Why is there so much competition?

[Donut417]

18 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

I always see on forums threads saying that AMD needs to catch up with intel or nvidia.I cant understand why does every body want competition.I have an amd cpu and an nvidia card.I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap and enough for what i do (gaming) but i will still support intel because it is the foundation.It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.And there amd comes to steal some of intels profit.Same with nvidia.Also more things make the consumer more confusedas to what to buy.Soooo... What do u guys think

Competition creates lower prices and higher amounts of innovation. For example in the early 2000s AMD was the bees knees. They had the first 64bit chips and the first dual core chips. At that time Intel had the Pentium 4, which was not the best chip. AMD was defiantly winning at the time. But Intel licensed the 64 bit tech from AMD and they blew past AMD. Mostly due to AMD's purchase of ATI which in my opinion was a bad choice. But the fact is AMD pushed Intel to do better. 

 

Look at SSD's. Prices have come down. Why? Because there are shit loads of companies who do SSD's. Plus the handful of companies who also produce NAND flash memory. Without competition who knows when and if 3D NAND flash would have been created. Thats how SSD's got larger storage capacities. 

 

This is why I watch Intel and its entrance in to the GPU market. Because this will hopefully create 3 big players in the market, pushing innovation and cutting the prices. 

 

OH and lastly. In many countries monopolies are illegal. Figure I throw the legal parts in. 

[ManosMax13]

5 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Competition creates lower prices and higher amounts of innovation. For example in the early 2000s AMD was the bees knees. They had the first 64bit chips and the first dual core chips. At that time Intel had the Pentium 4, which was not the best chip. AMD was defiantly winning at the time. But Intel licensed the 64 bit tech from AMD and they blew past AMD. Mostly due to AMD's purchase of ATI which in my opinion was a bad choice. But the fact is AMD pushed Intel to do better. 

 

Look at SSD's. Prices have come down. Why? Because there are shit loads of companies who do SSD's. Plus the handful of companies who also produce NAND flash memory. Without competition who knows when and if 3D NAND flash would have been created. Thats how SSD's got larger storage capacities. 

 

This is why I watch Intel and its entrance in to the GPU market. Because this will hopefully create 3 big players in the market, pushing innovation and cutting the prices. 

 

OH and lastly. In many countries monopolies are illegal. Figure I throw the legal parts in. 

Well ok and something else can u answer there pls if you know and can help https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/960717-is-that-bad/?tab=comments#comment-11649357

[Zando_]

Competition forces companies to innovate. We've seen that in the last year, with Intel vs AMD. Intel has stagnated the CPU market by pretty much only making quad core CPUs aimed at enthusiasts, with a few 6 cores and then Xeons in the mix. That also never encouraged game/software devs to optimize for more cores, because basically everyone except super nuts enthusiasts with insane rigs and servers had a quad/dual core, possibly with hyperthreading. Then AMD came along with Ryzen, which came close to the IPC/clock speeds of Intel's CPUs, ran cool and had good overclocking support even on basic B series mobos, and threw in way more cores than Intel had. That forced them to introduce the 6 core mainstream i7s and i5s we have now. If AMD hadn't been so successful with Ryzen, there would be no competition for Intel and thus no reason for them to do anything but turn out a 15% faster quad core i7 every year or two. 

[ManosMax13]

Just now, Zando Bob said:

Competition forces companies to innovate. We've seen that in the last year, with Intel vs AMD. Intel has stagnated the CPU market by pretty much only making quad core CPUs aimed at enthusiasts, with a few 6 cores and then Xeons in the mix. That also never encouraged game/software devs to optimize for more cores, because basically everyone except super nuts enthusiasts with insane rigs and servers had a quad/dual core, possibly with hyperthreading. Then AMD came along with Ryzen, which came close to the IPC/clock speeds of Intel's CPUs, ran cool and had good overclocking support even on basic B series mobos, and threw in way more cores than Intel had. That forced them to introduce the 6 core mainstream i7s and i5s we have now. If AMD hadn't been so successful with Ryzen, there would be no competition for Intel and thus no reason for them to do anything but turn out a 15% faster quad core i7 every year or two. 

