Nvidia Threatens to Become A Monopoly

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphi...ics-cards/
Based on the findings of JPR, the only analysts I trust.

Back in October, 2014, AMD announced that it would reduce spending on sales, marketing, administrative and other structures built around its computing and graphics products business unit. The company reduced the headcount of its CG group’s personnel by 700 employees. To make the matters worse, AMD’s declining revenues mean that the company has to cut its spending on sales and marketing. Consequently, there is nothing new to sell because AMD does not introduce new products, besides, the company’s abilities to sell are getting lower too.

In the recent months popularity of Nvidia GeForce products among end-users got a lot higher thanks to graphics cards like the GeForce GTX 970 and 980 as well as due to some other reasons. As a result, a number of graphics cards makers changed their shipments proportions in favour of Nvidia GeForce solutions.

According to Jon Peddie Research, total available market of desktop discrete graphics cards in Q3 2014 was 12.4 million units. Nvidia’s market share increased 9.5 per cent to 71.5 per cent, whereas AMD’s share declined to 28.4 per cent, JPR reports. It is likely that in the Q4 2014 Nvidia’s share increased further.

DigiTimes reports that manufacturers of graphics boards are worried that the market could gradually lean toward Nvidia. If Nvidia controls a dominating market share of the market, it will force them to buy more from Nvidia, and they will lose ability to negotiate GPU prices. As a consequence, prices of graphics cards could go up, which will further reduce demand for discrete graphics adapters.

[RolloTheGreat]

People fear this for no reason.

intel has a virtual monopoly in CPUs, does anyone seriously think AMD competition is what makes them sell 4790Ks for $300?

intel and Nvidia are pretty big companies. They HAVE to price parts at a price people will pay, and release them in a timely fashion, or people won't buy. intel and Nvidia have to wring "$X" out of consumers every year to provide profit and growth to the shareholders.

With alternate technologies emerging and cutting in to the desktop market, you can bet the LAST thing on Nvidia and intel's mind if AMD closes shop is "Woot! Now everything costs over $1000!".

Was a different market when intel was gouging, personal pcs were a burgeoning craze. Too many alternative technologies, and pc tech is not the current fashion.

[SteelCrysis]

Exactly. There's no motivation to price gouge. I'm still worried about the negative effects of monopoly, just not in price gouging. People love to forget about AMD's $750 and $1000 CPUs back in the day.

[RolloTheGreat]

Exactly.  There's no motivation to price gouge.  I'm still worried about the negative effects of monopoly, just not in price gouging.  People love to forget about AMD's $750 and $1000 CPUs back in the day.

There are plenty of reasons to gouge, but luckily for us need to keep up a cash flow will stop it from happening.

PC market is already shrinking, it's not time to gouge.

[RolloTheGreat]

I don't see AMD as "incompetent". They make the second best CPUs and GPUs on the planet, which is no small feat.

Unfortunately for them, people don't have much reason to buy second best in these markets unless the price is lower, and AMD is already making low margins.

Nonetheless, being second best at this is still pretty amazing. What those guys produce makes what the rest of us do look like flipping burgers.

[SteelCrysis]

I still wish Intel and PowerVR would get into the desktop GPU space. It would be nice to have more competition.

[RolloTheGreat]

I still wish Intel and PowerVR would get into the desktop GPU space.  It would be nice to have more competition.

You and me both.

Used to be a big deal in my hobby world to get the annual video card issue of Computer Gaming World.

Things were a lot more interesting in the gaming hardware world when a person could pick between AMD, Cyrix, NexGen and intel for a CPU, and NVIDIA, ATi, PowerVR, Rendition, S3, Matrox, and 3dfx for GPUs.

These days you wait for NVIDIA or intel to launch a product, and hope AMD comes up with something reasonable.

[BjorgenFjords]

It's not like the Parhelia days anymore is it...

[RolloTheGreat]

It's not like the Parhelia days anymore is it...

I haven't heard that name in a looong time, but check out how the Mystique rocks Turok:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/181/5

[Picao84]

Exactly. There's no motivation to price gouge. I'm still worried about the negative effects of monopoly, just not in price gouging. People love to forget about AMD's $750 and $1000 CPUs back in the day.

That is not necessarily true. Although they would not say, price a GM204 type GTX980 chip at $1000, the price would surely not stay at $500. We have already seen that on GT200 days, when it was released at $650, without a huge improvement over G80 to justify the much higher price tag. Only AMD's release of Radeon 4870 brought the price down to normal. That shows that there would definitely be a price gouge, just not an extreme one. But any dollar lost by the consumer under a monopoly situation should be seen as bad situation, irrespective of how much. Another effect from nVIDIA having a monopoly would be slower gains with each generation. Especially considering that they have a huge power over the PC Gaming Market with tools like GameWorks, they would have all the liberty in the world to dictate how PC gaming should evolve making it harder and harder for new comers to enter the market. nVIDIA having a monopoly is end game for PC gaming market and that should make all of us worried, whether we are nVIDIA fans or not.

