Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
sticky

Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews - Page 4

Tags:
  • rumors
  • skylake
  • Intel
  • haswell
  • CPUs
  • broadwell
  • Systems
  • news
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 5:28:12 PM

It is economically unfeasible for Intel because the post $200 sells so well for them. I rarely ever get Intel sales below $200 but sell plenty i5''s and i7's a month.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
February 11, 2013 7:41:51 AM

Anonymous said:
not surprised some folk will complain about the
price . . what igpu comes with a FX-8350 for $210?

this not a part of 'why intel couples top igpu with top cpu' discussion ( useless hint - binning ofc, top bins get best of everything).
i have been considering this lately.
if one was to build an entry level number cruncher, fx8350's competition will win solely because of fx's lack of an igpu. worse if you're considering deploying office pcs (or an oem who's building those) and have to choose between fx and i5. second would be higher power cost which will add cost to mobo design/choice and psu, resulting in higher assembly cost and complexity for mass production. cooler cost/complexity would also add up.
btw, apus won't have this issue, especially the 65w ones.
may be there are ways to make the fx champion, i haven't figured those out yet.
February 11, 2013 7:48:02 AM

Neither has AMD. :D 
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2013 2:55:27 PM

sarinaide said:
It is economically unfeasible for Intel because the post $200 sells so well for them. I rarely ever get Intel sales below $200 but sell plenty i5''s and i7's a month.


OEMs purchase more cheaper parts, while custom builds more often use higher price points.
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2013 6:10:54 PM

de5_Roy said:
this not a part of 'why intel couples top igpu with top cpu' discussion ( useless hint - binning ofc, top bins get best of everything).
i have been considering this lately.
if one was to build an entry level number cruncher, fx8350's competition will win solely because of fx's lack of an igpu. worse if you're considering deploying office pcs (or an oem who's building those) and have to choose between fx and i5. second would be higher power cost which will add cost to mobo design/choice and psu, resulting in higher assembly cost and complexity for mass production. cooler cost/complexity would also add up.
btw, apus won't have this issue, especially the 65w ones.
may be there are ways to make the fx champion, i haven't figured those out yet.


FX was designed as an enthusiast part, general office use was never envisaged, graphics design, content creation, number crunching are all more accepted usages where either a lowly $40 GPU/output was needed or professional GPU's. The A-Series is more than copious for office and home usage.

Blandge said:
OEMs purchase more cheaper parts, while custom builds more often use higher price points.


We basically do custom PC so OEM's are not used but that is true, OEM's also use re brands, the fX8130 was initially a OEM, the HD8950 is basically a re badged HD7950 for OEM's as it stands based on GCN 1.0 southern islands arch all OEM.


February 12, 2013 7:16:14 AM

intels FinFET gave them a large advantage at one node shrink. I am not sure if GloFO and others can get similar power/perf increase simply by one shrink and not using FinFET.
February 12, 2013 7:18:45 AM

off topic :

How are the sales and user reviews of Nexus10 ? when its specs were released, i thought it would set the world on fire. But since then, teh interwebz has been pretty silent over it.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2013 3:36:00 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This looks interesting, I wonder if Intels power/perf is better?
http://techreport.com/review/24343/ibm-globalfoundries-...



From Semiaccurate
Quote:
All of the 32nm, 28nm, and 20nm processes have been announced previously, although a few suffixes have been added. The 20nm process is about what you expected, the next step in planar transistors shrunk to 20nm. There are no FinFETs like Intel is using at 22nm, but GloFo and the CP partners are moving to gate last this time around. This entire process is pretty evolutionary.

That changes quite a bit on the 14XM process, it is most definitely not evolutionary on the transistor front but the rest is. Because of the way the last one was announced, we didn’t bother to write it up at the time but it is worth looking at. Unlike what the name implies, 14XM is not really a full shrink of the 20LPM node to 14nm, it is only half way there. 14XM uses the middle and back end of line (MEOL and BEOL) from the 20nm node couples to the new 14nm FinFETs.

