GN: How AMD Sabotages Itself & Its Partners

[thechinchinsong]

1 hour ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Oh, you wanted those specific attributes.

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.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, thechinchinsong said:

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.

Intel was technologically behind AMD in the early 2000's with the Athlon XP series - and again with the original AMD 64-bit CPU's. But even then, Intel was still a much larger company with much higher profit.

 

Financially/marketshare wise, I'm not sure of NVIDIA has ever been significantly behind AMD. There have certainly been times in GPU history where AMD was clearly the superior choice, but we all know that even when that's the case, many people will still buy NVIDIA anyway out of brand following (same way people still bought Netburst CPU's from Intel when they were garbage).

[Mira Yurizaki]

55 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

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.

If we're talking about either NVIDIA or Intel becoming as destitute as AMD, then sure, neither of them had. However, Intel was on a track to become such at least in the CPU market back in 2000 when they had a double whammy in the form of the Itanium and Netburst. NVIDIA had trouble during 2003-2005 when they released the GeForce FX and it happened that the most anticipated PC game of the time (Half Life 2) worked a lot better on ATI's cards.

 

So yeah, there were points were both companies were in trouble if they didn't do something. Intel decided to be shady about it. NVIDIA simply made a better product.

[thechinchinsong]

18 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Intel was technologically behind AMD in the early 2000's with the Athlon XP series - and again with the original AMD 64-bit CPU's. But even then, Intel was still a much larger company with much higher profit.

 

Financially/marketshare wise, I'm not sure of NVIDIA has ever been significantly behind AMD. There have certainly been times in GPU history where AMD was clearly the superior choice, but we all know that even when that's the case, many people will still buy NVIDIA anyway out of brand following (same way people still bought Netburst CPU's from Intel when they were garbage).

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.

[dalekphalm]

31 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

Thats my point. Intel and Nvidia were always ahead in terms of mindshare, marketshare, and/or capital

All true - which is odd. Even when AMD or NVIDIA were clearly the superior choice.

 

Brand loyalty. It works both ways. You've got your AMD shills that still claim FX was a good platform (even right up to the launch of Zen v1). And you've got your shills who try to pretend Fermi didn't happen.

31 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

, 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.

Don't disagree at all here.