Do not commit the mistake of seeing either nVIDIA or AMD as good/bad guys. They are money making businesses driven by shareholders who assess the business success not from technological POV (most of them probably do not even understand how computers work) but from the money it brings in. That was in fact what brought AMD down after K8 success. Instead of pushing the R&D envelope further, they opted to cash out. Under a monopoly situation, do not have any doubt that nVIDIA shareholders will do the same or worse.

Off-topic: The security question on the new forum registration process is very american based. I had to research who the hell the guy is and what show does he host to be able to answer. I do not think it would be hard for a bot to answer either. After all we already have Google Now/Siri/Cortana for who that is a piece of cake.

[RolloTheGreat]

You mean the Mystaque....

and seriously people bitch about nvidia and ATi being expensive at the highend.  Matrox had ridiculous prices for their cards across the board.

I think the Matrox M3D was $100..

In any case, AMD is really falling off the map lately. I guess those who thought the console contracts would save them overestimated the revenue stream from those parts, or underestimated how much revenue AMD needs.

I may have mentioned these things in days gone by...

[RolloTheGreat]

I think the Matrox M3D was $100..

The g400 and Parhelia were very expensive though.  They were the only Matrox 3D accelerators worth getting excited about.  The M3D wasn't even a matrox designed chip, it was some variant of a nasty old Videologic PCX2 chip.  Total junk.

I guess those who thought the console contracts would save them overestimated the revenue stream from those parts, or underestimated how much revenue AMD needs.

Probably both at once given how brainless your average FanATic is!  

Hey some thought the M3d was the shape of things to come with it's tile based rendering, too bad the stuff it rendered had cracks in it.

[SickBeast]

Exactly.  There's no motivation to price gouge.  I'm still worried about the negative effects of monopoly, just not in price gouging.  People love to forget about AMD's $750 and $1000 CPUs back in the day.

I really fear for the future of this forum if you guys are allowed to post nonsense like this without recourse. OF COURSE a monopoly will raise prices and stagnate innovation! Look at what has happened with Intel. They shut down overclocking on all but their most expensive chips (the G3258 was an anomaly). They have also failed to innovate since Sandy Bridge to the point that the A8X CPU in the Ipad Air 2 is as powerful as a mobile i5.

If nVidia does get a monopoly we are all screwed. If you think innovation is slow now just wait until AMD dies.

I don't understand both you and Rollo with your nonsense.

[RolloTheGreat]

Exactly.  There's no motivation to price gouge.  I'm still worried about the negative effects of monopoly, just not in price gouging.  People love to forget about AMD's $750 and $1000 CPUs back in the day.

I really fear for the future of this forum if you guys are allowed to post nonsense like this without recourse.  OF COURSE a monopoly will raise prices and stagnate innovation!   Look at what has happened with Intel.  They shut down overclocking  on all but their most expensive chips (the G3258 was an anomaly).  They have also failed to innovate since Sandy Bridge to the point that the A8X CPU in the Ipad Air 2 is as powerful as a mobile i5.

If nVidia does get a monopoly we are all screwed.  If you think innovation is slow now just wait until AMD dies.

I don't understand both you and Rollo with your nonsense.

You don't understand because you don't work in the business world, but the logic of it should be intuitive.

NVIDIA exists to provide shareholders with profit, not to give you faster video cards on what you deem a reasonable schedule.

So while they could indeed slow the release of new tech, and it may well be in their best interest to do so in times of zero competition, they can't just keep re-releasing the same stuff. (or even close to it)

They HAVE to give people a reason to buy at a price they will pay. For those of us who don't overclock, the cards don't wear out. So people don't really have any reason to buy new ones if there is no performance bump, and there isn't a big enough market of new buyers to feed the Nv beast.

Their business model is built on people buying a new card every 2 years.

You apparently are laboring under the commonly held delusion that competition somehow drives innovation and overrides supply and demand.

[Picao84]

Exactly.  There's no motivation to price gouge.  I'm still worried about the negative effects of monopoly, just not in price gouging.  People love to forget about AMD's $750 and $1000 CPUs back in the day.

I really fear for the future of this forum if you guys are allowed to post nonsense like this without recourse.  OF COURSE a monopoly will raise prices and stagnate innovation!   Look at what has happened with Intel.  They shut down overclocking  on all but their most expensive chips (the G3258 was an anomaly).  They have also failed to innovate since Sandy Bridge to the point that the A8X CPU in the Ipad Air 2 is as powerful as a mobile i5.

