[Updated #1][Rumour] Intel and NVIDIA had an internal agreement that blocked the development of laptops with AMD Renoir and GeForce RTX 2070 and above

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Moonzy said:

Can you elaborate how this graph relates to the claim you made regarding to the topic?

I have a bigger question, why was AMD's laptop market share so high around 2007?? Those were so bad.

[schwellmo92]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I have a bigger question, why was AMD's laptop market share so high around 2007?? Those were so bad.

AMD laptops were cheaper, I don’t think Intel really had a compelling low tier product back then.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

AMD laptops were cheaper, I don’t think Intel really had a compelling low tier product back then.

They had crappy Celerons, but I guess back then everything cheap was equally as bad 

[Bombastinator]

12 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Is this just an assumption or are there actual tests for this? PCIE 1.0 x8 is the equivalent of a PCIE 3.0 x2 in terms of speed, and there's a theoretical max speed of 2000MB/s

I remember reading here that in practice limiting Pcie lane throughout has little effect on real world gpu performance if things are at least reasonably close.  It does hamper efficiency, but the effective loss when things aren’t way off is measured in single digit percentage points. Has to do with the gpu doing most of its work internally.  Or something.  I suspect I totally fail to understand this one.  So not enough to actually hamper actual functionality really.  It strikes me as counterintuitive, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the case.  This means that in this case the loss would be only a few frames. 

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I have a bigger question, why was AMD's laptop market share so high around 2007?? Those were so bad.

They may have been experiencing a marketing halo which may not have been actually deserved. I suspect there is a certain amount of information lag.  As example, ATM there seems to be a general popular opinion that “AMD CPUs are just better” creating obnoxious retail price adjustments which drive AMD cpu prices well above reasonable price for value.  Ryzen CPUs were never “just better” than intel CPUs.  What they are (were) was better priced relative to performance.  A 3300 is a great cpu at $120, which is what they were initially offered at, but it’s a crap CPU at $200. Which is what they are currently going for retail.  Gives credence to the concept that with CPUs pricing and actual manufacturing cost are not actually connected.  Implies duopoly creates artificial market prices that can shatter the controls of capitalism.  

Edited January 19, 2021 by Bombastinator

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I have a bigger question, why was AMD's laptop market share so high around 2007?? Those were so bad.

I remember banks and ISPs in my area handing out entry tier AMD laptops to new customers around that time. Perhaps most were just given away hahahaa. 

[JediFragger]

Both Nvidia and Intel can be very scummy with their business practices, this is quite believable imo.

[Moonzy]

26 minutes ago, JediFragger said:

Both Nvidia and Intel can be very scummy with their business practices, this is quite believable imo.

But it's without evidence

 

I could say that AMD zen 3 cpu cores shares the same floating point unit, and that's actually more believable than the rumor of OP because that actually happened in the past.

 

Fake news like this can ruin reputation (not that Nvidia or Intel had much to begin with) and shouldn't be spread until it is confirmed.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Moonzy said:

But it's without evidence

 

I could say that AMD zen 3 cpu cores shares the same floating point unit, and that's actually more believable than the rumor of OP because that actually happened in the past.

 

Fake news like this can ruin reputation (not that Nvidia or Intel had much to begin with) and shouldn't be spread until it is confirmed.

“ Fake news” is a more serious accusation than inadequate evidence. What is described sounds ver believable to me.  The consumer enthusiast gpu AND CPU markets are both dualopolies, and in each case the competitor is AMD. For intel and Nvidia to collude on something to the disadvantage of AMD makes a certain amount of sense.  It’s not unreasonable.  Whether it’s LEGAL is an entirely different matter.  There are SERIOUS structures put on dualopoly systems over and above if there were multiple competitors in a given marketplace.  Whether it even happened also seems to be up in the air.  

[Arika]

13 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

“ Fake news” is a more serious accusation than inadequate evidence. What is described sounds ver believable to me.

so Court of Public Opinion > Evidence?

Sounds like Twitter

 

[RTX 3090]

4 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

I remember banks and ISPs in my area handing out entry tier AMD laptops to new customers around that time. Perhaps most were just given away hahahaa.

Tbh for basic things like Google and YouTube, paired with an SSD those laptops aren't too bad

[spartaman64]

i wouldnt call this proof but it was suspicious how intel's kaby lake G collaboration with amd suddenly got canceled when they put all that effort and got an working product.

[cj09beira]

22 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

I thought this was due to a lack of pcie lanes to make anything over a 2060 non beneficial.

that excuse was BS from the start.

 

this is the kind of accusation where getting hard evidence will be hard as not all agreements are done on paper and even if they are only top level guys would have access to them and good luck getting those, who knows if its true or not, one thing is for sure its something right up intel's and nvidia's alley 

[Taf the Ghost]

54 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

that excuse was BS from the start.

