has AMD hit rock bottom?!

[theereal]

Titan Z, and its price would have dropped anyway when it hit the market and demand was too soft. Competition is one small variable used in product pricing, and my solution includes competition, so I don't see why you complain.

Nvidia will continue to price where marginal profit = marginal cost as best they can predict it, and that will include market segmentation, something AMD uses as well. Is it wrong for Nvidia to charge a premium for its very best products? No. Whether or not consumers buy is the only variable that matters to Nvidia, and the status of the competition is a small consideration in that pricing plan.

You dont seem to understand that without competition, prices will become higher, beacuse you are forced to buy 1 companys product....

[Notional]

The only 3-year old hardware keeping up with Nvidia's newest is the highest end of a past architecture. If you mean the 390X keeping up with the 980, that shouldn't surprise anyone given it's a 2816 SP part against a 2048 part. The very fact the 290X was beaten so handily by a part with a half-sized bus and 24% fewer SPs speaks to AMD's terrible drivers and bad ROP allocation.

As per the EU's draconian practices, it's still a presumption of innocence. And I can make a number of good arguments. It'll be a cakewalk for Intel's lawyers.

 

A 7970Ghz should still play nice with a 960. That's still impressive tbh. As for ROP allocation, AMD has focused more on compute and less on ROP's. That might have cost them then, but time has proven them wise, and the way the industry is moving, this is a good thing.

 

Like it was a "cakewalk" for Microsoft's lawyers? I mean this is all hypothetical anyways, but underestimating EU is unwise.

[patrickjp93]

You dont seem to understand that without competition, prices will become higher, beacuse you are forced to buy 1 companys product....

No, because it's a luxury item, not a necessity. Nvidia has to drive its own sales. To do that it must keep prices where they are now or lower them. It can only increase prices in an improving economy to keep the same revenues/profits. Seriously, Microeconomics, learn it.

[patrickjp93]

A 7970Ghz should still play nice with a 960. That's still impressive tbh. As for ROP allocation, AMD has focused more on compute and less on ROP's. That might have cost them then, but time has proven them wise, and the way the industry is moving, this is a good thing.

 

Like it was a "cakewalk" for Microsoft's lawyers? I mean this is all hypothetical anyways, but underestimating EU is unwise.

The EU was going to rule against Microsoft regardless of the actual facts of the case. They can't do that with Intel and retain credibility. The Netscape decision was BS and we all know it when we put aside our mutual dislike of Microsoft and look solely at the facts, because Microsoft sold an OS. It didn't sell a browser. Second, you have to have a browser to reach the internet unless you are a command line jockey. Microsoft could have bundled every other browser onto Windows and it still wouldn't have satisfied the EU. The EU wanted blood, and it got it. With Intel, it can't get away with the same petty BS because they can't use the same laws to attack Intel and the circumstances are entirely different.

 

I'm not underestimating the EU. I just know how it works, and innocence is still presumed even for large corporations. The EU had a crap case with more emotion than substance based on the most loose interpretation of a law I've ever seen. No one is going to care (legally speaking) if AMD dies as long as the end result is more competition just because Intel remains standing. If the cards are shuffled as I prescribe. There will be more competition.

[patrickjp93]

-snip-

Nope. The GPU market does not work the way medical devices and medicines work. Those fall under necessities, so price gouging abounds since life always outweighs money. With luxuries it all comes down to the same basic laws of supply and demand. Nvidia will sell where marginal profit = marginal cost, because that is the profit maximization point even in monopoly.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I think we have known for a long time that AMD has been going down a very long spirally death. 

[HalGameGuru]

Qualcomm makes routers, network switches, and phone SOCs from basic building blocks from vanilla ARM. The last time they did a custom architecture, it didn't last all that long. Qualcomm doesn't have the expertise needed to fight Intel in the desktop and server arenas imHo.

I don't disagree with your assessment I just think that's less of an issue when you are getting the whole set of building blocks, if they were ONLY getting IP it would do them little good, but as they would be getting staff, facilities, infrastructure, material, and stockpiles they are kind of getting into it with the wheels turning.

 

And there are enough chunks within AMD that parallel or feed into Qualcomm's current design theory that those areas would be well assimilated, the traditional AMD areas may not be a fit for Qualcomm, but I doubt they would chafe to the point they could not be put to use and made functionable.

[patrickjp93]

-snip-

Basic law of economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_maximization

 

You're thinking of the Titan Z, because AMD has nothing to compete with the Titan X, and that isn't evidence of what you claim

1) because it's a single example of a premium product

2) the price would have fallen anyway due to soft demand, or a miscalculation in the marginal profit curve.

[theereal]

Basic law of economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_maximization

 

You're thinking of the Titan Z, because AMD has nothing to compete with the Titan X, and that isn't evidence of what you claim

1) because it's a single example of a premium product

2) the price would have fallen anyway due to soft demand, or a miscalculation in the marginal profit curve.

The "basic law of economics" is not "evidence"....

[Notional]

The EU was going to rule against Microsoft regardless of the actual facts of the case. They can't do that with Intel and retain credibility. The Netscape decision was BS and we all know it when we put aside our mutual dislike of Microsoft and look solely at the facts, because Microsoft sold an OS. It didn't sell a browser. Second, you have to have a browser to reach the internet unless you are a command line jockey. Microsoft could have bundled every other browser onto Windows and it still wouldn't have satisfied the EU. The EU wanted blood, and it got it. With Intel, it can't get away with the same petty BS because they can't use the same laws to attack Intel and the circumstances are entirely different.

 

I'm not underestimating the EU. I just know how it works, and innocence is still presumed even for large corporations. The EU had a crap case with more emotion than substance based on the most loose interpretation of a law I've ever seen. No one is going to care (legally speaking) if AMD dies as long as the end result is more competition just because Intel remains standing. If the cards are shuffled as I prescribe. There will be more competition.