If nVidia does get a monopoly we are all screwed.  If you think innovation is slow now just wait until AMD dies.

I don't understand both you and Rollo with your nonsense.

You don't understand because you don't work in the business world, but the logic of it should be intuitive.

NVIDIA exists to provide shareholders with profit, not to give you faster video cards on what you deem a reasonable schedule.

So while they could indeed slow the release of new tech, and it may well be in their best interest to do so in times of zero competition, they can't just keep re-releasing the same stuff. (or even close to it)

They HAVE to give people a reason to buy at a price they will pay. For those of us who don't overclock, the cards don't wear out. So people don't really have any reason to buy new ones if there is no performance bump, and there isn't a big enough market of new buyers to feed the Nv beast.

Their business model is built on people buying a new card every 2 years.

You apparently are laboring under the commonly held delusion that competition somehow drives innovation and overrides supply and demand.

Incredible how you see nothing wrong with slowing the release of new tech? Be an nVIDIA fan, but think for yourself as well, please.
And what common delusion about competition driving innovation? Its not a delusion, its a FACT. You are the one spewing delusions about nVIDIA being a "good guy" because it "has to".
Funny how both you and SteelCrysis completely ignored my post. Seems like you do not remember the price gouge nVIDIA did with GTX280 right? The fiasco where they ended up returning money to people who bought it launch. That would not have happened at all without what? Say again? COMPETITION! They only gave money back because ATI launched the successful 4870. You have the perfect example of what happened in front of your eyes and still spew bullshit. Incredible. Worse than this, just religion.

[RolloTheGreat]

Incredible how you see nothing wrong with slowing the release of new tech? Be an nVIDIA fan, but think for yourself as well, please.

What is incredible is how a few posts above you state,"
Do not commit the mistake of seeing either nVIDIA or AMD as good/bad guys. They are money making businesses driven by shareholders who assess the business success not from technological POV (most of them probably do not even understand how computers work) but from the money it brings in. " and here you assign morality to one of the ways companies maximize profit and insure their long term profitability. Why? Just to argue?

And what common delusion about competition driving innovation? Its not a delusion, its a FACT.

Why hasn't competition driven AMD to create better CPUs than intel? If Samsung invents a GPU that has 10X the processing power of the GTX980, you think Jen Hsun can hold a company meeting and say, "Invent a GPU with 11X the processing power of a GTX980 or we're sunk!"? Competition can hasten release of parts that are done, but not drive innovation/invention.

You are the one spewing delusions about nVIDIA being a "good guy" because it "has to".

I never said Nvidia was a "good guy". Nvidia is a business that will do what maximizes profit. If you want to pretend Nvidia should put your interests ahead of theirs and give you all the toys you want when you want for less than the market will bear for a price, please feel free.

Funny how both you and SteelCrysis completely ignored my post.

Last I checked, we're free to respond to who we choose and don't owe you a response.

Seems like you do not remember the price gouge nVIDIA did with GTX280 right? The fiasco where they ended up returning money to people who bought it launch. That would not have happened at all without what? Say again? COMPETITION! They only gave money back because ATI launched the successful 4870. You have the perfect example of what happened in front of your eyes and still spew bullshit. Incredible. Worse than this, just religion.

Competition is one aspect of pricing, supply and demand is the key component. If ten video card companies can produce 1000 cards per year, but the market wants 100,000, the price will be high even though ten companies make 1000 cards for you to choose from.

[BjorgenFjords]

Incredible how you see nothing wrong with slowing the release of new tech? Be an nVIDIA fan, but think for yourself as well, please.
And what common delusion about competition driving innovation? Its not a delusion, its a FACT. You are the one spewing delusions about nVIDIA being a "good guy" because it "has to".
Funny how both you and SteelCrysis completely ignored my post. Seems like you do not remember the price gouge nVIDIA did with GTX280 right? The fiasco where they ended up returning money to people who bought it launch. That would not have happened at all without what? Say again? COMPETITION! They only gave money back because ATI launched the successful 4870. You have the perfect example of what happened in front of your eyes and still spew bullshit. Incredible. Worse than this, just religion.

This post is far too emotional, IMHO. If SteelCrysis and Rollothegreat ignored your points, perhaps they felt your points were actually, well, non points. Hey, it can happen.
Anyway, I'd like to see less of this type of personal posting and more of on topic stuff, but that might just be me.
Nvidia becoming a monopoly is of course not a good thing. For us, or them. Aren't they technically a monopoly if the have 80% or more of a given market? That might possibly be just an arbitrary number I've heard floating around regarding talks like this.

FYI: This is Keysplayr. I can't seem to find the option to ad a sig. Maybe I have to reach a certain post count.

