Why is there so much competition?

[ManosMax13]

I always see on forums threads saying that AMD needs to catch up with intel or nvidia.I cant understand why does every body want competition.I have an amd cpu and an nvidia card.I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap and enough for what i do (gaming) but i will still support intel because it is the foundation.It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.And there amd comes to steal some of intels profit.Same with nvidia.Also more things make the consumer more confusedas to what to buy.Soooo... What do u guys think

[Quadrum]

I think that as long as I get good tech for decent prices I don’t care who it’s from.

[Derrk]

1 minute ago, ManosMax13 said:

.I got the cpu because it was cheap

^^^^

 

Competition creates better prices. Consumer wins 

[ManosMax13]

1 minute ago, Quadrum said:

I think that as long as I get good tech for decent prices I don’t care who it’s from.

What do u consider goodpric though?Because if the cpus had a lower pricetag then that would be the norm or if they had a bigger one too.Can u imagine saying that you got an i5 8600K for 250usd and believing that it was a steal?

[You_are_a_cunt]

Competition leads to research that leads to better products.

Better products for better prices leads to profits for both consumer and manufacturer.

 

Intel had no competition for years. They got lazy and greedy. AMD (finally) stepped up with Ryzen and Threadripper and now Intel's in a bit of a pickle and forced to actually do better research. (they're still greedy since they basically want you to upgrade your mobo every -other- CPU iteration)

[ManosMax13]

2 minutes ago, Derrk said:

^^^^

 

Competition creates better prices. Consumer wins 

No it does not in my opinion not always but atleast in this case because you pay what you get noone overprices more preformance=more $

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, ManosMax13 said:

What do u consider goodpric though?Because if the cpus had a lower pricetag then that would be the norm or if they had a bigger one too.Can u imagine saying that you got an i5 8600K for 250usd and believing that it was a steal?

I call a "good price" something that the hardware is worth. I'm not gonna pay more than I have to for the performance found in a certain product.

 

Intel's CPUs definitely cost a premium, but their performance more or less justifies that.

[WereCat]

Just now, ManosMax13 said:

No it does not in my opinion not always but atleast in this case because you pay what you get noone overprices more preformance=more $

It doesent? 

Then explain to me how we went from HEDT 10core for 1700$ to HEDT 32core for 1800$ in 2 years. 

[GoldenLag]

Competition leads to innovation. And throughout CPU history this have been then case. The last years have been stagnant in the CPU space due to lack of competition from AMD. Noone wants monopoly. 

 

Nvidia has ruled the GPU space for cery long. AMD still hasnt come up with an architecture that can compete. They are still stuck with CGN. 

 

Confusion will allways be around, but that is not an argument against competition. Without any competition we would have 6 core CPUs on the roadmaps. Pascal would continue to rule the seas for another year

[ManosMax13]

5 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

I call a "good price" something that the hardware is worth. I'm not gonna pay more than I have to for the performance found in a certain product.

 

Intel's CPUs definitely cost a premium, but their performance more or less justifies that.

Yes but what i mean is that 3years ago a 6 core i7 was more than 2 i5 8600k you could say that intel finally released a 6core chip because of amd but anyway,so what you consider a good price no,if the prices rose from both intel and amd then you maybe though that an i7 8700k was a bargain at 400$ thats what i mean

 

5 hours ago, WereCat said:

It doesent? 

Then explain to me how we went from HEDT 10core for 1700$ to HEDT 32core for 1800$ in 2 years. 

Because time passed but if 2 new cpus were launced at the excact time then the best would be the most expensive

 

5 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

Competition leads to innovation. And throughout CPU history this have been then case. The last years have been stagnant in the CPU space due to lack of competition from AMD. Noone wants monopoly. 

 

Nvidia has ruled the GPU space for cery long. AMD still hasnt come up with an architecture that can compete. They are still stuck with CGN. 