Global Foundries says this effective reuse of the entirety of the non-transistor bits of 20LPM will pull in 14XM, lower cost presumably through the reuse of existing equipment, and lower customer design costs because most of the software for 20nm just carries over.


Here's a quote from Idontcare over at Anandtech

Quote:
Extremely far apart. Just as AMD and IBM were completely caught off-guard by Intel's aggressive development and adoption of HKMG into production at 45nm, they were even more caught off-guard by the development and adoption of FinFet into production at 22nm.

So what you saw, and continue to see, is IBM and GloFo operating in crisis mode, rushing under-developed process technologies through the R&D pipeline and making ill-advised tradeoffs in the process (bad 32nm dielectric decisions, gate first decision, 28nm disaster, etc).

And they are continuing that tradition with Finfet and 14nm...rushing an underperforming FinFet product (it can only manage enough Idrive to power mobile devices without burning itself up, if they try and power it with enough current and voltage to hit GHz speeds needed for CPUs and GPUs then it dies very quickly) to market for 20nm but re-labeling it a 14nm-XM product because they can't figure out how to rush the 14nm BEOL (metal wiring) to market at the same time.

The gap between Intel and GloFo continues to grow, we see it in their limited release of Finfet for 14nm (mobile only, not high performance) and the lack of scaling in the BEOL. GloFo's 14nm-XM customers will be ill-equipped to field cost or performance competitive parts if those customers are competing with Intel or high-performance customers of TSMC.

Even though TSMC is doing the same shenanigans with the BEOL not shrinking to 16nm, at least they have do intend to field finfet transistors that are robust enough to function (and survive) in the higher voltage and current environment that comes with the MPU version of their 16nm node.

It is difficult to see a silver lining in GloFo's looming dark clouds TBH. Their technology roadmap is not competitive even if they manage to pull it off without delays the likes of which 32nm and 28nm have experienced
February 12, 2013 6:00:16 PM

If true, this explains a few things
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2013 6:05:58 PM

Well, there's no arguing that Intel has top notch Fab capabilities.

There's no doubt about it. On a given node, saying GF or TSMC have 3/4's of Intel's ramping is being generous IMO.

But one thing that got my attention. Why 28nm could be "disastrous"? To me, that node has been good so far; a bit too solicited, but with good ramp numbers... AMD, Qualcomm and another big one had good 28nm production from the start IIRC. I could be wrong on that last part though.

Cheers!
February 12, 2013 6:23:56 PM

He may be referring to x86 cpus only
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2013 7:20:27 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
He may be referring to x86 cpus only


And what would those be?

Trinity? That's 32nm... Kaveri?

And Qualcomm has been creating 28nm Kraits from quite some time now, AFAIK.

Cheers!
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2013 7:29:07 PM

Yuka said:
Well, there's no arguing that Intel has top notch Fab capabilities.

There's no doubt about it. On a given node, saying GF or TSMC have 3/4's of Intel's ramping is being generous IMO.

But one thing that got my attention. Why 28nm could be "disastrous"? To me, that node has been good so far; a bit too solicited, but with good ramp numbers... AMD, Qualcomm and another big one had good 28nm production from the start IIRC. I could be wrong on that last part though.

Cheers!


Disastrous for Glofo because their 28nm process was delayed so long. They failed to ramp quickly enough to earn a significant amount of design wins and lost all of the wafer mark-up from having a leading edge process.
February 12, 2013 7:32:23 PM

Yea, I meant 28nm only
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2013 7:44:28 PM

Yuka said:
And what would those be?

Trinity? That's 32nm... Kaveri?

And Qualcomm has been creating 28nm Kraits from quite some time now, AFAIK.

Cheers!


He's refering to GloFo (and IBM) only, because they lost out to TSMC.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2013 7:46:10 PM

GF had 28nm? Really?

