics had succeeded, they would control the entire market and charge what ever they want for their chips.. Meaning huge price hikes because they do not have to compete against a competitor with similar performance.. Meaning to get faster cpu's you would in fact have to SPEND more money... Can people not understand these basic principals what so ever?

What are you getting so fired up about? It's not like AMD is on the way out, now is it?

They almost had.. After the whole Bulldozer fiasco they were thinking of dismantling the majority of their cpu division.. And the reason why I am fired up by this is the absolute indifference of the situation and hostility towards AMD.. I don't care if you don't like AMD, or prefer Intel (I actually have a intel nvidia based laptop and a intel ati based desktop) as a consumer you should support competition in the marketplace.. It is what drives progression and lowers prices.. With AMD out of the picture, nvidia and intel would have no qualms of doubling their prices because they can... Intel actually did this back during the mid to late 90s when AMD wasn't a threat..

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#125 Posted by sSubZerOo (45980 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

I haven't seen that since the Celeron 300A. Perhaps these fanboys should do a read on why it was so popular back then. Hint: You paid through the nose for a decent Intel CPU. Imagine paying $500 (in late 90's $) for a CPU (by itself) which is barely midway up the product line. The upper half were in the $700-$1000 range.

.. I was more thinking along the lines of the Core 2 duo days with chips like the E4300, a sub $100 chip you could overclock +50% of it's regular clock speed..

Oh. Okay. Oh well. I still miss the days when the Celeron 300A was the overclockers' darling.

The Celeron 300A did something similar, also exceeding 50% overclock. Four years after it came out, the Celeron 300A was still being reviewed.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2002/09/29/celeron_300a_review#.U9JTJmPQr30

I tend to keep certain computer parts that were legendary in their day: 3dfx Voodoo, ASUS A7M266 mobo, GF4 Ti-4200. The Celeron 300A is among the elite group.

Yeah I think I still have my 3dfx Voodoo 3 3000 video card some where..

Avatar image for tormentos
#126 Posted by tormentos (23386 posts) -

Is incredible how people justify that crap,and say things like "" maybe now AMD will do something good""

The point here is Intel been a dirty player period,and it is great that they were fined,Nvidia does the same sh** pushing 3rd parties to abuse certain effect than even on their own card run cripple,just so they can cripple AMD ones even more.

I say AMD has at least one good point price,it may not be the best but an 8 core CPU for $150+ is not that bad when a i5 4 core from intel can cost you more than $200.

And their APU beat intel ones silly GPU wise.

Avatar image for clyde46
#127 Posted by clyde46 (48849 posts) -

@tormentos said:

Is incredible how people justify that crap,and say things like "" maybe now AMD will do something good""

The point here is Intel been a dirty player period,and it is great that they were fined,Nvidia does the same sh** pushing 3rd parties to abuse certain effect than even on their own card run cripple,just so they can cripple AMD ones even more.

I say AMD has at least one good point price,it may not be the best but an 8 core CPU for $150+ is not that bad when a i5 4 core from intel can cost you more than $200.

And their APU beat intel ones silly GPU wise.

Execpt that i5 runs rings around that 8 core. Clock for clock, core for core Intel if you pardon the pun "Steamroll" AMD. Yes that 4 core i5 costs more than the 8 core but 4 core is more refined, runs better, uses less power and produces less heat AND still gets the same or better performance.

Avatar image for blackace
#128 Posted by blackace (22733 posts) -
@aroxx_ab said:

$1.4 billion is nothing for Intel

It should have been more then. Like $5 billion. lol!! Intel loses out on the game console market and not have to pay $1.4 billion to the competition. Nice.

Avatar image for clyde46
#129 Posted by clyde46 (48849 posts) -

@blackace said:
@aroxx_ab said:

$1.4 billion is nothing for Intel

It should have been more then. Like $5 billion. lol!! Intel loses out on the game console market and not have to pay $1.4 billion to the competition. Nice.

