Intel Playing Dirty to Undercut AMD

[Zodiark1593]

8 minutes ago, Efilnikufesin said:

 True, but this was after all the dirty tactics happened, essentially handicapping AMD's ability to even be competitive. They already lost all the profits, what kind of money did they have to invest in Bulldozer?

Not long before, they (AMD) also bought out ATI for a princely sum. Intel played a role, but they weren't the only one at fault for Bulldozer. 

 

In another irony, AMD may have more to gain from similar means to what Intel had used. By using its branding (cpu, ram, GPU, ssd), AMD could use it's position to offer lower prices to OEM's that buy into all of these components. This would allow publicity for it's branding (or even a new branding) while having a greater portion of control over user experience, and potentially even lower prices than sourcing individual components for Intel based systems. 

[LAwLz]

What a shame that the other thread got deleted... I had written a reply to it and now I have to re-write it.

 

1) Charlie, who is the main source of this rumor is a notorious AMD fanboy who is actually banned by several companies for talking so much shit.

 

2) Charlie claims that Intel sent out emails to the press about this, but no email was sent to him. So, how does he know that the emails were sent out? If he obtained a copy then why not post that instead of doing a really vague description of what the email contains? Oh right, because if he actually posted what the alleged email contains then he might not be able to make Intel seem like they are manipulating reviews...

 

3) The image that is floating around on /r/AMD is from 4chan and it also includes comments about how you should not trust Intel because they are Jews. The person who made the image edited that part out though. Not saying that should invalidate the claims, but bear in mind that not everything you read on the Internet is true. A lot of times people have hidden agendas so it's always best to look things up for yourself.

 

4) How weird that just a few days before third party (as in, trustworthy and not straight from a marketing team) benchmarks comes out a conspiracy theory that third party benchmarks might not be trustworthy comes out, right? Really weird. It's almost as if people are building up a defense in case Ryzen isn't as good as the hype train want it to be, they can just go "reviewers are just bribed by Intel!". Because as we all know, if trustworthy sites like Anandtech, Guru3D, Tom's Hardware, TechPowerUp, HardwareSecrets, Overclock3D, etc says that Ryzen performs one way, and some random site barely anyone has heard of and has a history of sucking AMD's yogurt gun says it performs way better then clearly you should trust the latter side, and disregard every other benchmark, right? Because clearly all sites that says it performs one way must be bribed and only the outlier is the correct one!

 

5) Assuming that all of the claims are true, we still don't know if Intel actually has any harmful plans in mind. It's quite a big leap between wanting to give feedback and planning to throw dirt. Like the article says (if anyone actually bothers to read articles anymore, and not just the headlines), companies often reach out to discuss things like unannounced but planned price cuts, and give advice on what programs reviewers can try. Just because Intel has reached out to what appears to be 2 reviewers, doesn't mean they are planning to harm AMD to make themselves seem better.

 

 

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you read the posting guidelines for this section it requires that the source must be reputable, a screenshot from a website of a post someone made about a facebook post is about as far from the guidelines as possible so I hid it.

So, will you start removing all WCCFTech threads now? Because I don't think anyone will agree that it is a reputable source. For crying out loud, it's a LTT Forum member that wrote this article.

[Efilnikufesin]

16 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Not long before, they (AMD) also bought out ATI for a princely sum. Intel played a role, but they weren't the only one at fault for Bulldozer. 

 

In another irony, AMD may have more to gain from similar means to what Intel had used. By using its branding (cpu, ram, GPU, ssd), AMD could use it's position to offer lower prices to OEM's that buy into all of these components. This would allow publicity for it's branding (or even a new branding) while having a greater portion of control over user experience, and potentially even lower prices than sourcing individual components for Intel based systems. 

Not when Intel is actually paying companies and taking loss, yet still having the more than adequate funding to accept the loss, to ensure that the loss will never be taken again...because they just smushed any opposing force that would even remotely produce a profit. Buying ATI just really put their battle on two fronts, think of it as an advantage if you will, seems it really just kept them on life support long enough to possibly reemerge.

