null

[Bhav]

One can't really blame Intel for AMDs inability to create competitive CPUs. Hopefully the Zen won't turn out to be just another paperweight.

[Citadelen]

14 hours ago, incarnate said:

How can you know what the final product will be like before it gets released? You are right, you can and should say that about every unreleased product. I fail to see how that is a defense. And look at AMD's track record. Seriously. Their gpus and cpus both get over hyped pre-release.

 

Seriously apply a little common sense, you think amd is really capable of making up for years of falling behind in one generation? Come on now. AMD has been losing money for the last what 5 years straight? Maybe more?

You haven't watched the video have you, AMD started development on Bulldozer in the early 2000's, and it was a huge let down, AMD can't simply magic a new Architecture and have been forced to use Bulldozer. Not only was it slower it was also very expensive to make. Zen was designed by Jim Keller (need I explain this), it will be a smaller chip, meaning AMD can make more money off of it, you see now.

[Prysin]

16 hours ago, Enderman said:

people are getting their hopes up too much

 

btw intel is not a monopoly

you clearly have never seen a monopoly

well, some monopolies are not bad

 

where i live, the government has monopolized gambling and liquor sales. Hasnt really diminished the service much. Especially the liquor sales are quite interesting, whilst VAT does increase prices, some products we can get cheaper here (with VAT) then in their country of origin (some expensive Champagnes and old expensive vines of sorts). Then again, in other areas it is way worse.

 

also, you may want to watch this

 

 

it paints a curious picture on ZEN/K12

[Coaxialgamer]

The product hasn't been released yet.  Never trust a companiea word.  

 

I want amd to succeed,  but no amount of jim keller will compensate for the lack of r&d money at amd. 

[MageTank]

5 hours ago, Sat1600 said:

There is a legal term for monopoly amd then there is a figure of speech.

 

The only reason intel is not a real monopoly is because of repeated lawsuits by amd and the ftc stopping in from becoming one. The have had to pay damages because of unfair practices.

 

Even if they were always fair and just better they would still be a monopoly if they controlled the industry. You can't say they are nowhere near a monopoly if AMD is the only thing that stops them from being so.

 

The term monopoly can also be used as a figure of speech. Saying that intel has a monopoly on the high end enthusiasts grade CPU's is a perfectly fair statement. It's like saying that until Barak Obama "white men had a monopoly of the presidency".

 

I think the point that op was making was that we all benefit if Zen can compete with intel's high end chip.

 

I don't think they would have pulled that crap with blocking overclock on skylake chips if amd had a stronger presence in the market.

 

Why are you telling me what I already said? I know there are legal monopolies, I said so in the very post you quoted. I can say they are nowhere near a monopoly, because AMD is not their only competitor. In the general consumer market, sure, AMD is their big competition, but in the server market, you have AMD's Operton lineup, IBM's Power8 lineup (Though, mostly used in HPC applications), and just recently, Qualcomm entered that market with a 24 core ARM CPU aimed at the server market. That's not even beginning to mention the mobile market, where there are dozens of competitors against Intel, most of which are actually doing better in that market. Those Atoms are not exactly selling well. 

 

So yeah, I can say they are nowhere being a monopoly, because it's a true statement. If he intended to use it as a figure of speech, he wouldn't have tried to repeatedly defend his use of it, and even lie about using it to "get a rise out of people". He meant the literal definition of the word, though he did not understand the prerequisites of what exactly constitutes a monopoly.

 

Either way, I agree with the statement that Zen being good, is good for everyone. I myself have said that in this very thread too. As for the last part, regarding the blocking of Skylake overclocking of non-K chips, I can tell you, AMD had nothing to do that. The blame falls squarely on ASRock. They could not leave well enough alone. Releasing the SkyOC bios on Z series boards is one thing, but they overstepped their boundary by also adding it to H boards. That is when Intel put their foot down.

 

There are still boards that can do it though. EVGA's Z170 boards can do it, and they never once advertised it. ASRock's ITX Z170 boards have yet to be touched, and can still do it. The same can be said of their high end boards, such as the OC Formula, which has an option in the BIOS to let you change the microcode manually. 

[Sat1600]

18 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Why are you telling me what I already said? I know there are legal monopolies, I said so in the very post you quoted. I can say they are nowhere near a monopoly, because AMD is not their only competitor. In the general consumer market, sure, AMD is their big competition, but in the server market, you have AMD's Operton lineup, IBM's Power8 lineup (Though, mostly used in HPC applications), and just recently, Qualcomm entered that market with a 24 core ARM CPU aimed at the server market. That's not even beginning to mention the mobile market, where there are dozens of competitors against Intel, most of which are actually doing better in that market. Those Atoms are not exactly selling well. 

 

So yeah, I can say they are nowhere being a monopoly, because it's a true statement. If he intended to use it as a figure of speech, he wouldn't have tried to repeatedly defend his use of it, and even lie about using it to "get a rise out of people". He meant the literal definition of the word, though he did not understand the prerequisites of what exactly constitutes a monopoly.