Intel doesn't care about that.

Avatar image for tormentos
#130 Edited by tormentos (23386 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Execpt that i5 runs rings around that 8 core. Clock for clock, core for core Intel if you pardon the pun "Steamroll" AMD. Yes that 4 core i5 costs more than the 8 core but 4 core is more refined, runs better, uses less power and produces less heat AND still gets the same or better performance.

Oh yeah it is killing it oh Intel just steamroll amd.

Screen 1. 3 fu**ing frames more than on intel top CPU.

Screen 2. 2 freaking frames more on Intel top CPU.(hell 2 Frames more than on my 6350)

Screen 3. 6 frames more on Intel top CPU..

Do you think this results justify paying the ton of money extra that Intel charge people.?

Do you know how much an Intel 4960X cost.? $1,000 + dollars to deliver 3 frames more in the same game,than a $190 CPU from AMD,now lets not go far the i5 4670k is $234 dollars on Newegg the AMD one is $189.

And for gaming the frame difference is minuscule,hell the PS4 over shadow the xbox one for as much as 30FPS in some games and some people think is nothing here.

Avatar image for clyde46
#131 Posted by clyde46 (48849 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@clyde46 said:

Execpt that i5 runs rings around that 8 core. Clock for clock, core for core Intel if you pardon the pun "Steamroll" AMD. Yes that 4 core i5 costs more than the 8 core but 4 core is more refined, runs better, uses less power and produces less heat AND still gets the same or better performance.

Oh yeah it is killing it oh Intel just steamroll amd.

Screen 1. 3 fu**ing frames more than on intel top CPU.

Screen 2. 2 freaking frames more on Intel top CPU.(hell 2 Frames more than on my 6350)

Screen 3. 6 frames more on Intel top CPU..

Do you think this results justify paying the ton of money extra that Intel charge people.?

Do you know how much an Intel 4960X cost.? $1,000 + dollars to deliver 3 frames more in the same game,than a $190 CPU from AMD,now lets not go far the i5 4670k is $234 dollars on Newegg the AMD one is $189.

And for gaming the frame difference is minuscule,hell the PS4 over shadow the xbox one for as much as 30FPS in some games and some people think is nothing here.

Gaming wise, yes they are equally matched but for all other applications the Intel chip does run rings around the AMD 8350. I just find it amusing that an AMD 8 core chip can only keep up with a 4 core from Intel. Those 8 cores are no better than Intels 4.

Avatar image for SambaLele
#132 Edited by SambaLele (5552 posts) -

This is a very serious topic. Instead of pointing fingers and calling people and companies names, this should make us accept that these practices are more and more becoming routine, and accept that we should figure how to fight this, know the paper of regulation agencies, if consumers should act as well and how, and how allowing such acts could affect our own wallets in the future. Though SW may not be a place for this...

Avatar image for Zelda187
#133 Edited by Zelda187 (1047 posts) -

@Xtasy26 said:

@b4x: AMD APU's trash intel's especially when it comes to gaming because the intel graphics are a JOKE. If you want to talk about driver's intel graphics driver's are a LAUGHING STOCK.

Their GPU's are competitive with nvidia that's a fact. Your fanboyism is showing through.

AMD's driver suck? What is the late 90's/early 2000's?

That doesn't change the fact that intel is a dirty, cheating company that cheats to win. That is a FACT.

LOL

Dude, Intel and NVIDIA shit all over AMD. It's just a fact.

I'll give AMD credit for improving their GPU line and marketing them at a very fair and competitive price, but their CPU's are Mickey Mouse bullshit compared to Intel.

Avatar image for tormentos
#134 Posted by tormentos (23386 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Gaming wise, yes they are equally matched but for all other applications the Intel chip does run rings around the AMD 8350. I just find it amusing that an AMD 8 core chip can only keep up with a 4 core from Intel. Those 8 cores are no better than Intels 4.