[Zodiark1593]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What a shame that the other thread got deleted... I had written a reply to it and now I have to re-write it.

 

1) Charlie, who is the main source of this rumor is a notorious AMD fanboy who is actually banned by several companies for talking so much shit.

 

2) Charlie claims that Intel sent out emails to the press about this, but no email was sent to him. So, how does he know that the emails were sent out? If he obtained a copy then why not post that instead of doing a really vague description of what the email contains? Oh right, because if he actually posted what the alleged email contains then he might not be able to make Intel seem like they are manipulating reviews...

 

3) The image that is floating around on /r/AMD is from 4chan and it also includes comments about how you should not trust Intel because they are Jews. The person who made the image edited that part out though. Not saying that should invalidate the claims, but bear in mind that not everything you read on the Internet is true. A lot of times people have hidden agendas so it's always best to look things up for yourself.

 

4) How weird that just a few days before third party (as in, trustworthy and not straight from a marketing team) benchmarks comes out a conspiracy theory that third party benchmarks might not be trustworthy comes out, right? Really weird. It's almost as if people are building up a defense in case Ryzen isn't as good as the hype train want it to be, they can just go "reviewers are just bribed by Intel!". Because as we all know, if trustworthy sites like Anandtech, Guru3D, Tom's Hardware, TechPowerUp, HardwareSecrets, Overclock3D, etc says that Ryzen performs one way, and some random site barely anyone has heard of and has a history of sucking AMD's yogurt gun says it performs way better then clearly you should trust the latter side, and disregard every other benchmark, right? Because clearly all sites that says it performs one way must be bribed and only the outlier is the correct one!

 

5) Assuming that all of the claims are true, we still don't know if Intel actually has any harmful plans in mind. It's quite a big leap between wanting to give feedback and planning to throw dirt. Like the article says (if anyone actually bothers to read articles anymore, and not just the headlines), companies often reach out to discuss things like unannounced but planned price cuts, and give advice on what programs reviewers can try. Just because Intel has reached out to what appears to be 2 reviewers, doesn't mean they are planning to harm AMD to make themselves seem better.

 

 

So, will you start removing all WCCFTech threads now? Because I don't think anyone will agree that it is a reputable source. For crying out loud, it's a LTT Forum member that wrote this article.

Anyone with anything larger than a plankton brain can agree that the source is, at best, as sketchy as a back alley loan shark. Still, I think the idea of future business moves to be an interesting topic, and worthy of discussion. 

 

My hopes are for a good, clean fight where both companies use all of their resources to out compete each other. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel is in another class than what AMD had been competing with the past few years (Nvidia). 

 

Here's to a good show. *raises mug of iced Vanilla Latte*. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

So, will you start removing all WCCFTech threads now? Because I don't think anyone will agree that it is a reputable source. For crying out loud, it's a LTT Forum member that wrote this article.

There's only so much the moderation team can do, if we had to fact check everything including the sources and where they got their information from the team would easily have to double. The post was hidden primarily due to the flame war rule, unreliable source was just a contributing factor but did play a large part in it.

 

There also needs to be a certain amount of leeway given for products not yet released and news items around them, this is primarily what WCCFTech deals with so will always have incorrect information since it's not getting most of it's material from official sanctioned releases from vendors.

[Efilnikufesin]

2 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Anyone with anything larger than a plankton brain can agree that the source is, at best, as sketchy as a back alley loan shark. Still, I think the idea of future business moves to be an interesting topic, and worthy of discussion. 

 

My hopes are for a good, clean fight where both companies use all of their resources to out compete each other. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel is in another class than what AMD had been competing with the past few years (Nvidia). 

 

Here's to a good show. *raises mug of iced Vanilla Latte*. 