Has anything came out from that mess? hahaha

Cheers!
February 13, 2013 12:54:33 AM

the initial phase of 28nm was quite slow. Remember the rare GTX680 and HD7970 after their launch.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
February 13, 2013 5:51:08 AM

Yuka said:
GF had 28nm? Really?

Has anything came out from that mess? hahaha

Cheers!

their recently published roadmap says so. i didn't quite understand the acronyms but it looked like their 28nm process is the one for low power socs, not the one for high performance cpus. i could be wrong about this.
tsmc's process is not optimized for high performance cpus either, afaik. their 28nm process has options for low power socs, ulp socs and gpus... i think.
February 13, 2013 6:46:10 AM

TSMC uses the 28nm for big-ass desktop GPU's. why not for high frequency CPU's ?
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2013 6:33:06 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
TSMC uses the 28nm for big-ass desktop GPU's. why not for high frequency CPU's ?


And those GPUs run at around 1Ghz.
That is a far cry from the ~4Ghz desktop CPUs.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 5:23:41 PM

Cazalan said:
And those GPUs run at around 1Ghz.
That is a far cry from the ~4Ghz desktop CPUs.


But GPU's have hundreds of cores; thats a far cry from the four most CPU's have.

Totally different architectures: Big cores versus many small cores. They excel in different types of tasks.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:36:04 PM

gamerk316 said:
But GPU's have hundreds of cores; thats a far cry from the four most CPU's have.

Totally different architectures: Big cores versus many small cores. They excel in different types of tasks.


Yes but the 3-4 GHz range requires high performance VLSI design tools and fabrication process, while ~1GHz requires a completely different process and potentially bulk design methodology. A highly complex chip like a 2000 shader GPU running at a mere 1GHz may not require a high performance process.

Granted I don't work for TSMC, NVidia or AMD, so I can't say with any amount of certainty.
February 16, 2013 7:06:06 PM

sarinaide said:
Its not good is one of the lines of work is retail, we have basically been left with excess intel i3's and lower end i5's including sandybridge because nothing bellow the $200 mark for Intel sells well. We can sell a fortune on 3570k and 3770k.


Intel's CPU line up is very strange to me.

The only CPU below $200 I would ever consider would be a something like a Pentium G2020 which I can get for $59, so I could make a useful cheap 2nd computer with it, and rather than buy $130 i3's, I would just rather get the i5 3570K for $230, and have an absolute CPU powerhouse at my disposal.

Nothing else in their line up between those two processors, or even the Celerons for $45, makes any sense at all to me.
February 19, 2013 8:24:18 PM

Chad Boga said:
Intel's CPU line up is very strange to me.

The only CPU below $200 I would ever consider would be a something like a Pentium G2020 which I can get for $59, so I could make a useful cheap 2nd computer with it, and rather than buy $130 i3's, I would just rather get the i5 3570K for $230, and have an absolute CPU powerhouse at my disposal.

Nothing else in their line up between those two processors, or even the Celerons for $45, makes any sense at all to me.

I'm sure those in-between sku's are most often gobbled up by OEM's rather than directly by end customers. They are likely getting bulk purchase discounts on certain chips, and probably trying to hit more specific thermal /power/feature requirements than the average joe cares about.

The majority of end customers who buy silicon directly are going to be focused on 3-4 sku's at most.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
February 21, 2013 3:49:13 AM

in 2011, pentiums were amusing little cpus that embarrasses powerful(!) amd cpus in gaming. in 2013, those are just annoying. won't stop intel from releasing them again, though. :( 
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30508-pentium-haswell...$64
March 2, 2013 12:58:36 PM

This news isnt much exciting, really.
The pre-release of Z77 boards was more interesting because we had SB procs to put in them and see if the platform has improved performance. Also, it had the latest Virtu software thingy.