I find more amusing that they can keep up packing 8 cores and carry a lower price...

To bad this is a gaming site and not an application site,for gaming purposes you pay a ton more of cash to get 2 or 3 frames more..lol

Avatar image for clyde46
#135 Posted by clyde46 (48849 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@clyde46 said:

Gaming wise, yes they are equally matched but for all other applications the Intel chip does run rings around the AMD 8350. I just find it amusing that an AMD 8 core chip can only keep up with a 4 core from Intel. Those 8 cores are no better than Intels 4.

I find more amusing that they can keep up packing 8 cores and carry a lower price...

To bad this is a gaming site and not an application site,for gaming purposes you pay a ton more of cash to get 2 or 3 frames more..lol

Those 8 cores can't beat a 4 core Intel chip, doesn't that say something to you?

Avatar image for tormentos
#136 Posted by tormentos (23386 posts) -
@Zelda187 said:

LOL

Dude, Intel and NVIDIA shit all over AMD. It's just a fact.

I'll give AMD credit for improving their GPU line and marketing them at a very fair and competitive price, but their CPU's are Mickey Mouse bullshit compared to Intel.

For gaming no they are not,look a few post up and see for your self those CPU benchmarks for games i posted,3 frames 2 frames more,on a damn CPU that cost $1,000 over one that cost $189..lol

Avatar image for tormentos
#137 Edited by tormentos (23386 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Those 8 cores can't beat a 4 core Intel chip, doesn't that say something to you?

Yeah that some of you are stupid enough to pay $300+ and some even $1,000 for a GPU that deliver 3 frames more per second in BF4..lol

Man even my damn FX 6350 which is like $120 in newegg will run BF4 without bottle necking at 96FPS just 2 less frames than an Intel CPU that goes for $1,000 dollars and since my PC was build for gaming not to run a office,or applications i could care less about over paying for something i will not use.

I was actually going to pick a i5 haswell,but i ruled against it when i compare CPU test,paying more for getting basically the same results is a joke,and since i don't run CPU applications that tent to favor intel it was of no purpose to me.

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#139 Edited by sSubZerOo (45980 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@tormentos said:

@clyde46 said:

Gaming wise, yes they are equally matched but for all other applications the Intel chip does run rings around the AMD 8350. I just find it amusing that an AMD 8 core chip can only keep up with a 4 core from Intel. Those 8 cores are no better than Intels 4.

I find more amusing that they can keep up packing 8 cores and carry a lower price...

To bad this is a gaming site and not an application site,for gaming purposes you pay a ton more of cash to get 2 or 3 frames more..lol

Those 8 cores can't beat a 4 core Intel chip, doesn't that say something to you?

............... No not really seeing as they are built around two different techs and the amd's are sold at a cheaper price... Seriously you guys sound like snobs, this is as bad as xboxone vs ps4 arguments..

Avatar image for Mozuckint
#140 Edited by Mozuckint (831 posts) -

@tormentos said:.

I find more amusing that they can keep up packing 8 cores and carry a lower price...

Where do posts like these come from? Do people live in some alternate reality where Intel just charges the prices they do to be dicks?

AMD has roughly 10,000 employees, Intel has 107,000. Intel has to literally pay nearly 11x the employees AMD has to. They probably spend more on salary than AMD is worth as a company.

AMD doesn't build its own factories, Intel spends Billions on them.

AMD doesn't have to worry about maintanance, Intel does.

AMD contracts GlobalFoundries, Intel brunts its own manufacturing(and even now makes chips for others).

The reason AMD can sell you an 8 core for sub $200 is because AMD spends next to NOTHING compared to intel, and you're sitting here complaining about a $11-$20 difference between a power hungry 8 core monster, and an efficient, cool, performance per thread/core/watt 4 core chip.