 

Literally no one who can change that cares. Intel would suffer just as hard as Microsoft and no one could do anything about it. You think Intel would stop selling products in EU? Never going to happen. They would pay up and get in line like everyone else. Luckily lobbyism has very little power in EU, and for all the shit EU does, at least they do this somewhat right.

 

Every company has a right to defend themselves. Sure they will have their say in court, just not sure it would matter at all. Not sure you understand how the EU court works, because frankly no one does. That's why their decisions are impossible to predict.

 

NVidia getting more power would be the worst that could happen to the average consumer.

 

Nope. The GPU market does not work the way medical devices and medicines work. Those fall under necessities, so price gouging abounds since life always outweighs money. With luxuries it all comes down to the same basic laws of supply and demand. Nvidia will sell where marginal profit = marginal cost, because that is the profit maximization point even in monopoly.

 

Makes no difference whether they are necessary or not. Actually price margins tends to be the largest on non essential goods (maybe except medicine), so his point completely stands on this. Certainly people will not magically gain more capital, so they would just end up getting lower end hardware as prices slowly grows.

[patrickjp93]

The "basic law of economics" is not "evidence"....

Yes it is. It is a fact that holds true for all firms in all markets except for the specific case of monopoly in a NECESSITIES market. Go ahead, try to maximize profit any other way. You'll fail.

[Texhnlyze]

Why can't AMD and Nvidia just merge? Like gee, make the virtual gaming happen already! And it's going to be Intel vs AMVidia. I know it doesn't work that way but I would really like to see it happen.

[patrickjp93]

Literally no one who can change that cares. Intel would suffer just as hard as Microsoft and no one could do anything about it. You think Intel would stop selling products in EU? Never going to happen. They would pay up and get in line like everyone else. Luckily lobbyism has very little power in EU, and for all the shit EU does, at least they do this somewhat right.

 

Every company has a right to defend themselves. Sure they will have their say in court, just not sure it would matter at all. Not sure you understand how the EU court works, because frankly no one does. That's why their decisions are impossible to predict.

 

NVidia getting more power would be the worst that could happen to the average consumer.

 

 

Makes no difference whether they are necessary or not. Actually price margins tends to be the largest on non essential goods (maybe except medicine), so his point completely stands on this. Certainly people will not magically gain more capital, so they would just end up getting lower end hardware as prices slowly grows.

His point doesn't stand, because he has no point, and the facts are against him.

 

Go ahead and find a necessities market with monopolies. It will have higher margins than any other economy. Add competition and those margins decline. Go to a luxuries market and compare pricing history before and after monopolies exist. They remain consistent. Intel's pricing has remained constant for 9 years despite becoming a de facto monopoly in PCs when you account for inflation. This is still only anecdotal evidence of a single market though and is not proof by itself, just as his single example is not proof by itself. I'm speaking of an all-encompassing, proven fact of economics that is agreed upon by all economists of merit that is established by mathematical proof. What more do you want?

[patrickjp93]

Why can't AMD and Nvidia just merge? Like gee, make the virtual gaming happen already! And it's going to be Intel vs AMVidia. I know it doesn't work that way but I would really like to see it happen.

Because buyouts/mergers resulting in monopolistic motion is illegal in most countries. Competition is a legal path to monopoly. Most other paths are not legal.

[kainobean]

amd im over here in my small corner secluded from the rest of the fanboys still buying amd cpus just becuase i want them to stay alive forever

 

dont leave me AMD!!! if you go my initials will not be the same as a computer company and my life will loose all meaning ;-; 

[Prysin]

Wow. This is a cherry picked news report if I've ever seen one.

zMeul is the #1 at finding bad news about AMD....

 

If there is bad news or projections for AMD, count on zMeul to share it with these forums....

 

which is neither a good or bad thing, it just is what it is

[theereal]

Yes it is. It is a fact that holds true for all firms in all markets except for the specific case of monopoly in a NECESSITIES market. Go ahead, try to maximize profit any other way. You'll fail.

You ask other people to back up their statements with evidence and you dont even have evidence for your own

[Prysin]

Because buyouts/mergers resulting in monopolistic motion is illegal in most countries. Competition is a legal path to monopoly. Most other paths are not legal.

well since they count Intel iGPU as a GPU, then merging AMD and Nvidia wouldnt be a real "monopoly"....

[patrickjp93]

You ask other people to back up their statements with evidence and you dont even have evidence for your own

I do. The fact you don't consider established economic fact as evidence is not my issue to address. Go ahead and ask your economics professor or a reputable economist. You'll get the same answer.

[patrickjp93]

well since they count Intel iGPU as a GPU, then merging AMD and Nvidia wouldnt be a real "monopoly"....

It would for the dGPU market.

[Prysin]

It would for the dGPU market.

Matrox is still crawling around in the cracks somewhere....

[patrickjp93]

Matrox is still crawling around in the cracks somewhere....

There's still a formula used to calculate market impact. Matrox is not big enough to be precedent to allow such a merger.

[carolkarine]

Matrox is still crawling around in the cracks somewhere....

They license AMD ip now iirc. Plus they focus only on displays with loads of outputs

[Prysin]

There's still a formula used to calculate market impact. Matrox is not big enough to be precedent to allow such a merger.

True for consumer, not so sure about "professional" sectors...

Not to mention, dunno how known Matrox is outside of the US/EU, they may be big somewhere else.....

[patrickjp93]

True for consumer, not so sure about "professional" sectors...

Not to mention, dunno how known Matrox is outside of the US/EU, they may be big somewhere else.....

It's the same approach used for all markets, at least by the FTC.

 

Matrox is non-existent even in China, and regulatory bodies only act based on internal contexts.