[Picao84]

What is incredible is how a few posts above you state,"
Do not commit the mistake of seeing either nVIDIA or AMD as good/bad guys. They are money making businesses driven by shareholders who assess the business success not from technological POV (most of them probably do not even understand how computers work) but from the money it brings in. " and here you assign morality to one of the ways companies maximize profit and insure their long term profitability. Why? Just to argue?

I am not assigning any morality towards nVIDIA. I am assigning it towards you, as a consumer! You, as a consumer, seems not to bother with the impacts of a monopoly on yourself! I was targeting your assumption that it is "OK" for nVIDIA to have a monopoly. Unless, of course, you are an nVIDIA employee, at which point is pointless for me to argue with you.

Why hasn't competition driven AMD to create better CPUs than intel? If Samsung invents a GPU that has 10X the processing power of the GTX980, you think Jen Hsun can hold a company meeting and say, "Invent a GPU with 11X the processing power of a GTX980 or we're sunk!"? Competition can hasten release of parts that are done, but not drive innovation/invention.

Because there is no competition on the CPU space, AT ALL? Intel has the x86 market monopoly for itself. You do not need to have a company holding 100% of the market to call it a monopoly. If one company has such a high share that undermines the other(s) one the capability to survive and thrive, you are in a monopoly! AMD is totally dominated by Intel, hence it is deprived from the necessary resources to invest and create better CPUs than Intel. Notwithstanding errors made by AMD as well, when they were on the high.

Now, your Samsung vs nVIDIA case. Yes, if Samsung or any other company would invent a GPU that has 10X the processing power of GTX980 (which is probably impossible since Samsung has absolutely no presence or expertise in the GPU market - ironically, that same situation nVIDIA is with Tegra..), nVIDIA would be forced to use all the resources it can to counter that. They would either do that or die and no company will kill itself without trying. If it would succeed or not, is another story. But without Samsung COMPETITION, it would not even try and be happy with much less of an increase generation over generation. Is this so hard to understand? Is competition the number one factor for new technology? No, we are humans, not magicians. Does it have a large impact? Yes. So please, stop your straw-man arguments and be consistent and thorough in your analyses, otherwise its pointless to have a conversation with you (why do I even try?).

I never said Nvidia was a "good guy". Nvidia is a business that will do what maximizes profit. If you want to pretend Nvidia should put your interests ahead of theirs and give you all the toys you want when you want for less than the market will bear for a price, please feel free.

See my answer to the first point. Plus, we are discussing nVIDIA having a monopoly, not nVIDIA itself. Can you not understand the difference?

Last I checked, we're free to respond to who we choose and don't owe you a response.

Of course you are. In case you did not understand, my observation was to imply that what I wrote was ignored because it went against your theory.

Seems like you do not remember the price gouge nVIDIA did with GTX280 right? The fiasco where they ended up returning money to people who bought it launch. That would not have happened at all without what? Say again? COMPETITION! They only gave money back because ATI launched the successful 4870. You have the perfect example of what happened in front of your eyes and still spew bullshit. Incredible. Worse than this, just religion.

Competition is one aspect of pricing, supply and demand is the key component. If ten video card companies can produce 1000 cards per year, but the market wants 100,000, the price will be high even though ten companies make 1000 cards for you to choose from.

Thanks for absolutely ignoring the point. Just answer the question: If AMD had not come out with 4870, would nVIDIA had reduced the price on GTX280? Or give partial refunds? You know they would not. The reasons they priced the card at $650 is because they were expecting no competition! If you what you said had more relevance than competition, they would have kept the price! Its as simple as that!

---

Incredible how you see nothing wrong with slowing the release of new tech? Be an nVIDIA fan, but think for yourself as well, please.
And what common delusion about competition driving innovation? Its not a delusion, its a FACT. You are the one spewing delusions about nVIDIA being a "good guy" because it "has to".
Funny how both you and SteelCrysis completely ignored my post. Seems like you do not remember the price gouge nVIDIA did with GTX280 right? The fiasco where they ended up returning money to people who bought it launch. That would not have happened at all without what? Say again? COMPETITION! They only gave money back because ATI launched the successful 4870. You have the perfect example of what happened in front of your eyes and still spew bullshit. Incredible. Worse than this, just religion.

This post is far too emotional, IMHO. If SteelCrysis and Rollothegreat ignored your points, perhaps they felt your points were actually, well, non points. Hey, it can happen.
Anyway, I'd like to see less of this type of personal posting and more of on topic stuff, but that might just be me.
Nvidia becoming a monopoly is of course not a good thing. For us, or them. Aren't they technically a monopoly if the have 80% or more of a given market? That might possibly be just an arbitrary number I've heard floating around regarding talks like this.