Seriously people, get a reality check. If AMD spent anywhere near the amount of money intel does on chips, I can guarantee you that those 8 cores would not be $200

Avatar image for Xtasy26
#141 Posted by Xtasy26 (5017 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@clyde46 said:

Execpt that i5 runs rings around that 8 core. Clock for clock, core for core Intel if you pardon the pun "Steamroll" AMD. Yes that 4 core i5 costs more than the 8 core but 4 core is more refined, runs better, uses less power and produces less heat AND still gets the same or better performance.

Oh yeah it is killing it oh Intel just steamroll amd.

Screen 1. 3 fu**ing frames more than on intel top CPU.

Screen 2. 2 freaking frames more on Intel top CPU.(hell 2 Frames more than on my 6350)

Screen 3. 6 frames more on Intel top CPU..

Do you think this results justify paying the ton of money extra that Intel charge people.?

Do you know how much an Intel 4960X cost.? $1,000 + dollars to deliver 3 frames more in the same game,than a $190 CPU from AMD,now lets not go far the i5 4670k is $234 dollars on Newegg the AMD one is $189.

And for gaming the frame difference is minuscule,hell the PS4 over shadow the xbox one for as much as 30FPS in some games and some people think is nothing here.

This is awesome! Thanks for posting this @tormentos. I love it how intel fanboys completely ignores this. A freaken $189.0 CPU BARELY loses to over $1000+ CPU by 1 - 2 frames @1080P and beyond. LOL. The FX 8350 is pushing WAY above it's weight and you definitely are getting your moneys worth. When it's comes to gaming AMD is pawning intel in price/performance.

@Mozuckint said:

@tormentos said:.

I find more amusing that they can keep up packing 8 cores and carry a lower price...

Where do posts like these come from? Do people live in some alternate reality where Intel just charges the prices they do to be dicks?

AMD has roughly 10,000 employees, Intel has 107,000. Intel has to literally pay nearly 11x the employees AMD has to. They probably spend more on salary than AMD is worth as a company.

AMD doesn't build its own factories, Intel spends Billions on them.

AMD doesn't have to worry about maintanance, Intel does.

AMD contracts GlobalFoundries, Intel brunts its own manufacturing(and even now makes chips for others).

The reason AMD can sell you an 8 core for sub $200 is because AMD spends next to NOTHING compared to intel, and you're sitting here complaining about a $11-$20 difference between a power hungry 8 core monster, and an efficient, cool, performance per thread/core/watt 4 core chip.

Seriously people, get a reality check. If AMD spent anywhere near the amount of money intel does on chips, I can guarantee you that those 8 cores would not be $200

So, what's your point? It was a smart business decision by AMD to spin off their fabs and have some one pay for new node upgrades and only charge for the chips ordered. It expensive to maintain and upgrade fabs, AMD doesn't have that kind of money. Frankly, AMD should have spun off their fabs much earlier. It would have alleviated some of the pain and the money loss that they went through.

That doesn't change anything what @tormentos was pointing out and he was right about it.

@Zelda187 said:

@Xtasy26 said:

@b4x: AMD APU's trash intel's especially when it comes to gaming because the intel graphics are a JOKE. If you want to talk about driver's intel graphics driver's are a LAUGHING STOCK.

Their GPU's are competitive with nvidia that's a fact. Your fanboyism is showing through.

AMD's driver suck? What is the late 90's/early 2000's?

That doesn't change the fact that intel is a dirty, cheating company that cheats to win. That is a FACT.

LOL

Dude, Intel and NVIDIA shit all over AMD. It's just a fact.

I'll give AMD credit for improving their GPU line and marketing them at a very fair and competitive price, but their CPU's are Mickey Mouse bullshit compared to Intel.

No it's NOT a fact. AMD is very competitive with nVidia in the GPU space. Heck at 4K graphics AMD nearly mops the floor with nVidia.

As for the CPU's being "Mickey Mouse" compared to intel. You need to look at those FULL HD 1080P gaming benchmarks.