It would only serve you better for AMD to do well. Stagnant market is stagnant due to lack of competition. Hope for some. Seeing as Intel have been in control all these years, why haven't they taken the initiative to reinvent something better than the x86 platform, which is really showing it's age....

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

There's only so much the moderation team can do, if we had to fact check everything including the sources and where they got their information from the team would easily have to double. The post was hidden primarily due to the flame war rule, unreliable source was just a contributing factor but did play a large part in it.

 

There also needs to be a certain amount of leeway given for products not yet released and news items around them, this is primarily what WCCFTech deals with so will always have incorrect information since it's not getting most of it's material from official sanctioned releases from vendors.

I was being facetious.

I understand that you need to draw the line somewhere and it's understandable that WCCFTech is on the "acceptable" side. If we were to read the rules literally then I really don't think it should be allowed to be used as a source though, because the only reputation WCCFTech has is that it's not a reputable source.

[Zodiark1593]

Just now, Efilnikufesin said:

Not when Intel is actually paying companies and taking loss, yet still having the more than adequate funding to accept the loss, to ensure that the loss will never be taken again...because they just smushed any opposing force that would even remotely produce a profit. Buying ATI just really put their battle on two fronts, think of it as an advantage if you will, seems it really just kept them on life support long enough to possibly reemerge.

Short term, buying out ATI was definitely difficult on AMD's already strained finances. However, nowhere did I say that it was a mistake. I agree that the ATI acquisition helped AMD over the long term, despite the fact that the 300+ million dollars could have been put toward their cpu division during Bulldozer development. 

 

AMD knew that finances were strained, yet ultimately took the (steep) risks in buying ATI, and accepted the tradeoffs associated with spreading the budget so thin, and would end up fighting tooth and nail to stay afloat, sometimes on the GPU front as well. Now, nearly a decade later, between Vega, Ryzen, and a repertoire of branded products to spread the name, we will shortly see if 2017 is the year of payout. 

[Efilnikufesin]

11 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Short term, buying out ATI was definitely difficult on AMD's already strained finances. However, nowhere did I say that it was a mistake. I agree that the ATI acquisition helped AMD over the long term, despite the fact that the 300+ million dollars could have been put toward their cpu division during Bulldozer development. 

 

AMD knew that finances were strained, yet ultimately took the (steep) risks in buying ATI, and accepted the tradeoffs associated with spreading the budget so thin, and would end up fighting tooth and nail to stay afloat, sometimes on the GPU front as well. Now, nearly a decade later, between Vega, Ryzen, and a repertoire of branded products to spread the name, we will shortly see if 2017 is the year of payout. 

Damn, still wish I bought AMD stocks last year when they were down to 1.80 and below. Couple of thousand shares and I would have been smiling much nicer right now. Was definitely unsure at the time though. Would have sold already...yet I preordered...lol. Another two front battle with Intel and Nvidia doesn't sound fun coming up though. Let's hope they get the influx of money they need.

 

Edit: Was an extra 300 mil in R&D really going to allow them to compete with Intel's budget?

[goodtofufriday]

2 hours ago, VagabondWraith said:

I hate these kind of rumors. There's no basis for said rumors nor any proof thereof. Yes Intel was caught doing shady things before... 10 years ago. If you're going to put out a rumor like that, you better have substantial proof of said evidence. 

 

WCCF should be banned from the forum. They're a piece of shit website that has absolutely zero credibility.

Shadey is an understatement. It was so exsevive tyat it nearly bankrupt amd. Intel went as far as offering to sell processors at a loss if they didnt buy from amd. Amomg many other things. 

[Zodiark1593]

16 minutes ago, Efilnikufesin said:

 

Edit: Was an extra 300 mil in R&D really going to allow them to compete with Intel's budget?

Who knows. Intel has a very large R&D budget by comparison, however, much of that is invested into fabs, and other products such as SSDs (which were just starting to arrive in 2007-2008), and their internal iGPU design. AMD had also spun off the fab business around a similar time frame as well. 