 

this is the kind of accusation where getting hard evidence will be hard as not all agreements are done on paper and even if they are only top level guys would have access to them and good luck getting those, who knows if its true or not, one thing is for sure its something right up intel's and nvidia's alley 

As I said up thread, this is top-tier hit piece material. If AMD had a history of being clever or the Tech Media environment actually mattered, this would be a brilliant story to plant and do reputation damage. Wouldn't matter if it was true or not, the damage would be done and it would be basically impossible to properly deny it, since it'd fit with the perception of both companies.

 

But that's analysis of a Media Hit piece. This situation looks more like someone not understanding the market and chatter going the wrong direction. HP and Dell both had to cancel most of their Renoir APU line laptops because AMD simply couldn't provide enough chips. AMD is eating up a massive amount of 7nm Wafer capacity at TSMC, yet they're pretty badly wafer limited. Laptop SoCs are actually wafer eaters, so this isn't too surprising. AMD also doesn't have as much staff available for Laptop platform validation, so more niche models simply weren't on the table to produced.

[D13H4RD]

17 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

HP and Dell both had to cancel most of their Renoir APU line laptops because AMD simply couldn't provide enough chips. AMD is eating up a massive amount of 7nm Wafer capacity at TSMC, yet they're pretty badly wafer limited. Laptop SoCs are actually wafer eaters, so this isn't too surprising. AMD also doesn't have as much staff available for Laptop platform validation, so more niche models simply weren't on the table to produced.

Yep, which goes back to my statement of AMD's biggest rival in the laptop space basically being AMD themselves, being that there's high demand for AMD laptops but they can't get chips out fast enough. 

 

Case in point: I'm actually shopping for a laptop right now and am looking at Lenovo's Yoga Slim 7 lineup (looking at the Pro mostly). The regular Slim 7 has 2 variants, one powered by AMD's Renoir and one powered by Intel's Tiger Lake (called the 7i).

 

Over in many parts of the world, the often-raved about 4800U variant is nowhere to be seen, with the 4500U (and to a lesser extent, the 4700U) being the only ones available, and they're still listed as on preorder with an estimated shipping time of more than 8 weeks. The Intel variant? 3 days to 2 weeks.

 

Early word is that Cezanne's supply isn't expected to be any better. Which is an utter shame. 

[Bombastinator]

23 hours ago, Arika S said:

so Court of Public Opinion > Evidence?

Sounds like Twitter

 

Ah.  the famous “words in the mouth” attempt.  I did not say that the court of public opinion carries more weight than evidence.  Goes to definition of terms. What is “fake news”? Fake news as I have been given to understand implies a deliberate attempt at disinformation.  An actual attempt at false evidence.  Something that did not actually happen but is said that it did.  Very commonly misattributed photography is used.  A photograph or other artistic media that is implied to be a description of a given event but provably isn’t. It’s not just something that is untrue, but is untrue in a particular way for a particular reason.  

[Bombastinator]

23 hours ago, RTX 3090 said:

Tbh for basic things like Google and YouTube, paired with an SSD those laptops aren't too bad

@RTX 3090 why do people still do this?  The whole “please tag me thing” seems to me to be a reactive leftover to an earlier iteration of the web site where it actually made sense to do.  A behavior as a reaction to a problem long ago fixed that now causes more annoyance than value, though it may not have done so in the past.  I could well be wrong about this.  I don’t know why it was done.  Before my time.  As far as I can tell it has to do with a thing that was repaired before I began reading the site.

[RTX 3090]

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The whole “please tag me thing” seems to me to be a reactive leftover to an earlier iteration of the web site where it actually made sense to do.  A behavior as a reaction to a problem long ago fixed that now causes more annoyance than value, though it may not have done so in the past.  I could well be wrong about this.  I don’t know why it was done.  Before my time.  As far as I can tell it has to do with a thing that was repaired before I began reading the site.

It's so I know if someone has replied to something I have said. I barely get any notification anyways, so not much of a problem for me

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, RTX 3090 said:

It's so I know if someone has replied to something I have said. I barely get any notification anyways, so not much of a problem for me

That may be the reason.   

[Loote]

On 1/19/2021 at 6:20 AM, Bombastinator said:

 Implies duopoly creates artificial market prices that can shatter the controls of capitalism.  