FYI: This is Keysplayr. I can't seem to find the option to ad a sig. Maybe I have to reach a certain post count.

Tell me how can you have a discussion with someone without ending up personal when that person denies things that are proven facts. At that point you are not discussing opinions, but you jumped to the realm of faith. There is no objectivity in faith, only subjectivity, ergo sum, personal.

[SickBeast]

Rollo is actually correct.

nvidia will just do what intel does with the i series CPUs.

There already are boutique parts nvidia can and does charge the consumer silly prices for (Titan/Titan-Z).

At the end of the day nvidia has to keep selling cards or go bankrupt due to no sales, no matter if AMD is around or not.

And what has intel done since Sandy Bridge came out? 10% gains each year? And you're happy with that? I know I'm not. Monopolies destroy innovation and raise prices for consumers. There is a reason why they are illegal.

[BjorgenFjords]

Tell me how can you have a discussion with someone without ending up personal when that person denies things that are proven facts. At that point you are not discussing opinions, but you jumped to the realm of faith. There is no objectivity in faith, only subjectivity, ergo sum, personal.

By controlling yourself. Accept that not everything you say is an absolute fact and that others have different opinions than your own. You HAVE to accept that otherwise you have no business even having a single conversation with another human being on this planet. Everyone is different. When they are different from yourself, that shouldn't give you cause to go after them personally. Stick to your argument and present factoids as best as you can. If those factoids are strong enough, any educated person will consider them and may or may not change their view. If they don't, you cannot hold it against them.
This is all I'm saying on this subject, people should know how to have a conversation by now on public forums without getting personal.

---

Rollo is actually correct.

nvidia will just do what intel does with the i series CPUs.

There already are boutique parts nvidia can and does charge the consumer silly prices for (Titan/Titan-Z).

At the end of the day nvidia has to keep selling cards or go bankrupt due to no sales, no matter if AMD is around or not.

And what has intel done since Sandy Bridge came out?  10% gains each year?  And you're happy with that?  I know I'm not.  Monopolies destroy innovation and raise prices for consumers.  There is a reason why they are illegal.

I'm quite unexcited about the progression of Intel CPU performance increases since Sandy. it's the reason I still have my 2500k. Nothing out there shows enough performance gain to justify the platform upgrade costs right now, and if the 5% IPC increase Broadwell is rumored to have is true, I may STILL stay with the Sandy. Crazy right?

[SickBeast]

Tell me how can you have a discussion with someone without ending up personal when that person denies things that are proven facts. At that point you are not discussing opinions, but you jumped to the realm of faith. There is no objectivity in faith, only subjectivity, ergo sum, personal.

By controlling yourself. Accept that not everything you say is an absolute fact and that others have different opinions than your own. You HAVE to accept that otherwise you have no business even having a single conversation with another human being on this planet. Everyone is different. When they are different from yourself, that shouldn't give you cause to go after them personally. Stick to your argument and present factoids as best as you can. If those factoids are strong enough, any educated person will consider them and may or may not change their view. If they don't, you cannot hold it against them.
This is all I'm saying on this subject, people should know how to have a conversation by now on public forums without getting personal.

---

Rollo is actually correct.

nvidia will just do what intel does with the i series CPUs.

There already are boutique parts nvidia can and does charge the consumer silly prices for (Titan/Titan-Z).

At the end of the day nvidia has to keep selling cards or go bankrupt due to no sales, no matter if AMD is around or not.

And what has intel done since Sandy Bridge came out?  10% gains each year?  And you're happy with that?  I know I'm not.  Monopolies destroy innovation and raise prices for consumers.  There is a reason why they are illegal.

I'm quite unexcited about the progression of Intel CPU performance increases since Sandy. it's the reason I still have my 2500k. Nothing out there shows enough performance gain to justify the platform upgrade costs right now, and if the 5% IPC increase Broadwell is rumored to have is true, I may STILL stay with the Sandy. Crazy right?

I agree, it's ridiculous. Had my wife not spilled miso soup on my 2500k I would still be using it as well. Apple's A8X can now match intel's mobile i5 CPUs and that is a <5w processor. Pretty soon Nvidia will overtake them with the Tegra CPUs as well and we will see what happens. Intel is eventually going to have to compete with the ARM chips otherwise x86 is just going to die completely one day.

[Picao84]

Tell me how can you have a discussion with someone without ending up personal when that person denies things that are proven facts. At that point you are not discussing opinions, but you jumped to the realm of faith. There is no objectivity in faith, only subjectivity, ergo sum, personal.