 

Confusion will allways be around, but that is not an argument against competition. Without any competition we would have 6 core CPUs on the roadmaps. Pascal would continue to rule the seas for another year

Thats not true the consumer can force companies to release new products i dont think that nvidia would change plans if amd was even more competitive.The most it would have achieved is to make nvidia to releasse the cpu 2 months earlier and that not quite enough

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, ManosMax13 said:

Because time passed but if 2 new cpus were launced at the excact time then the best would be the most expensive

As far as we know, X299 would not have excisted in its current form without threadripper. We would maybe have 12 cores due to coffeelake, but tyat would still be 1700$ (though this is speculation based on market trends)

[aezakmi]

13 minutes ago, ManosMax13 said:

I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap

(X) Doubt

 

a true fanboy would never get AMD

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, ManosMax13 said:

Because time passed but if 2 new cpus were launced at the excact time then the best would be the most expensive

No. 

AMD needa to get back marketshare from Intel and throwing out more expensive CPUs would not help them at all. 

They found a way how to make many core CPUs for a lot cheaper than Intel with a lot higher yields so they can still profit from them while undercutting Intel significantly. 

Sure, each architecture has its + and - but if there were no competition we would be being gauged even more by Intel. 

IDK if you noticed but the i7 prices were just going up for no reason while they even stopped including stock cooler and changed solder to thermal crap. 

[ManosMax13]

5 hours ago, aezakmi said:

(X) Doubt

 

a true fanboy would never get AMD

sorry i support her at least thats what i meant

 

5 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

sorry i support her at least thats what i meant

them

[GoldenLag]

Just now, ManosMax13 said:

Thats not true the consumer can force companies to release new products i dont think that nvidia would change plans if amd was even more competitive.The most it would have achieved is to make nvidia to releasse the cpu 2 months earlier and that not quite enough

Yes, they can release "new" products. The consumer has way (way, way) less power to influence a monopoly to release a new and better product than what a competitor has. 

 

Example is X299 which would not have seen the light of day in its current form.

 

Doesnt matter how much you want it. The consumer has way less power in a monopoly. There is a reason why goverments tries to dissoove monopolies

[wONKEyeYEs]

12 minutes ago, ManosMax13 said:

No it does not in my opinion

Well, maybe not if your Hynix, Micron, or Samsung.

[GoldenLag]

5 hours ago, wONKEyeYEs said:

Well, maybe not if your Hynix, Micron, or Samsung.

The good old trioppoly where noone wanted to step on eachother toes because they were making so much money

 

Dont argue against competition. Its allways good. Otherwise you just end up getting 1+ and 1++ and 1+++ and 1++++

 

Spoiler

Definitivly not a reference to 14nm+++

 

[Derrk]

monopolies = bad

competition = good

 

Without competition from amd, intel would probably stick to 4 and 6 core processors in new generations. Each one just fast enough that people spend money to upgrade. They also probably wouldn't solder their CPUs because that costs money

 

Now amd steps in with high core counts, affordable prices, and soldered chips with good thermals.

 

Competition will make each side push for delivering the best product. Wanting to sell more than the competitor & keep market share results in better prices for consumers

[-rascal-]

@ManosMax13

nVidia and AMD has cut prices many times to compete against each other.

 

For an example, when the GTX 780 came out, the MRSP was $699.

When AMD pushed out the R9-290X a few months later, since there is competition, nVidia dropped the MSRP down to $499.

 

This happens on the CPU side of things, too.

Intel cut the prices on a bunch of CPUs just a few months before AMD Ryzen first-generation launched.

The i7-6950X was ~$1700, that got reduced by $300, down to ~$1599.

i7-7700K went for $379 at launch, and Intel dropped it by $80, to $299.

 

If I can save $500 on a CPU + GPU combo?

That's quite a bit...easily use the saved $500 to get a motherboard + RAM.

[Guest]

Competition forces companies to make better products for cheaper with more services. 

 

Would you rather buy a $50 CPU that’s average performance or a $45 CPU that’s average performance but has better driver stability that prevents crashing more than the other? 

 

Otherwise you live live in a alley where you have an average CPU for $500 and then a 1/3 or 1/2 power cpu for $100. There’s no contest because the more expensive CPU is price hiking instead of scaling properly. However they can do that because the other company isn’t capable of producing a chip as well so prices of decent CPU raise without consequence with zeal that you’ll buy the etter one for more money. 