I don't think the answer is so simple, if we had more players, say, right now Intel has capacity to handle 65% of orders and AMD 25%, but the CPU efficiency is very easy to measure and that makes 10% difference is everything, but even if you split it into multiple producers with their own fabs and also multiple producers purchasing fab capacity from TSMC and the likes, whenever one of them makes a product that everybody wants, they won't have the power to produce enough chips, if it's purchased they could quite easily buy more assuming their rivals get less orders, but the fab owners would be in a pickle(and you get up to whatever capacity fabs have, excluding fabs owned by your competition, so the best product will never get 100% of the power, even if making it work on every process was feasible). And we know the time it takes to increase capacity is so long, you won't be able to do anything before your super in-demand product gets obsolete.
This is giving me a headache, I mostly agree with not buying products that are so massively overpriced if you don't have to, but with each month it's getting more and more frustrating.

[Bombastinator]

7 hours ago, Loote said:

I don't think the answer is so simple, if we had more players, say, right now Intel has capacity to handle 65% of orders and AMD 25%, but the CPU efficiency is very easy to measure and that makes 10% difference is everything, but even if you split it into multiple producers with their own fabs and also multiple producers purchasing fab capacity from TSMC and the likes, whenever one of them makes a product that everybody wants, they won't have the power to produce enough chips, if it's purchased they could quite easily buy more assuming their rivals get less orders, but the fab owners would be in a pickle(and you get up to whatever capacity fabs have, excluding fabs owned by your competition, so the best product will never get 100% of the power, even if making it work on every process was feasible). And we know the time it takes to increase capacity is so long, you won't be able to do anything before your super in-demand product gets obsolete.
This is giving me a headache, I mostly agree with not buying products that are so massively overpriced if you don't have to, but with each month it's getting more and more frustrating.

A possibly irrelevant nit pick: 65+25=90.  Where are the other 10%

 

As to the concept of duopolies being harmless because a given member of a duopoly can never have the full 100% thats horseshit. There’s this thing called”market dominance” which is what companies aim for since full on monopoly is illegal.  Market dominance produces most of the advantages/disadvantages of monopoly for the manufacturer and user respectively.  Market dominance is doable without even a dualopoly, but it’s much harder to acquire and even harder to maintain.  The difference between 2 companies and 3 companies in this equation is huge.  Is dualopoly as horrendous as monopoly? No. It’s pretty bad though.  Even 3 isn’t great, but at one point it was considered the absolute bare minimum.  4 is better than 3 for the consumer and 5 is better yet, becoming close to commodity. As the number gets smaller the problem gets bigger though. Even 3 isn’t awesome, but it’s doable. 2 is very provably by experience to be too few.  2 used to be illegal.  It was changed not by act of government but buy a judge, who I personally suspect of either stupidity or corruption. I don’t know which because I lack details but the chances of it being one, the other, or both are really really high.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Moonzy]

On 1/19/2021 at 12:07 AM, schwellmo92 said:

UPDATE:

"Nvidia's Northern Europe PR Manager Lianne Hunter reached out with the company's official position regarding the allegations: “The claim is not true. OEMs decide on their system configurations, selecting GPU and then CPU to pair with it. We support both Intel and AMD across our product stack.”"

not the update I was expecting

-puts down pitchfork- you have no idea how disappointed I am

 

 

I am actually interested how they would get exposed if it were true.

[Loote]

14 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

A possibly irrelevant nit pick: 65+25=90.  Where are the other 10%

Do you really think the supply is able to take care of 100% of the demand? I bet some would say it's even less than 90.

Anyway I agree with general opinion that monopolies and duopolies are bad, just in this particular situation having more players from today on wouldn't guarantee immediate progress. If it happened long ago maybe some other company could've kept Intel on its toes when AMD was in shambles, ordering from other fabs, making them prepare for bigger orders, but at the same time I'm afraid AMD would just die if that were the case.
I am in no way informed enough to say what's true, just based on surface level clues I have concluded that more players being present would present some problems that could outweigh, or at least come close to, what duopoly does.

[Bombastinator]

16 hours ago, Loote said:

Do you really think the supply is able to take care of 100% of the demand? I bet some would say it's even less than 90.

Anyway I agree with general opinion that monopolies and duopolies are bad, just in this particular situation having more players from today on wouldn't guarantee immediate progress. If it happened long ago maybe some other company could've kept Intel on its toes when AMD was in shambles, ordering from other fabs, making them prepare for bigger orders, but at the same time I'm afraid AMD would just die if that were the case.
I am in no way informed enough to say what's true, just based on surface level clues I have concluded that more players being present would present some problems that could outweigh, or at least come close to, what duopoly does.

Would some say that? Sure.  You can find someone to say practically anything.  There are a lot of people in the world and some of them have weird axes to grind.   It’s how the oil companies controlled the concept of global warming, which has been around since the 70’s, and the tobacco companies controlled the “cigarettes cause cancer” thing.  anSince computer chips can’t exactly be home-made, yes.  That’s literally the only place they can come from. There is apple, but until bare weeks ago they used only intel processors so they wouldn’t count. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Bombastinator