@blackace said:
@aroxx_ab said:

$1.4 billion is nothing for Intel

It should have been more then. Like $5 billion. lol!! Intel loses out on the game console market and not have to pay $1.4 billion to the competition. Nice.

You are both right. $1.4 billion is pocket change to intel. Should have $10 billion if I had my way as intel is a $100+ billion company. At the very least it should have been AT LEAST $5 billion.

@anderswhk said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@anderswhk said:

I really couldn't care less. This won't stop me from buying Intel products, solely because they make the best high end CPU's, period. AMD has been playing the catch up game for years, not only with Intel, but also with Nvidia. Intel + Nvidia combo, all day errday until a better alternative shows up. I am not so idiotic that i think i owe any sort of allegiance to a multi-billion dollar coorporation. Sound familiar, peasants?

Yet you would be completely fine with one of the two major competitors going bankrupt leading to a monopoly in which Intel and Nvidia could charge to what ever they want for their products? This entire post makes me face palm..

That's not what i said. What i said was i don't care about dirty tactics like this. It won't make my CPU any faster or slower, just becaue Intel uses dumb racketeering tactics. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Your making your self look even dumber.. If Intel's tactics had succeeded, they would control the entire market and charge what ever they want for their chips.. Meaning huge price hikes because they do not have to compete against a competitor with similar performance.. Meaning to get faster cpu's you would in fact have to SPEND more money... Can people not understand these basic principals what so ever?

What are you getting so fired up about? It's not like AMD is on the way out, now is it?

They were on their way out..partially because of intel. Thankfully they brought ATI which saved their a****. They are still in the woods though. They have a long way to recovery to get back to their pre-2005 days. Last fall and into the first half of this year they are slowly turning into profitability.

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@sSubZerOo said:

Gone are the days for intel in which you could buy something like a I3 equivlent and overclock it to levels of much more expensive chips...

I haven't seen that since the Celeron 300A. Perhaps these fanboys should do a read on why it was so popular back then. Hint: You paid through the nose for a decent Intel CPU. Imagine paying $500 (in late 90's $) for a CPU (by itself) which was barely midway up the product line. The upper half were in the $700-$1000 range. That's just for the CPU. The Intel prices didn't start going down until AMD came out with its Athlon and Duron.

Exactly! The sub- $1000 PC didn't really start to kick in until 1997 when AMD started gaining traction with their K6 with 3DNow! processors hit the market. intel went overboard with the pricing of their CPUs. Thank God we have AMD with their AMD FX CPUs like the FX 8350 which actually beats or get's close to intel's high end $1000+ CPUs like the i7 4960X where it barely looses by 1 - 2 frames at 1080P+ gaming.

@b4x said:

@Xtasy26 said:

@b4x: AMD APU's trash intel's especially when it comes to gaming because the intel graphics are a JOKE. If you want to talk about driver's intel graphics driver's are a LAUGHING STOCK.

Their GPU's are competitive with nvidia that's a fact. Your fanboyism is showing through.

AMD's driver suck? What is the late 90's/early 2000's?

That doesn't change the fact that intel is a dirty, cheating company that cheats to win. That is a FACT.

Those are all facts that you posted.

I'm talking about Desktop processors from Intel. Not graphics?

Here's the thing. If I'm building a PC today. I'm going Intel and NVidia.

The last ATI card that I bought and then returned locked up constantly in WOW. I could duplicate the drivers crashes in certain zones and instances 100%. The last boss in Blackwing lair. If you looked at the back wall where the dragons come out of the gates. The card would lock up 100% of the time. This was a 40 man raid that took everyone in the group to beat at the time. At that point I was done with ATI. You may have had better results. I didn't.

I'll never buy another ATI graphics card. I have given them several chances dating all the way back to the Rage.

Everything you posted is true though.

