Intel Playing Dirty to Undercut AMD

[Misanthrope]

Just now, tomotomov92 said:

 

This is the long term effect of AMD not releasing competitive products with Intel's lineup.

Sorry to cut your wall of text there chief but long term effects are almost never reverted in the very short term I was talking about which is about 1 to 2 months max.

[tomotomov92]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Sorry to cut your wall of text there chief but long term effects are almost never reverted in the very short term I was talking about which is about 1 to 2 months max.

In the case with the pre-orders - it may as well be an issue. Well we'll have to wait and see what actually happens.

 

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

You know the NDA itself would probably be included in the NDA. Not that they would need one anyway to make a serious threat. I'm not happy about AMD's NDA as well. If they allowed reviews to be published earlier, this whole debacle would never have happened. And if Ryzen was really a disappointment, the people would know not to preorder. 

One of the shitty things about pre-orders and NDA keeping the products' specs going out before the purchase is to keep some secrets.

 

For example you can check Bethesda's thing - Doom's reviews came out after the pre-orders and it was success - so after this point they would do the reviews after the game is publicly available. Next game to be affected by "no reviews before widely available" - Dishonored 2.

It was a disaster during it's launch.

 

Other example with bad pre-orders and no reviews prior to launch - Mafia 3.

 

 

The sad thing about not having reviews out before being able to purchase a product is like playing a lottery with two numbers:

If you pre-order - you choose the first digit.

 

If the product is ok - the first digit is the winning one so no one loses.

Well we'll know about everything in a few days from now so let's keep with the witch hunt until then

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Sorry to cut your wall of text there chief but long term effects are almost never reverted in the very short term I was talking about which is about 1 to 2 months max.

If AMD sold enough CPUs in the first 1-3 months there wouldn't have been enough storage locations to put them anywhere before sale, or get them shipped in time. That would have been over a billion processors, like damn that's over 11 million processors a day. Imagine the utter world wide chaos trying to get that much product to peoples doors.

[LabRat]

LAwlZ............ think about that. you'll catch on.

 

I already saw 4k benchmarks. it's amazing for the price we're paying. Intel's going to have to make a move. I'm no under an NDA/

 

 

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

If AMD sold enough CPUs in the first 1-3 months there wouldn't have been enough storage locations to put them anywhere before sale, or get them shipped in time. That would have been over a billion processors, like damn that's over 11 million processors a day. Imagine the utter world wide chaos trying to get that much product to peoples doors.

Precisely: the way a supply chain works means that there is no way they can revert years of market dominance by Intel with just a successful launch. It really does not hurt for intel to wait and see what they're dealing with for a brief period of time before they decide a very significant price reduction is in order.

[Scionyde]

So it's been a couple days and we still don't have any concrete proof on what Intel may or may not have said? Lovely. Damage has probably already been done, though - any reviewer who levels a criticism at Ryzen or highlights a possible inferiority compared to Intel is bound to be called a shill who succumbed to this phantom email.

 

2 hours ago, LabRat said:

LAwlZ............ think about that. you'll catch on.

 

I already saw 4k benchmarks. it's amazing for the price we're paying. Intel's going to have to make a move. I'm no under an NDA/

 

 

If you want a response from somebody, you either need to quote them or stick an @ at the beginning of their name. Like this: @LAwLz

[LabRat]

2 minutes ago, Scionyde said:

So it's been a couple days and we still don't have any concrete proof on what Intel may or may not have said? Lovely. Damage's has probably already been done, though - any reviewer who levels a criticism at Ryzen or highlights a possible inferiority compared to Intel is bound to be called a shill who succumbed to this phantom email.

 

If you want a response from somebody, you either need to quote them or stick an @ at the beginning of their name. Like this: @LAwLz

tried that double quote shit. never works for me. if somebody is following they will see it. if not, I don't care.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, LabRat said:

LAwlZ............ think about that. you'll catch on.

 

I already saw 4k benchmarks. it's amazing for the price we're paying. Intel's going to have to make a move. I'm no under an NDA/

 

 

Think about what? 

 

I am not worried about 4K gaming benchmarks. Those are mostly GPU bound so your processor matters less than at lower resolutions anyway, and I doubt it will be "amazing value" compared to for example the i5.

[tomotomov92]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Think about what? 

 

I am not worried about 4K gaming benchmarks. Those are mostly GPU bound so your processor matters less than at lower resolutions anyway, and I doubt it will be "amazing value" compared to for example the i5.

I don't know if anyone of you have read it but this article from Tom's Hardware shows that at higher resolutions even duo core (they had HT disabled for all tests so i3 was performing like a duo core CPU) performs better than higher core counts in most of the games (in DirectX 11).

 

The higher the resolution the higher need for more and faster GPU dedicated RAM and GPU speeds (please note that if the memory needed exceeds the GPU RAM then the GPU starts to use the system memory which is a lot slower and that way the performance is decreased).

 

Unfortunately there is still no data on DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance while increasing cores with the different resolutions as right now there are not enough games that are using them. I hope they someone can test the performance for these APIs in the near future.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, tomotomov92 said:

I don't know if anyone of you have read it but this article from Tom's Hardware shows that at higher resolutions even duo core (they had HT disabled for all tests so i3 was performing like a duo core CPU) performs better than higher core counts in most of the games (in DirectX 11).

 

The higher the resolution the higher need for more and faster GPU dedicated RAM and GPU speeds (please note that if the memory needed exceeds the GPU RAM then the GPU starts to use the system memory which is a lot slower and that way the performance is decreased).

 

Unfortunately there is still no data on DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance while increasing cores with the different resolutions as right now there are not enough games that are using them. I hope they someone can test the performance for these APIs in the near future.

I had not read that article until now, but yeah it seems to confirm what I already knew from other sources.

The higher your graphic settings, the less your processor matters.

 

4K benchmarks are, at least right now, useless for determining how good a processor is. 1080p benchmarks will show a much larger performance difference.

But if you ask me even 1080p gaming benchmarks are kind of useless. Any half-decent processor like an i5 will not bottleneck you as quickly as your graphics card will. Maybe if you have like a dual Titan XP setup then sure, you might want something more than an i5, but the 0.01% who actually owns that will already know that.