 

36 minutes ago, Efilnikufesin said:

It would only serve you better for AMD to do well. Stagnant market is stagnant due to lack of competition. Hope for some. Seeing as Intel have been in control all these years, why haven't they taken the initiative to reinvent something better than the x86 platform, which is really showing it's age....

Tbh, I think Intel is invested in x86 only out of necessity at this point. There was at least one attempt to break away from the x86 architecture via Itanium, though poor x86 emulation proved it's downfall in servers and workstations, let alone the consumer segments. Moving an entire user base to a new uArch without concern for backward compatibility is a formidable task after all. If, in fact, x86 is approaching the limit of it's capability, then Intel would be right to be nervous of Ryzen, though likewise, this would also mean Ryzen's success would be short lived, a terrible situation for both companies. 

 

Assuming that x86 is very nearly tapped out, Intel would probably be in a better position to transition to a new uArch, as they've put a great deal of focus on reducing x86 core size, potentially allowing for multiple architectures to co-exist without excessive die sizes. Still, to do so would represent a substantial risk even Intel would be hesitant to take on. 

[zMeul]

how many times should I repeat myself

ban WCCFTech from being used as a source on these forums - I've been asking this for at least one year 

 

where is the proof?!

 

Intel doesn't do price cuts unless you are one of the big giants that can buy truckloads of intel products

[Citadelen]

I'd like multiple sources before I believe this, but I'm surprised at the number of people who are so closed to the possibility of it happening. It's happend in the past, and I see no reason why Intel wouldn't revert to shady anticompetitive tactics again to prevent AMD from gaining a foothold.

[GamerDude]

4 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

I doubt this

Dunno about price increase, but in my neck of the woods, price of Intel CPU have hardly budged, if at all.....as for lack of belief displayed by some that such a thing like the thread title can happen, well, either they are Intel fanboys, or Intel has done a dandy job at brain washing, much like what nVidia has done for GPU.

[MageTank]

29 minutes ago, GamerDude said:

Dunno about price increase, but in my neck of the woods, price of Intel CPU have hardly budged, if at all.....as for lack of belief displayed by some that such a thing like the thread title can happen, well, either they are Intel fanboys, or Intel has done a dandy job at brain washing, much like what nVidia has done for GPU.

Or, they're rational adults that have to assume Intel couldn't stupid to do this again, when they didn't even get away with it the first time something like this came up. The problem with all this Ryzen news, is that every single tech outlet is hyping it up for clicks (because let's face it, every single hardware enthusiast is excited, whether they plan to buy it or not) . I personally don't believe it, and I am not brain washed, nor am I an "Intel Fanboy". I just believe people are getting tunnel vision with Ryzen, that rational thought is starting to escape them. If you need evidence to this, look no further than the first page of this news sub-section.

 

"Ryzen overclocking performance detailed"- Thread includes zero information about it's overclocking performance (no clock speeds, no voltages, no thermals, etc) and it's source is word of mouth.

 

"Intel responds to Ryzen with i7 7740k and i5 7640k"- Chips that were announced back in October of 2016. Yes, even the HT on the i5 was mentioned that long ago, long before the prices and benchmarks of Ryzen surfaced (and even the specific SKU's). This isn't even going on any current platforms, as it's slated to hit X299 instead, and yet every person thinks it's Intel trying to bump up the clock speeds slightly on current Kaby SKU's and give a cheaper 4c/8t alternative to match AMD.

 

"Intel reponds to Ryzen with price cuts/Intel Kaby and Skylake processors get massive price cuts"- Yes, Intel totally responded because a single retailer lowered their prices, to a price that was marketed two weeks ago to all of their email subscribers. I still have the Microcenter email to prove it. Granted, 6700k's were $280 in the email instead of $260, but close enough. Microcenter is also doing a massive sale on the AM3 CPU's and boards. Is this AMD responding to their own products?