Well here is what I would like to add. I was a nVidia fanboy going back to their RIVA 128 graphics chip. It was the first graphics card that I played "3D accelerated" games back in 1998. I was nVidia through and through. What really pissed me off was when I had a 17" Gaming laptop with a nVidia GeForce 7 gaming GPU inside and it died due to nVidia's defective die packaging. At least you could switch to a different GPU. With gaming laptops if your GPU dies your entire laptop is destroyed. Now, I have a AMD Gaming GPU on my replacement 17" Gaming Laptop which I even overclock the GPU and it hasn't died on me for the past several years. I have been AMD ever since then and I hadn't had any problems so far. I lost a LOT of money because of nVidia because 17" Gaming Laptops are expensive! I know some people who brought Alienware laptops with the same defective nVidia laptops and they got screwed worse than me because Alienware laptops are more expensive. So, I consider my self somewhat lucky. What's even worse nVidia decided to be a d!ck and didn't include my laptop maker when they did a recall for their defective GPUs. I tried contacting nVidia and they kept on denying and denying and were in a state of denial and got 0 compensation from nVidia despite losing my entire laptop because of them. But I have stayed away from nVidia so far and it's proven to be reliable for me. I have about 3 - 4 AMD GPUs and they all work fine so far.

I do agree with your that the Rage chips sucked hard especially the Rage Pro. Although the Rage 128 Pro/Ultra was somewhat good. It was until the Radeon series released in 2000 that ATI slowly tried to increase their quality. They really turned things around with the Radeon 9700 Pro released this month 12 years ago in 2002 and their Catalyst drivers that ATI came to parity with nVidia.

@Couth_ said:

Well it's a loss to all those poor people who are going to be suckered into buying crappy AMD PC's..

How? explain?

Avatar image for lostrib
#142 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Xtasy26: why do you keep bumping this thread?

Avatar image for Xtasy26
#143 Posted by Xtasy26 (5017 posts) -

@Oemenia said:

A drop in the ocean of how much Intel truly screwed over AMD.

Yeah I agree. Should have a $10 billion fine.

@Desmonic said:

Hopefully this (assuming it's final) + the recent success of their R9 GPU series + the money they'll get from the consoles over the course of the gen will be able to make AMD a real competitor in the CPU department (again) and expand even further their quality on the GPU market.

Hopefully that's what going to happen. They have been making progress in the money department. Actually turned a profit in the second half of last year and narrowed their losses in the first half of this year. Hopefully by then end of this year they will return to full year profitability for the first time in many years.

@04dcarraher said:

Back in 2009 over in Europe and Japan Intel was fined for trying to create a monopoly bribing and other schemes. The EU fined Intel 1.45 billion(finally),Korea fined Intel for 25 million, and Japan did the same, ordered Intel to stop certain sales practices. then later in 2009 Intel had to pay AMD 1.25 billion for a anti trust case from back in 2005 about cross -licensing patents . I remember a story in Germany a town beside one of AMD's plants, didnt have a single AMD based computer even though AMD had a plant near by because of what intel did with bribing.

Most of the shady intel schemes started in 2004-2006, when intel was losing to AMD's Athlon 64 and X2 cpu's performance and AMD was gaining some good ground for business. So intel started bribing big computer companies like Dell HP etc if you buy from us you will get a major discounts. Since all intel had was the Pentium 4's and D's.

And since intel had the majority of the market and the resources AMD couldnt out bid in getting those companies orders. Now starting in 2005 ish intel starting owning all patents relating to cpu tech which caused AMD to be stuck with current tech and or things they created from scratch. Because of this and intel's massive wallet were able to dump bucket loads of money into research to get back into the lead while causing AMD to trickle away. AMD's FX series was AMD's first fresh cpu architecture that was not related to their Athlon 64's aka "K8" since the patents were up.... their Phenom lines was a continuation of the old Athlon 64's.

While these fines show intel's "evil side" the problem is that AMD wont get this money from this fine. And intel's profits from this year's quarter can pay for it multiple times over its a drop in a bucket for them.