By controlling yourself. Accept that not everything you say is an absolute fact and that others have different opinions than your own. You HAVE to accept that otherwise you have no business even having a single conversation with another human being on this planet. Everyone is different. When they are different from yourself, that shouldn't give you cause to go after them personally. Stick to your argument and present factoids as best as you can. If those factoids are strong enough, any educated person will consider them and may or may not change their view. If they don't, you cannot hold it against them.
This is all I'm saying on this subject, people should know how to have a conversation by now on public forums without getting personal.

That is all fine and dandy and political correct. Things go bust when you are presenting facts, which ARE facts, but someone else likes to invent their own.
This is already off topic though and since you are not a mod, as far as I am aware, I wonder why you jumped in to comment on my posts. Maybe because you both have something in common heh? That is all I'm saying on the subject as well, since everyone else knows who you both are and who you work or worked for.

[BjorgenFjords]

Tell me how can you have a discussion with someone without ending up personal when that person denies things that are proven facts. At that point you are not discussing opinions, but you jumped to the realm of faith. There is no objectivity in faith, only subjectivity, ergo sum, personal.

By controlling yourself. Accept that not everything you say is an absolute fact and that others have different opinions than your own. You HAVE to accept that otherwise you have no business even having a single conversation with another human being on this planet. Everyone is different. When they are different from yourself, that shouldn't give you cause to go after them personally. Stick to your argument and present factoids as best as you can. If those factoids are strong enough, any educated person will consider them and may or may not change their view. If they don't, you cannot hold it against them.
This is all I'm saying on this subject, people should know how to have a conversation by now on public forums without getting personal.

That is all fine and dandy and political correct. Things go bust when you are presenting facts, which ARE facts, but someone else likes to invent their own.
This is already off topic though and since you are not a mod, as far as I am aware, I wonder why you jumped in to comment on my posts. Maybe because you both have something in common heh? That is all I'm saying on the subject as well, since everyone else knows who you both are and who you work or worked for.

Well, then I guess we have you pinned down as the guy who can't have a regular conversation because as soon as something doesn't go your way, you go after the individual rather than the subject matter. Congratulations, you are now thoroughly labeled. At least in my little book here. I hope you find a way to change that. It would be surprisingly cool and refreshing. And like you, that is all I'll say on the off topic subject.

[SickBeast]

I agree, it's ridiculous.  Had my wife not spilled miso soup on my 2500k I would still be using it as well.  Apple's A8X can now match intel's mobile i5 CPUs and that is a <5w processor.  Pretty soon Nvidia will overtake them with the Tegra CPUs as well and we will see what happens.  Intel is eventually going to have to compete with the ARM chips otherwise x86 is just going to die completely one day.

What a ridiculous argument.  Key words being "mobile i5" and not the latest mobile i5's either.

ARM can't hold a candle to an intel desktop CPU.

Yes, the A8X can beat the latest Haswell based mobile i5. I will look for the article.

*edit*

Here you go:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/192...-modern-pc

My mistake, it doesn't beat the i5 but it comes close. Like I said, give it another year or two and Intel is in serious trouble.

[SickBeast]

Intel is by no means winning against arm. Have you looked at a smartphone lately? Seeing many Intel chips in them? There is a reason why nobody does.

[SickBeast]

That phone hasn't even been released yet.

[SickBeast]

It looks good actually so long as the battery life is ok. Much cheaper than the snapdragons with better performance. Keep in mind that Intel is on a smaller node though. Arm is still inherently more efficient.

[SickBeast]

Keep in mind that Intel is on a smaller node though. Arm is still inherently more efficient.

We will see now that Samsung claims to have a 14nm process, won't we?

I'm betting intel will win that fight too.

They can't. x86 is just not as efficient, the intel engineers can only do so much with it. On the same node, ARM will win, I can guarantee it. I'm actually surprised that intel can do as well as they are doing even with the smaller node.

[SickBeast]

Do you have any idea how often I've heard the "x86 is just not as efficient, the intel engineers can only do so much with it" sung by intels competitors over the decades?

All of them found out the hard way just how efficient x86 can be.

No. They all went down because x86 was basically a monopoly with everyone using Windows PCs back in those days. Now that Android and iOS have broken that up, the sky is the limit for ARM. Intel and Microsoft should be very worried.

[RolloTheGreat]

Picao:

It's hard for me to reply to you because a lot of what you post seems contradictory.

E.G.

Because there is no competition on the CPU space, AT ALL? Intel has the x86 market monopoly for itself. You do not need to have a company holding 100% of the market to call it a monopoly.

So intel is "no competition" for AMD? I'd say intel is winning the competition with AMD rather handily, and as such, they define "competition". By what you have said, intel producing superior products "should" be driving AMD to produce better products, but it doesn't.

On the other hand, AMD presence as a competitor who has "won" at points in the past should theoretically make intel not sit on their laurels 100%.

You have competition, it's just not very potent competition on AMDs side.