 

My point is, the answer to every disagreement isn't always attributed to people being fanboys or "brainwashed" sheep. Some people simply prefer to have evidence to go along with claims like these. These people are not irrational in any way, and shouldn't be labeled because of that. If anything, you are only adding more fuel to the fanboy fires by throwing around specific brands and attaching baseless accusations to their consumers. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

There's a similar allegation reported on Reddit: 

 

 

 

[GamerDude]

16 minutes ago, MageTank said:

My point is, the answer to every disagreement isn't always attributed to people being fanboys or "brainwashed" sheep. Some people simply prefer to have evidence to go along with claims like these. These people are not irrational in any way, and shouldn't be labeled because of that. If anything, you are only adding more fuel to the fanboy fires by throwing around specific brands and attaching baseless accusations to their consumers. 

Just expressing an opinion, which I'm fully entitled to. IF this proves to be true, I'd have the satisifaction of knowing I was right, but if it is discredited, well, my bad then. BUT should it remain unproven either way, I'm likely to stick to my opinion that Intel had played dirty.....pretty tired of Intel gouging the market and lack of sheer innovation through the years. 

[Okjoek]

I want to see AMD's new integrated graphics for laptops/HTPCs. I want to see Intel's HD 630 get crushed.

[Bensemus]

5 hours ago, Efilnikufesin said:

Also probably really hurts AMD off the get go that Apple runs Intel chips...may be a hard sell for AMD. Apple likes to lock all their customers to their own propriety gear...seems like they and Intel get along quite well.

Apple would happily drop Intel if AMD offered them a better deal. They don't have any loyalty to brands. They often switch between Nvidia and AMD. 

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

WCCFTech is like the CNN of CPU news

[AresKrieger]

Can we enforce the verified information clause this subforum has, because I'm sick of rumors

 

Edit: NVM already discussed on another page

[Shahnewaz]

9 hours ago, NuclearKing said:

- snip -

Article has been updated. Here's the update part:

Quote

[UPDATED – Feb 26 2017 7:16 PM ET]

The editors-in-chief of two of America’s top PC hardware and technology publications have confirmed to Wccftech that they have indeed been approached by Intel regarding upcoming Ryzen reviews. Although both said that it was business as usual. Affirming that Intel’s response following AMD’s Ryzen announcement was what they had expected it to be and nothing was particularly unusual about it.

[End of update]

Charlie haters lose yet again.

Also: http://disq.us/p/1gj4dqx

Quote

Khalid Moammer The Chosen One • 8 hours ago

Major update. We tracked down the source of Charlie's claims. 100% confirmed and it's coming from an industry leader. In the process of gaining permission to go public with this as we speak.

 

[Bleedingyamato]

9 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

Meh, welcome to the corporate world. And the rebates were amazing, jesus 250 for a 6700k? Im upgrading

 

9 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

They did, signifigantly

When?    I've never seen a 6700K for $250 and it's selling for $309 on Amazon atm not $250.

 

Did I miss something?  ?

[Fetzie]

59 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

 

When?    I've never seen a 6700K for $250 and it's selling for $309 on Amazon atm not $250.

 

Did I miss something?  ?

Microcenter was clearing stock and this obviously means that Intel has dropped its prices...

 

It would not surprise me if Intel tried to pull off some dirty tricks on this release ; after all, they do have a reputation for doing so.

[Bleedingyamato]

6 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

Microcenter was clearing stock and this obviously means that Intel has dropped its prices...

 

It would not surprise me if Intel tried to pull off some dirty tricks on this release ; after all, they do have a reputation for doing so.

If it's just Microcenter then it's not a true price drop but just Microcenter looking to get rid of Intel CPUs.  

 

There's no Microcenter near me so it's 100% worthless to me so long as they're the only ones lowering the price on Intel CPUs.