Thanks for the insight. Very well explained as to the background and the context of the case.

@papatrop said:

I do love my AMD processor.

Me too! AMD Phenom II Black Edition OC'ed to 3.4 Ghz FTW! :)

Avatar image for Xtasy26
#144 Posted by Xtasy26 (5017 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Xtasy26: why do you keep bumping this thread?

Need to respond bro. Not always on GS. :P

Avatar image for nusna_moebius
#145 Edited by NUSNA_Moebius (104 posts) -

As much as I want to congratulate AMD on winning their lawsuit, it's still AMD's fault they are in the hole they are in now. Buying ATi was not worth the $5 billion they paid. Betting their future on Fusion APUs cost them valuable research dollars, personnel, market share, revenue and their fabs.

Such irony when AMD's former head declared "real men have fabs."

AMD really better sink this cash into their new core and get it out on time.

As far as the FX-8350 beating Intels goes, it's likely the games being tested are SIMD/FPU dependent of which the higher clocked processor (AMD FXs generally) can win if the overall SIMD width is the same across both processors:

FX-8350 = 8x 128 bit SIMD (2x 128 bit FPUs per module)

i7-2xxx/3xxx = 4x 256 bit SIMD

Granted, AMD FXs use much more power, their single thread performance sucks and are hot. On a budget, I would consider one but I'd rather go Intel quadcore when I build a computer next. I'm pretty disappointed that AMD didn't produce a desktop quad-module Steamroller CPU to replace the old FX ones.

Avatar image for Xtasy26
#146 Posted by Xtasy26 (5017 posts) -

@nusna_moebius said:

As much as I want to congratulate AMD on winning their lawsuit, it's still AMD's fault they are in the hole they are in now. Buying ATi was not worth the $5 billion they paid. Betting their future on Fusion APUs cost them valuable research dollars, personnel, market share, revenue and their fabs.

Such irony when AMD's former head declared "real men have fabs."

AMD really better sink this cash into their new core and get it out on time.

As far as the FX-8350 beating Intels goes, it's likely the games being tested are SIMD/FPU dependent of which the higher clocked processor (AMD FXs generally) can win if the overall SIMD width is the same across both processors:

FX-8350 = 8x 128 bit SIMD (2x 128 bit FPUs per module)

i7-2xxx/3xxx = 4x 256 bit SIMD

Granted, AMD FXs use much more power, their single thread performance sucks and are hot. On a budget, I would consider one but I'd rather go Intel quadcore when I build a computer next. I'm pretty disappointed that AMD didn't produce a desktop quad-module Steamroller CPU to replace the old FX ones.

I agree with some of the things you stated. With respect to buying ATI that was definitely worth it because their GPU has been the only division that has consistently turned a profit and is competitive with nVidia. With the help of ATI, AMD was able to have APUs that trash intel's GPUs inside their Core i7/i3 etc. Without ATI, AMD wouldn't have the won the PS4 and Xbox One contract. With respect to the price, that could be debatable, it's not like they had much choice, when they tried to buy nVidia, nVidia's CEO wanted to become the CEO of AMD and that wasn't going to fly with their current CEO, plus nVidia would have cost much more. Personally, I think it should have been in the 3 billion dollar range, but given that AMD didn't have much option I guess they had to pay $5.4 billion. With respect to fabs, their founder and former head did say like you stated that "real men have fabs" and that was a mistake. There was an interesting article on ARS Technica which pretty summarizes and provides insight into what was going on at AMD over the last 14 years or so. Here is the link below (highly suggest for techies who follow the CPU/GPU industry to read it, very insightful):

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/

There was clash between AMD's lead CPU designer and their former head about keeping the fabs. They should have spun off their fabs much earlier. That's why Dirk Meyer, one of their later CEOs stated, "smart men have fabs" when he spun of their fabs and he was right. If they had done that earlier they wouldn't have had to bleed cash constantly upgrading their fabs to the new nodes. Intel could afford to do that because they have plenty of cash, AMD doesn't, that's why they should have gone fabless 10-12 years ago, if not earlier.