The only slightly exciting thing is that we can see how much the VRM is left on the board.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
March 2, 2013 1:08:10 PM

i was hoping for problems like gradually degrading dvi port that sends signals like 'the ring' video and creeps out users, or any flash video plays like harlem shake.
it'll stay slow until intel lifts ndas....
March 4, 2013 2:33:37 PM

de5_Roy said:
Mainboards for Intel Core i “Haswell” Are Ready: Asrock Set to Demo Intel 8-Series Platforms Next Week.
Asrock to Show Off LGA1150 Mainboards for Intel “Haswell” Processors at CeBIT Trade-Show
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/2013030...

As someone waiting to build a new computer after Haswell is released, I can say this is the most exciting Haswell news I have read in WEEKS!
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2013 8:00:40 AM

de5_Roy said:
Mainboards for Intel Core i “Haswell” Are Ready: Asrock Set to Demo Intel 8-Series Platforms Next Week.
Asrock to Show Off LGA1150 Mainboards for Intel “Haswell” Processors at CeBIT Trade-Show
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/2013030...

Report: Intel Having USB 3.0 Problems with Haswell
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Haswell-USB-3.0-S3-Sle...


Becoming proficient at expensive side grades. You kind of know something is wrong when testers with ES samples are talking more about Ivybridge-E rather than Haswell. What I really don't get here is that Broadwell represents another die shrink to 14nm, which existing Socket 1155 cannot support, Haswell should really have been the final architecture for socket 1155.

Well see the intel fans really hate the iGPU discussion, some still harboring thoughts of it matching AMD's if not beating it. Well sadly doubling up doesn't equate to doubling performance. Word out is 25% faster than HD4000 which is not much to write about if a gaming iGPU is in question. It makes more sense in mobility where AMD and Nvidia options are very watered down.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
March 5, 2013 8:49:19 AM

sarinaide said:
Becoming proficient at expensive side grades. You kind of know something is wrong when testers with ES samples are talking more about Ivybridge-E rather than Haswell. What I really don't get here is that Broadwell represents another die shrink to 14nm, which existing Socket 1155 cannot support, Haswell should really have been the final architecture for socket 1155.

you seem to be quite misinformed about haswell.
haswell will support new lga1150 socket, not lga 1155. lga1155 has been dead since ivy bridge came out.
intel is aiming two main things with haswell -
higher performance per watt, to push for more aggressive mobile designs.
further integration of system components.
sarinaide said:

Well see the intel fans really hate the iGPU discussion, some still harboring thoughts of it matching AMD's if not beating it. Well sadly doubling up doesn't equate to doubling performance. Word out is 25% faster than HD4000 which is not much to write about if a gaming iGPU is in question. It makes more sense in mobility where AMD and Nvidia options are very watered down.

anyone using intel knows first hand about crappy igpu.
top hd5200 igpu won't be 25% faster than hd4000. it's a different number. and the igpu won't be for gaming.
amd and nvidia's mobile options are not 'very watered' down.
amd has much worse drivers for mobile than they do for desktops. nvidia has better drivers but their sku-ing is very, very convoluted.

a b à CPUs
March 5, 2013 10:07:10 AM

de5_Roy said:
you seem to be quite misinformed about haswell.
haswell will support new lga1150 socket, not lga 1155. lga1155 has been dead since ivy bridge came out.
intel is aiming two main things with haswell -
higher performance per watt, to push for more aggressive mobile designs.
further integration of system components.


I never said it was socket 1155 I said why couldn't haswell operate of the Z77 1155 platform instead of opt for a socket change now. Intel have had 3 chipset changes in three releases with a socket change, that is not stability at all. Yet people have the gal to whine about AMD jumping to FM2 out of necessity, other than that the existing SB950 can run Vishera down to Athlon thats stable enough I thinks.