Nonetheless, look at what you said:

intel has a monopoly.

OK if that's true, I'm all for monopolies. Love my Devils Canyon, it's the best cpu I ever purchased and it cost $300! My last CPU in that box, 990X, cost $1050.. Why isn't intel price gouging me with their monopoly?

As far as improvements by generation, guys like you crack me up. You just assume intel could and would come out with better parts "if only someone made them.". We have no idea what they are holding back. May be cpus that have 50X the power of current, may be 10% faster CPUs.

I do not believe invention can be forced. I work in the software industry and can tell you someone telling me they need the answer to a problem by day X does not mean much. If I don't think of it until day Y, or at all, no competition or request from my boss will change what happens. (and the things I work on are caveman primitive compared to intel engineers)

If you think these companies are "holding back to screw us" you should bring your better products to market. For the size of the market, I'm guessing you could find investors.

[SteelCrysis]

Well, i7-990X isn't the equivalent of a 4790K, but that's beside the point, as Intel has made the $1,000 price point a tradition, not a price gouging.

[SickBeast]

Picao:

It's hard for me to reply to you because a lot of what you post seems contradictory.

E.G.

Because there is no competition on the CPU space, AT ALL? Intel has the x86 market monopoly for itself. You do not need to have a company holding 100% of the market to call it a monopoly.

So intel is "no competition" for AMD? I'd say intel is winning the competition with AMD rather handily, and as such, they define "competition". By what you have said, intel producing superior products "should" be driving AMD to produce better products, but it doesn't.

On the other hand, AMD presence as a competitor who has "won" at points in the past should theoretically make intel not sit on their laurels 100%.

You have competition, it's just not very potent competition on AMDs side.

Nonetheless, look at what you said:

intel has a monopoly.

OK if that's true, I'm all for monopolies. Love my Devils Canyon, it's the best cpu I ever purchased and it cost $300! My last CPU in that box, 990X, cost $1050.. Why isn't intel price gouging me with their monopoly?

As far as improvements by generation, guys like you crack me up. You just assume intel could and would come out with better parts "if only someone made them.". We have no idea what they are holding back. May be cpus that have 50X the power of current, may be 10% faster CPUs.

I do not believe invention can be forced. I work in the software industry and can tell you someone telling me they need the answer to a problem by day X does not mean much. If I don't think of it until day Y, or at all, no competition or request from my boss will change what happens. (and the things I work on are caveman primitive compared to intel engineers)

If you think these companies are "holding back to screw us" you should bring your better products to market. For the size of the market, I'm guessing you could find investors.

Rollo Intel dedicates more die area to their iGPU than they do to the CPU portion. It would be very simple for them to give us unlocked 8 core CPUs with no GPU for enthusiasts at the same price as the current K-series i5s. Why don't they do it? Because they are competing with themselves at this point. If AMD had something more powerful then Intel would be forced to do something like this.

[RolloTheGreat]

Rollo Intel dedicates more die area to their iGPU than they do to the CPU portion.  It would be very simple for them to give us unlocked 8 core CPUs with no GPU for enthusiasts at the same price as the current K-series i5s.  Why don't they do it?  Because they are competing with themselves at this point.  If AMD had something more powerful then Intel would be forced to do something like this.

Again, you're thinking like a hobbyist who wants toys, not a business.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Between 6 and 8 core cpus you're talking about less than 2% of the market. Know why intel isn't selling 8 core cpus? Nobody buys more than 4 cores. 8 core CPUs probably have higher bad chip rates, and perhaps lower profit margins.

You're lucky I don't run intel, personally I think they're too generous selling unlocked CPUs. I'd lock them all build in overvolt reporting for returns.

For my part, I will NEVER get suckered into AMD advice like "The future is moar corez!" again. Threw away $1000 on that hex core chip and a $200 2500K is just as fast at anything I do.

---

Well, i7-990X isn't the equivalent of a 4790K, but that's beside the point, as Intel has made the $1,000 price point a tradition, not a price gouging.

I guess my point was the Devils Canyon totally walks all over the 990X for $300, four years later. There has been a good performance gain over those 4 years, uses a ton less power, the price is only $300. What's not to love?

I think people got spoiled in the early days of pc gaming by frequent large gains, and now chip engineers are running into limits of current technology.

[SickBeast]

Rollo Intel dedicates more die area to their iGPU than they do to the CPU portion.  It would be very simple for them to give us unlocked 8 core CPUs with no GPU for enthusiasts at the same price as the current K-series i5s.  Why don't they do it?  Because they are competing with themselves at this point.  If AMD had something more powerful then Intel would be forced to do something like this.