As for AMD's FX CPU's matching intel's high end CPU's in gaming, a lot has to do with the fact that at high resolutions the CPU becomes less dependent. That's why I am still able to run games FULL HD 1080P on my overclocked Phenom II Black Edition, the only games where it lags are due to me not having a newer GPU like the AMD R9 290. That's why my next CPU will also be AMD, why pay extra when it could match intel for the less price and you could use that extra cash to get a more powerful GPU.

Avatar image for nusna_moebius
#147 Edited by NUSNA_Moebius (104 posts) -

@Xtasy26: It's entirely likely that AMD never would've needed the PS4 and Xbone contracts had they didn't buy ATi years earlier. Their CPU division might've been in much better shape to counter the Core 2 Duo, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, etc, etc. They could've bought one of the other countless graphics engineering companies like Imagination Technologies before ARM bought them. With AMD's then resources, they could've funded the development of an on-die GPU or general purpose SIMD accelerator that APUs have failed to become since so few software developers cater to them. While on die IGPs have certainly become the norm,

I think it was AMD's acquisition of ATi and the announcement to go after Fusion that likely spurred Intel to do the same since they knew it could threaten their x86 leadership. So Intel has not only bested AMD in terms of CPU tech, but also IGP tech simply because their overall package better fits the kind of uses most consumers care about. That's what revenue, research, and market agility can do for you.

Avatar image for Peanutbutterz
#148 Posted by Peanutbutterz (215 posts) -

I don't really care about the goodwill of a company as far as purchasing computer parts from them; that's unless they're doing something really inhumane.

Avatar image for Kjranu
#149 Posted by Kjranu (1542 posts) -

If Intel CPUs were infinitely better then why did they feel the need to bribe? I think not letting the products speak for themselves tells us something about Intel.

Avatar image for Xtasy26
#150 Edited by Xtasy26 (5017 posts) -

@nusna_moebius said:

@Xtasy26: It's entirely likely that AMD never would've needed the PS4 and Xbone contracts had they didn't buy ATi years earlier. Their CPU division might've been in much better shape to counter the Core 2 Duo, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, etc, etc. They could've bought one of the other countless graphics engineering companies like Imagination Technologies before ARM bought them. With AMD's then resources, they could've funded the development of an on-die GPU or general purpose SIMD accelerator that APUs have failed to become since so few software developers cater to them. While on die IGPs have certainly become the norm,

I think it was AMD's acquisition of ATi and the announcement to go after Fusion that likely spurred Intel to do the same since they knew it could threaten their x86 leadership. So Intel has not only bested AMD in terms of CPU tech, but also IGP tech simply because their overall package better fits the kind of uses most consumers care about. That's what revenue, research, and market agility can do for you.

Intel's IGP tech sucks when compared to AMD. AMD A10 7850K APU with it's on-die graphics will mow down anything intel has going up to their $1000+ CPU's. With respect to their gaming AMD FX 8350 is going toe to toe with far more expensive offering from intel as showing in the above benchmarks like Sleeping Dog's at 1080P. Yes they could make improvements. That's why I am excited to see what AMD has now that Jim Keller is back at AMD:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2012/08/01/amd-poaches-jim-keller-from-apple2c-one-of-greatest-contemporary-cpu-architects/

He was the brains behind AMD legendary K8 architecture who brought us AMD Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2 and the original and legendary gaming Ahtlon 64 FX line of Gaming CPUs. Rumor has it they will come up with new AMD FX line of CPU's in 2016.

We will see what transpires in 2 years.

@Kjranu said:

If Intel CPUs were infinitely better then why did they feel the need to bribe? I think not letting the products speak for themselves tells us something about Intel.

Exactly!