You get this feeling that everytime Intel release a CPU, to get the best you need to spend a lot on full upgrades to your system.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
March 5, 2013 10:33:33 AM

sarinaide said:
I never said it was socket 1155 I said why couldn't haswell operate of the Z77 1155 platform instead of opt for a socket change now. Intel have had 3 chipset changes in three releases with a socket change, that is not stability at all. Yet people have the gal to whine about AMD jumping to FM2 out of necessity, other than that the existing SB950 can run Vishera down to Athlon thats stable enough I thinks.

You get this feeling that everytime Intel release a CPU, to get the best you need to spend a lot on full upgrades to your system.

intel reasoning is far simpler than amd's - moar moniez. although if you dig deeper, you might find intel's 'technical' explanation for socket changes. :)  afaik, from c2q to nehalem it was because of integration of pcie controller and new imc, from nehalem to sb it was because of better/more integrated igpu, imc etc and so on. amd introduced a new socket fm1(and subsequently, fm2) when they integrated pcie controller and a gpu in the apu. they theoretically could have integrated the igpu while keeping the northbridge stuff decoupled from the apu, and coulda launched a new chipset (instead of a new socket/platform) with display outputs.
nowadays, subsequent platform releases are always sidegrades instead of upgrades. there was no significant reason for typical amd users to upgrade from phenom ii to bulldozer, the same as (intel) c2q to first gen quad core 'core' cpus or 1st gen core to sandy/ivy bridge. by the time sb/ivb becomes noticeably slower in general usage (or in gaming) there will be new and incompatible platforms which will warrant new parts instead of upgrades. meanwhile upgrading is more frequent on amd side because it's readily available and amd cpus tend to be slower (e.g. athlon ii x2/x3 to fx6300 or phenom ii to core i5 2500k/3570k), making upgrades more significant.
March 5, 2013 4:10:34 PM

Socket changes are not for 'more monies', it's for new features and to have the most optimal pinouts for accommodating those new features.

Intel makes their money on CPU's, not chipsets. It would be in their interest to maintain sockets if having to abide by a previous socket didn't hold back their new CPU, since users would find it easier to buy a new CPU sooner.
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2013 7:59:46 PM

ph1sh55 said:
Socket changes are not for 'more monies', it's for new features and to have the most optimal pinouts for accommodating those new features.

Intel makes their money on CPU's, not chipsets. It would be in their interest to maintain sockets if having to abide by a previous socket didn't hold back their new CPU, since users would find it easier to buy a new CPU sooner.


Nope, the first rule of every business out there is "because more moniez", and Intel is not the exception of that rule... At all.

Added features and all that are a result of answering this simple question: "what is going to give us more money?".

Nothing wrong in that, but never ever assume companies do it because they care about you. They care about the greenies in your pocket, that's for sure :p 

Cheers!
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2013 8:14:52 PM

Yuka said:
Nope, the first rule of every business out there is "because more moniez", and Intel is not the exception of that rule... At all.

Added features and all that are a result of answering this simple question: "what is going to give us more money?".

Nothing wrong in that, but never ever assume companies do it because they care about you. They care about the greenies in your pocket, that's for sure :p 

Cheers!


+1

The only thing it's about is the money... the days of Shockley it was about the technology now it's about milking the cow and not so much about the tech even though it's the effect and the share holders have a lot to do with it.
March 6, 2013 12:07:36 AM

^ yeah. and fcuk the tens of billions of dollars Intel spent on going from 22nm to 14nm , planar to 3d, and creating a new architecture, and other misc R&D.
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
March 6, 2013 2:22:18 AM

those tens of billions of dollars came from customers who paid for and bought the stuff intel advertised, and the resulting new architecture and new nodes will bring in even moar moniez from customers when they get up and running. the cycle continues.

motherboards for yet-to-be-launched cpu seem boring, but this may not be the case with haswell motherboards.

