Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

thechinchinsong

Member
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About thechinchinsong

  • Title
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

126 profile views
  1. This article by servethehome also provides some decent insight into this licensing change. https://www.servethehome.com/licenseageddon-rages-as-vmware-overhauls-per-socket-licensing/
  2. Thats my point. Intel and Nvidia were always ahead in terms of mindshare, marketshare, and/or capital, some of which you also point out. I didn't ever mention if they had better or worse products/technology relative to their competitors. Since Intel/Nvidia have always been ahead in those three metrics, fans of those companies haven't ever had to think so hard about their decisions when coming to defend their product purchases. Simply put, everyone's been buying Intel/Nvidia, so someone buying Intel/Nvidia is perfectly reasonable, even when AMD had the technological/performance edge. Of course the people browsing these forums are going to be skewed to the more technologically informed (hopefully), so they might make purchasing decisions based more on performance/technology rather than marketshare, but most people aren't going to do that.
  3. I just meant I don't recall Intel or Nvidia ever being behind AMD in any meaningful metric. Those three are the most important ones imo so I'm not sure which other specific attributes you are implying. I'm also quite sure anymore if we are referring to the same "they". When I used that term I meant Intel and Nvidia. I might have misunderstood you if you referred to "they" as Intel and/or Nvidia fans and their behavior.
  4. When were Intel or Nvidia ever in AMD's position of being drastically smaller than any of their competitors (in mindshare, marketshare, and/or capital)?
  5. I'm sure there are people that would do the same for Intel and Nvidia as well, but fans of Intel and Nvidia haven't had to so blindly defend anything that either company did, simply because Nvidia and Intel haven't ever been in AMD's position.
  6. That makes sense to me, since anybody that was defending AMD CPUs in that time period had to either have some screws loose and/or really wanted to justify their own decisions (graphics are another story, but those are certainly still full of their own issues too). I just don't understand why people are now bringing this "can't criticize AMD" stuff up now, when it has been the least relevant in this past decade. Instead of complaining about how you can't criticize AMD (which any sane person can find plenty of reasons to do so), just spend that time to actually criticize AMD, like what 95% of this thread is doing.
  7. Great, I don't agree with your first point about it being pointless, but I agree with the other stuff that you said. Saying that you can't criticize AMD (which you did previously) isn't really relevant to this thread though, unlike the other points you have made, which make sense.
  8. I mean this whole thread's purpose is to criticize AMD and your comment here is about criticizing AMD so I fail to see your last point. Updating card firmware is a good point though. It's unprofessional of AMD to need to push that kind of change after their product has already shipped.
  9. There are literally people on the internet claiming it's a leaked bioweapon from China.
  10. I'm not sure why AMD doesn't just do that. Two possible reasons are that the lower tier cards might not all be able to hit a certain threshold reliably and secondly (more likely imo) is that they don't want to eat into their own higher tier cards.
  11. That's true and goes for AMD as well as Intel. It's just that AMD hasn't had the same scrutiny or use.
  12. I feel as if most of these issues don't actually mean much for security. They just simply are more important for Intel because they are under more scrutiny. When AMD gets the same scrutiny, people will care about the Ryzen errata more.
  13. I still feel as if it's because people don't care about AMD graphics as much. There will always be bias toward the underdog company because they are an underdog, just as there is always bias toward the industry leader simply because they are leaders. Here in this thread specifically we can see the anti-AMD rhetoric going along just fine (just less populated). It's just that in recent times, AMD hasn't been in the spotlight simply (at least up until the past 3 years or so) because they weren't anywhere near good enough for people to notice. Now that people actually take AMD seriously, criticism against them is going to become more serious, similar to what we already hold Nvidia and Intel to. It will take time, just as it took 3 generations of Ryzen for AMD to finally start moving product again.
  14. I think it definitely matters. As long as the information outlets to the people out there report on this, its okay. What's worse is that when both companies have this bad behavior, it becomes a race to the bottom as each anti-consumer move by one company only pushes the boundaries for the other to do even worse. It also matters more for Nvidia, because they have a larger audience to please. So of course when they do something unpopular, they will naturally get more flak, simply cause they have more customers.
  15. Again with decent silicon but lackluster support/launch. The Navi is decent overall, but that is more of an exception than a rule in RTG land, which is a shame cause we could all certainly use more competition in the GPU department. Nvidia is still pretty dominate despite the recent Navi launches.
×