Again, you're thinking like a hobbyist who wants toys, not a business.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Between 6 and 8 core cpus you're talking about less than 2% of the market. Know why intel isn't selling 8 core cpus? Nobody buys more than 4 cores. 8 core CPUs probably have higher bad chip rates, and perhaps lower profit margins.

You're lucky I don't run intel, personally I think they're too generous selling unlocked CPUs. I'd lock them all build in overvolt reporting for returns.

For my part, I will NEVER get suckered into AMD advice like "The future is moar corez!" again. Threw away $1000 on that hex core chip and a $200 2500K is just as fast at anything I do.

My point is that Intel can do whatever they want at this point. They could even only offer dual cores and they would be fine. If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores. Their monopoly status is the problem. You just don't get it. You just like arguing for the sake of arguing though, even if it's nonsense. I think you're probably only here to piss people off. You seem to enjoy it.

[RolloTheGreat]

My point is that Intel can do whatever they want at this point.  They could even only offer dual cores and they would be fine.

Yet every couple years they give us higher performance, lower power, and have not raised (if anything lowered) prices in the face of very weak competition. Is your statement supposed to prove my point?

 If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores.

You mean they would in essence become AMD?

 Their monopoly status is the problem.  You just don't get it.  You just like arguing for the sake of arguing though, even if it's nonsense.  I think you're probably only here to piss people off.  You seem to enjoy it.

Sorry, I just like talking about PC hardware, and you might just be wrong?

[SickBeast]

My point is that Intel can do whatever they want at this point.  They could even only offer dual cores and they would be fine.

Yet every couple years they give us higher performance, lower power, and have not raised (if anything lowered) prices in the face of very weak competition. Is your statement supposed to prove my point?

 If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores.

You mean they would in essence become AMD?

 Their monopoly status is the problem.  You just don't get it.  You just like arguing for the sake of arguing though, even if it's nonsense.  I think you're probably only here to piss people off.  You seem to enjoy it.

Sorry, I just like talking about PC hardware, and you might just be wrong?  

How would an octa core intel chip be anything like AMD? It would be 4 times more powerful than anything AMD makes. You're really dense. You still don't get it.

If you call what we have from intel today "progress" then you are blind. The 2500k came out over 4 years ago now. Haswell quad cores are barely any faster. Yes, they are lower power, but most enthusiasts don't care much about that. 10% performance gains each generation are not progress IMO.

[RolloTheGreat]

How would an octa core intel chip be anything like AMD?  It would be 4 times more powerful than anything AMD makes.  You're really dense.  You still don't get it.

No, you didn't get it.

"If AMD offered something faster than their quad cores, then they would be forced to offer cheap hexa and octa cores."
You stipulated AMD is making faster chips than intel, forcing them to offer cheap hex/octa core CPUs. Just like AMD does now, and in second place just like AMD is now. See what I did there now?

If you call what we have from intel today "progress" then you are blind.  The 2500k came out over 4 years ago now.  Haswell quad cores are barely any faster.  Yes, they are lower power, but most enthusiasts don't care much about that.  10% performance gains each generation are not progress IMO.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devil...i5-4690k/4

Looks to me like the 4790K totally annihilates the 2500K on graphics, maybe intel has been focusing on power and their IGPs because they realize their CPU cores needed less work?

And 20% over 4 years isn't a very big gain compared to what? Other x86 cpu manufacturers?

And again, you shouldn't post conjecture as fact. You, or I, have no idea what intel "could" do. Might be if Beefdozer III stomps intel, they get stomped, caught with their pants down and they are behind for years until they can come up with something better.

Back in Athlon 64 days intel didn't just "pull out the better cpus they were holding back" when AMD made them look sad.

Your position is indefensible because all you have are guesses.

[SickBeast]

You know what Rollo, I am done interacting with you until you can learn how to have a proper discourse with people. You're not even making any sense. I don't know if you're trying to or not but I can feel my blood pressure rising just after a few interactions with you.

I think that you are actually a nice person, you just have some issues.

[BjorgenFjords]

SickBeast, it's not him. What he said went over your head. You didn't understand the concept, and in your frustration, lashed out at Rollo. Why did you do that instead of taking the time (proper discourse) to sort out the understanding?
There are issues for certain. They may just not be Rollo's. Sorry.

[SickBeast]

SickBeast, it's not him. What he said went over your head. You didn't understand the concept, and in your frustration, lashed out at Rollo. Why did you do that instead of taking the time (proper discourse) to sort out the understanding?
There are issues for certain. They may just not be Rollo's. Sorry.

You know what, I'm tired and I'm having a bad week and I don't exactly have much patience for Rollo.

I feel that my argument has made sense all along and he's just arguing again and again just to be "right", like he always does. He has admitted that he does this. It's like a game for him. He always wants to "win", even when he's wrong. It's really frustrating for everyone else.