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30657-msi-showcases-z...
http://www.techpowerup.com/181027/BIOSTAR-Unveils-a-Tri...
http://www.techpowerup.com/181026/First-ASRock-Socket-L...
intel seems to have an nda over haswell data, yet biostar's mobo has lga1150 printed on the pcb. :D  all the mobos have vrm.

Why Moore's Law, not mobility, is killing the PC
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030005/why-moores-law-n...


a b à CPUs
March 6, 2013 8:15:18 AM

It is most certainly about money and clever or manipulating common sense markets into buying new chipsets to make money off them. Performance wise IB is SB with a new name and number identification. Performance wise, slap a IB on a Z68 and you get similar performance to regard 2% a upgrade is almost laughable. The cheaptrick here is Intel couldn't give performance so they manipulated "features" because a SB is unable to use PCIe 3.0, DDR3 speeds above 2133 and a few others through synthetic benchmarketing created the illusion it was better to jump to 70 chipsets and buy a IB processor to boot, but hid it further telling people there SB's will work just not with all the new bells and whistles.

They have spun the wool again this time persuading the buyers to jump to a new socket for a CPU which very easily could have still used the existing 1155 socket probably to make back the billions spent on a fuddy duddy iGPU.

I liken intel to that firebrand closer brought in the bottom of the nineth with sacks full, sure he has the 100mph heater which sits a lot of hitters down, but every now and then the match up is wrong and he is throwing to the clean up who is waiting on that heater knowing its all he has got. It was intel making the claim that the desktop industry is dying, that is further from the truth, what is dying is the idea think tank. the solution so far is lower power, any power desktop user is hardly fretting about a CPU that consumes less than 10% of their systems draw and overclocking... well gee wiz like 4.5ghz is not enough for the psuedo overclocker who cling to the notion that smaller die, less power equates to higher clocks.
March 6, 2013 10:30:54 AM

sarinaide said:
It is most certainly about money and clever or manipulating common sense markets into buying new chipsets to make money off them. Performance wise IB is SB with a new name and number identification. Performance wise, slap a IB on a Z68 and you get similar performance to regard 2% a upgrade is almost laughable. The cheaptrick here is Intel couldn't give performance so they manipulated "features" because a SB is unable to use PCIe 3.0, DDR3 speeds above 2133 and a few others through synthetic benchmarketing created the illusion it was better to jump to 70 chipsets and buy a IB processor to boot, but hid it further telling people there SB's will work just not with all the new bells and whistles. They have spun the wool again this time persuading the buyers to jump to a new socket for a CPU which very easily could have still used the existing 1155 socket probably to make back the billions spent on a fuddy duddy iGPU.


I'd say Intel are pretty good businessmen. That, and lack of competition kills the consumers.

Quote:
I liken intel to that firebrand closer brought in the bottom of the nineth with sacks full, sure he has the 100mph heater which sits a lot of hitters down, but every now and then the match up is wrong and he is throwing to the clean up who is waiting on that heater knowing its all he has got. It was intel making the claim that the desktop industry is dying, that is further from the truth, what is dying is the idea think tank. the solution so far is lower power, any power desktop user is hardly fretting about a CPU that consumes less than 10% of their systems draw and overclocking... well gee wiz like 4.5ghz is not enough for the psuedo overclocker who cling to the notion that smaller die, less power equates to higher clocks


I think that if Intel decides for only one generation that they are going to increase performance, no matter the TDP , then the PC industry will get a big boost.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2013 11:20:58 AM

Essentially 3 generations, 3 chipset changes and 1 socket change. It is not lack of competition, there is plenty competition, hell it even prompted Intel to cry foul and proclaim the end of desktop in a fabulous dramatis personae. This lack of competition sounds like something Toms and Anandtech cook up to get hits.

