Why they are not any other CPU manufacturers besides Intel and AMD?

[Mark Kaine]

There is a word for it, duopoly? 

 

It's like a monopoly but authorities can't

do anything about it ~

 

AMD also does it with desktop GPUs,  imagine they wouldn't make GPUs anymore?  NVIDIA would be suddenly facing much stricter regularies. 

 

As for why?  Power,  money. The usual. 

 

On 6/23/2018 at 11:29 AM, Od1sseas said:

Let's say for example i want to join the CPU battle, i cannot do this becuase i don't have the license for x86-x64? Well that's bad.... If some of those companies stop making CPUs we will have monopoly

Maybe you could buy the license for RISC / or CELL processors from IBM?   Those were far better for certain tasks,  namely gaming anyway!? 

 

 

 

[TsmDan_YT]

20 hours ago, Sauron said:

I do know that and even said as much. I also noted that this thread died a year and a half ago.

oh okay since this thread is dead I will not respond

*responds anyway*

 

[Falkentyne]

On 6/23/2018 at 2:14 AM, Od1sseas said:

I'm talking about desktop processors

Since I seem to be incapable of looking at when this thread was started, I'll continue on my drunken rant.

 

There used to be.  Ever heard of Cyrix and VIA?

There was also Motorola for a long time.  They made the Commodore 64 and Apple 2, Atari and the Commodore Amiga chips.  And those computers were very definitely "Desktops."  I believe the Super Nintendo used the same chip that the Apple 2/GS used.  Intel was only on the "IBM PC" platform back then.

Eventually AMD got the x86 license and the rest is history.

The Cyrix chips sucked.

VIA now only makes enterprise chipsets.  They did chipsets and I think they bought Cyrix?