 

Either way, I agree with the statement that Zen being good, is good for everyone. I myself have said that in this very thread too. As for the last part, regarding the blocking of Skylake overclocking of non-K chips, I can tell you, AMD had nothing to do that. The blame falls squarely on ASRock. They could not leave well enough alone. Releasing the SkyOC bios on Z series boards is one thing, but they overstepped their boundary by also adding it to H boards. That is when Intel put their foot down.

 

There are still boards that can do it though. EVGA's Z170 boards can do it, and they never once advertised it. ASRock's ITX Z170 boards have yet to be touched, and can still do it. The same can be said of their high end boards, such as the OC Formula, which has an option in the BIOS to let you change the microcode manually. 

You don't need 100% market share to be considered a monopoly. Standard oil had 88% at its peak and US steel had about 70%. Those are both considered monopolies. Intel has 80% market share. You can be a monopoly in a segment of the market. Many consider intel to be one.

 

The only reason I bring it up is that you where on op pretty hard about intel not being close to a monopoly. I think that is false.

[Sat1600]

I also didn't say it was amd's fault that intel blocked the skylakes. I'm saying that if and was more competitive intel would think twice about pissing off people who already purchased their chips. Sure they would have closed the loophole on new chips. But to shut it down on chips people already paid for? If Amd had more market share asrock could have told intel to go to hell. They could bock intel's microcode change. They never would because of intel's dominance. 

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Sat1600 said:

You don't need 100% market share to be considered a monopoly. Standard oil had 88% at its peak and US steel had about 70%. Those are both considered monopolies. Intel has 80% market share. You can be a monopoly in a segment of the market. Many consider intel to be one.

 

The only reason I bring it up is that you where on op pretty hard about intel not being close to a monopoly. I think that is false.

US Steel was not considered a monopoly by legal definition though, and was never prosecuted. I don't really know how it works outside of the US, but market segments in the US are compounded as one, when they can be substituted to do the same thing as another product.

 

For example: Xeons, Intel's server market processors, can also be used in normal consumer tasks. The same can be said with mobile ARM based processors. It is why Intel, with 80% market share in general consumer based CPU's, cannot be considered an outright monopoly (though, It can if a court deems any of their practices as monopolistic) because their total market share, when combining general consumer, server, and mobile markets does not exceed 75%, as defined by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

 

Now, from what I've read, this number differs depending on the country. In the UK, 25% market share is all that is required to be considered a monopoly. Other countries require 100%, meaning absolutely no competition in order to be considered a monopoly. However, I reside in the US, so all of my context arises from my place of origin when i speak. As of right now, Intel is not considered a monopoly by US law. They have been in trouble in the past over it, due to anti-trust practices (fabricating benchmarks, for example) but they've already paid for it, and are not currently considered a monopoly. 

 

If you look at every market of computing as a whole (As the US government does under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) Intel's market share is only 14.1%. Most definitely not a monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year

[Sat1600]

5 minutes ago, MageTank said:

US Steel was not considered a monopoly by legal definition though, and was never prosecuted. I don't really know how it works outside of the US, but market segments in the US are compounded as one, when they can be substituted to do the same thing as another product.

 

For example: Xeons, Intel's server market processors, can also be used in normal consumer tasks. The same can be said with mobile ARM based processors. It is why Intel, with 80% market share in general consumer based CPU's, cannot be considered an outright monopoly (though, It can if a court deems any of their practices as monopolistic) because their total market share, when combining general consumer, server, and mobile markets does not exceed 75%, as defined by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

 

Now, from what I've read, this number differs depending on the country. In the UK, 25% market share is all that is required to be considered a monopoly. Other countries require 100%, meaning absolutely no competition in order to be considered a monopoly. However, I reside in the US, so all of my context arises from my place of origin when i speak. As of right now, Intel is not considered a monopoly by US law. They have been in trouble in the past over it, due to anti-trust practices (fabricating benchmarks, for example) but they've already paid for it, and are not currently considered a monopoly. 

 

If you look at every market of computing as a whole (As the US government does under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) Intel's market share is only 14.1%. Most definitely not a monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year

I don't think we are arguing. We all agree that intel is not at the moment a legal monopoly.

 

I think we can agree that the statement "intel has a near monopoly on consumer grade cpus" is accurate. 

 

We also all agree that everyone would benefit from Zen being a success.

 

And lastly we all agree that we can't get excited about zen until we see some 3rd party bench marks.

[MageTank]

Just now, Sat1600 said:

I don't think we are arguing. We all agree that intel is not at the moment a legal monopoly.

 

I think we can agree that the statement "intel has a near monopoly on consumer grade cpus" is accurate. 

 

We also all agree that everyone would benefit from Zen being a success.

 

And lastly we all agree that we can't get excited about zen until we see some 3rd party bench marks.

Sounds fair. I agree with that conclusion.