3 ms·

Yeah I've never understood the attitude of wanting someone like Intel to fail. If they start pushing back with strong performing CPUs it will only increase com

Yeah I've never understood the attitude of wanting someone like Intel to fail. If they start pushing back with strong performing CPUs it will only increase competition and help push Apple and AMD even further. Not sure why people think an AMD monopoly would be any better than the intel we've seen over the past 5 years. If they lose their main competitor they'd take their foot off the gas on performance / process improvements & start to focus more and more on the bottom line alone, it's just natural.

dijit 6y ago
> Yeah I've never understood the attitude of wanting someone like Intel to fail. I can give a pretty clear reason: they deserve to. They committed two cardinal sins and one that pisses me off personally: 1) Using their monopoly position to crush competition, over and over and over. Using shady business practices and their enormous wealth to kludge any person who could even attempt to compete. Examples include: Cyrix, the 80386 branding (IE, trademarking "Pentium" so that they could force processor companies to be unable to claim "Pentium-compatible" after failing to trademark their CPU model numbers), crippling their compiler on AMD platforms (checking CPU version strings to enable CPU acceleration for things like AVX instead of checking CPUID like it should) and even going so far as to set embargos on their new CPUs until the day of large competitor product announcemnets to drown out the news or make the new products seem potentially uncompetitive and that consumers should wait for intel (more info here; https://www.overclock.net/threads/intel%E2%80%99s-behavior-is-pathetic-%E2%80%93-core-i9-10980xe-review.1737224/ https://www.overclock.net/threads/intel%E2%80%99s-behavior-i... ) Hell, they even changed the way they market TDP to be the "average" not the max load. 2) Resting on their laurals. CPUs have stagnated in the desktop/laptop market for 10 years, meanwhile phones have caught up and even in some cases exceeded the performance of desktop/laptop CPUs, to the point where people are looking at Apples M1 as a revolution. 3) Aggressively segmenting the market, steering it towards bad ideas. 16 PCI lanes and lack of ECC memory are just a few things that are terrible about intel CPUs in the consumer market. Those are not enthusiast requirements, those benefit everyone.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I absolutely agree with that. They do deserve to fail, but I don't want them to. I want them to throw resource at developing cutting edge CPU tech.
anovikov 6y ago
For me it's easier: what was the last time they built a CPU that was worth looking to buy a device that had it? Not in the last 15 years (ok first Core Duo was that thing, but it was so many years ago). I really gave up hoping to see them pleasantly surprise ever again.

dijit 6y ago

> Yeah I've never understood the attitude of wanting someone like Intel to fail. I can give a pretty clear reason: they deserve to. They committed two cardinal sins and one that pisses me off personally: 1) Using their monopoly position to crush competition, over and over and over. Using shady business practices and their enormous wealth to kludge any person who could even attempt to compete. Examples include: Cyrix, the 80386 branding (IE, trademarking "Pentium" so that they could force processor companies to be unable to claim "Pentium-compatible" after failing to trademark their CPU model numbers), crippling their compiler on AMD platforms (checking CPU version strings to enable CPU acceleration for things like AVX instead of checking CPUID like it should) and even going so far as to set embargos on their new CPUs until the day of large competitor product announcemnets to drown out the news or make the new products seem potentially uncompetitive and that consumers should wait for intel (more info here; https://www.overclock.net/threads/intel%E2%80%99s-behavior-is-pathetic-%E2%80%93-core-i9-10980xe-review.1737224/ https://www.overclock.net/threads/intel%E2%80%99s-behavior-i... ) Hell, they even changed the way they market TDP to be the "average" not the max load. 2) Resting on their laurals. CPUs have stagnated in the desktop/laptop market for 10 years, meanwhile phones have caught up and even in some cases exceeded the performance of desktop/laptop CPUs, to the point where people are looking at Apples M1 as a revolution. 3) Aggressively segmenting the market, steering it towards bad ideas. 16 PCI lanes and lack of ECC memory are just a few things that are terrible about intel CPUs in the consumer market. Those are not enthusiast requirements, those benefit everyone.

breakfastduck 6y ago
I absolutely agree with that. They do deserve to fail, but I don't want them to. I want them to throw resource at developing cutting edge CPU tech.

anovikov 6y ago

For me it's easier: what was the last time they built a CPU that was worth looking to buy a device that had it? Not in the last 15 years (ok first Core Duo was that thing, but it was so many years ago). I really gave up hoping to see them pleasantly surprise ever again.