The i5 3570/2500 represent Intels watershed of value, anything below is consumed by its competitors and a 3770k is only feasible if heavy threading is optional. The extreme range is about as pointless as life orientation classes aimed at psuedo tech extremists with rich fathers, as a server setup of workbench it is horribly outclassed by similar price point and purpose build Xeons, kind of a ficticious market with absolutely no value, this is made worse by the 3770K actually beating the 3970X a bit embarrasing. The reason is simple, intels value in the sub $200 is eroding, soon the competition will erode into the $300 market with more diverse and value orientated platforms. Then there is the iGPU war if there ever was one, it is for all intents and purposes over.

I just think Intel are a little out of ideas, SB represented a monumental jump over nahelem, 12% IPC gains a 30% faster IMC and overall around 15% faster across the board. A 2500k was able to run my i7 980x and beat it, that is impressive. Since sandy though IB and Haswell are basically side grades with no performance benefits to warrent so many platform changes. Intel are not exactly moving the goal posts like some want to believe, Haswell is at best 5-7% faster than SB even the IMC is only 5% faster than IB's which is no great shanks at all, this while the competition is improving even though some will try not to believe that.
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2013 1:00:05 PM

Quote:
those tens of billions of dollars came from customers who paid for and bought the stuff intel advertised, and the resulting new architecture and new nodes will bring in even moar moniez from customers when they get up and running. the cycle continues.


People's delusion saying that Intel is not about the money make it sound like they're a charity... as if the $$ invested is coming from the upper echelons pockets. If people quit buying their product, do people actually think they will go on with manufacturing just for the sake of "advancement"? Truth is, if the stock collapses, Intel will do like any other cash cow - close doors and layoff workers. In the end, it's about green backs and not about helping your next door neighbor.

What's so hard to understand about a "for profit" business?
March 6, 2013 2:38:15 PM

RussK1 said:
Quote:
What's so hard to understand about a "for profit" business?
Quote:


+100

And someone from the AMD thread should understand this too.

There is a disturbing trend to portray AMD as a "non- profit organisation", working for "advancement of the computer industry with harmony of all other companies" , and Intel as the "capitalist bastards, purposely fleecing customers to get money, not supporting the competitors hardware"..
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2013 3:37:30 PM

mayankleoboy1 said:
+100

And someone from the AMD thread should understand this too.

There is a disturbing trend to portray AMD as a "non- profit organisation", working for "advancement of the computer industry with harmony of all other companies" , and Intel as the "capitalist bastards, purposely fleecing customers to get money, not supporting the competitors hardware"..


AMD is no different, but if you trick the gullible that your some altruistic company people will herd to you to fill your coffers. Politicians are no different and use the same scheme. Everyone likes the good guy!
a b å Intel
a c 84 à CPUs
March 6, 2013 3:58:34 PM

intel, amd, nvidia, arm, samsung, via, apple, sony, nintendo, microsoft, google, ouya, oculus (oculus rift) etc. - all businesses, all want our moniez and will stop at nothing to get them.
just because one company gets screwed over more often than the other ones does not mean one is less greedy than the other. none of these are benevolent, enthusiastic, organizations that encourage technological and scientific innovation for the benefit of mankind. that's just an incidental side-effect of making profit.
some brands will take personal approach, so that you feel closer to them, some try to make themselves weak as a wet little kitten so that you pay them (by teh loadz) to keep 'em warm and live. some brands will appear strong and high performing so that you will want to own the high performance hardware (by paying moar). some brand will build cult followings and feed on brand loyalty.
brands being weaker/stronger/bigger/smaller doesn't mean much to us end users. sometimes it's the underdog who takes the more devious way, the customers don't know they 'lost' until they've already paid for stuff. sometimes the top dogs successfully fend off competition by any(un/lawful) means and appear like powerful d-bags. sometimes it's more than one approach, mix and match etc. at the end of all these is just one thing, moniez. they're just businesses that want to make profit, lots of profit. even when they can't make profits, they keep trying. using any means. :)  :sol:  :whistle: 
    • First
    • Previous
    • 4 / 10
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4 / 10
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
      • 8
      • 9
      • 10
!