[JoostinOnline]

We had a decade of no significant cpu performance improvements because there was next to no competition. AMD and Intel were the only mainstream PC CPU corporations left, and AMD has just been limping along, allowed to exist so nobody could accuse Intel of a monopoly. Now AMD is back in the game and we're seeing 50%+ performance jumps between generations.

[TheKDub]

9 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

I always see on forums threads saying that AMD needs to catch up with intel or nvidia.I cant understand why does every body want competition.I have an amd cpu and an nvidia card.I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap and enough for what i do (gaming) but i will still support intel because it is the foundation.It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.And there amd comes to steal some of intels profit.Same with nvidia.Also more things make the consumer more confusedas to what to buy.Soooo... What do u guys think

 

Because competition drives prices down and progress forwards.

[mbox]

10 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

I cant understand why does every body want competition.

I don't wanna be rude but this is a really ignorant thought. Competition is what let you get what you have at this price. 

Quote

It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.

Hope you are referring to the FX era because AMD isn't actually a novice in the market.

 

We should always want competition to have progress and better offer for the consumer

[Mooshi]

Intel used to charge a grand for a top end unlocked consumer chip, without AMD competition, that would still be a thing.

[LogicalDrm]

11 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

No it does not in my opinion not always but atleast in this case because you pay what you get noone overprices more preformance=more $

 

You think this BECAUSE there is competition. If there wasn't any, and Intel would have monopoly, they could decide pricing. They could analyse what is the line consumers are willing to cross for performance. We can already see this on RAM and GPU pricing which both are still high even when reasons behind initial price raising are already over. If Intel would have monopoly, or AMD would still be working with FX-line and APUs, price for i5s would be bit higher, maybe at $300 mark. On top end it would be same thing, but performance increaes might be even slower.

 

11 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

Because time passed but if 2 new cpus were launced at the excact time then the best would be the most expensive

 

No, best would be one with more performance per dollar. Just check out OC3D review on latest Threadripper. Its cheaper than Intel's best and priciest workstation chip with more performance.

 

11 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

Thats not true the consumer can force companies to release new products

 

Not in consumer level. Enterprise/professional is different as they move a lot more money in PC markets. Consumers would be happy to what they get. We are seeing this constantly with console's and console games.

 

11 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

i dont think that nvidia would change plans if amd was even more competitive.The most it would have achieved is to make nvidia to releasse the cpu 2 months earlier and that not quite enough

 

You haven't been around long enough to know history of this, I see. AMD, or rather ATI, was the top dog back in late 90s in GPU markets. Nvidia was the underdog. They had to do a lot of work to get in position they are now.

 

MY OPINION (probably not facts): AMD purchased ATI to get upper hand against Intel in laptop markets. Getting GPU speciality to help on developing their APUs which have kept AMD relevant even when their desktop CPUs did fall. Imo this is also seen with how AMD graphics has been lately. They were good as long as technological development was following release cycle where they only needed to match what Nvidia was releasen. But when that stopped, the wait for Vega began.

 

In all, the fact that AMD is still there gives Intel (and Nvidia) reason to keep releasing better performing hardware and keeping their name as trustworthy brand up there. They can't know for sure what AMD is planning to release and need to do damage control if released stuff threatens markets. Mainly this is seen as price drops, as Intel is hesitant to change their roadmap.

 

Btw, competition can be seen as good thing in other things also. Like Win10 being free upgrade from Microsoft. The only reason why they did that was because Apple made macOS be only free updates on all platforms (as long as hardware is supported by drivers). And because Linux was getting more legroom in business/education side of things. THE WHOLE REASON why browsers are free software is competition. Back in early ages of internet, you needed to pay for browser. Internet Explorer was first to be free as it came bundled with Windows. That forced Netscape to make theirs free too.

 

Last on competition. The reason why Google being center of most users services is so bad, and why Amazon buying big retailers is bad, is because that makes competition weaker. Amazon can stomp prices and force competition out of business. When there isn't competition and they have monopoly, they can determinate prices for all thing you want to buy. With Google, when you eventually feel like you need to leave (data integrity, ads etc.) its so much harder when everything in your internet life is so tightly at Google's grip.