Ok...Can u answer there pls if you know https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/960717-is-that-bad/?tab=comments#comment-11649357

[ChernobilChuck]

Sorry if someone already mentioned it but it's too much to read every comment, but did you know intels 8th gen was supposed to launch by at least half a year later? They released it sooner because 7th gen wasn't enough to compete with 1st gen ryzen, if there is no competition manufacturers could create the most powerful hardware and just wait years with it because they still want to sell their older chips which they would have to reduce in price if they release a new more powerful one. Aslo price is a thing, it's not about whats the standard, there is a price what is costs to create something and they can add their profit onto that before selling. if there is no competition they can chrage triple of what is costs them to make, but with competition other manufactures will take for example only double the price of what it costs them to create because they are happy with that profit. Meaning they will have to reduce they triple to be able to sell their stuff.

[DimasRMDO]

In consumers point of view, more competition is always better since it leads to innovation, cheaper product and resources are more allocated efficiently since the one who's bad at it can be forced out from the competition.

Unless it's really big (like electricity or water utilities), monopoly is the least efficient market always allocatively inefficient. (though it's usually the goal for most sellers to get total control of the market). Due to possible sustainable of economics of scale and being a sole producer, a monopoly seller doesn't have to innovate much and quality doesn't have to be enforced since consumers don't have other choice. Production output can also be manipulated fairly easily and deliberately create scarcity.

Competition also gives consumers more choice, despite if it's an inferior product. If consumers can't buy higher end product let's say Intel i5-4690, people can go with FX6350. I know FX isn't the best, just to give the price difference since FX6350 is much cheaper than i5-4690. AMD Ryzen now really pushes Intel to its limit, back in the day during the FX era Intel didn't put much effort.

[Phentos]

Not to bag on OP too hard, but when you have someone asking what solder bumps are on a motherboard and if they are "bad", then they have no business being a part of discussion about technology in general.

 

Consumers should be thankful that AMD is now a resurgent force in the market, thus forcing Intel to actually put in a modicum of effort to stay relevant in the other market spaces that have nothing to do with gaming and Walmart machines. AMD's got the advantage there and it's up to the market to respond to that trend. That market I'm talking about is the server/datacenter/HPC market.

 

OP insinuated that AMD has never done anything of significance in its history. Well, we wouldn't have easily affordable 64 bit CPUs without them (amd64). Instead we would have to put up with very expensive and very complicated IA-64 based CPUs that would be extremely difficult to code most programs for that we take for granted today. AMD basically delivered a sharp uppercut to Intel's plans for IA-64 by putting out amd64 which proved to be much easier to program for and design architecturally. Nowadays it's an industry standard while IA-64 has been reduced to near-irrelevance now.

 

CPUs are so much more than that bit of silicon sitting there dutifully running Fortnite for you.

[xriqn]

1 hour ago, Phentos said:

Not to bag on OP too hard, but when you have someone asking what solder bumps are on a motherboard and if they are "bad", then they have no business being a part of discussion about technology in general.

 

Consumers should be thankful that AMD is now a resurgent force in the market, thus forcing Intel to actually put in a modicum of effort to stay relevant in the other market spaces that have nothing to do with gaming and Walmart machines. AMD's got the advantage there and it's up to the market to respond to that trend. That market I'm talking about is the server/datacenter/HPC market.

 

OP insinuated that AMD has never done anything of significance in its history. Well, we wouldn't have easily affordable 64 bit CPUs without them (amd64). Instead we would have to put up with very expensive and very complicated IA-64 based CPUs that would be extremely difficult to code most programs for that we take for granted today. AMD basically delivered a sharp uppercut to Intel's plans for IA-64 by putting out amd64 which proved to be much easier to program for and design architecturally. Nowadays it's an industry standard while IA-64 has been reduced to near-irrelevance now.

 

CPUs are so much more than that bit of silicon sitting there dutifully running Fortnite for you.

Don't forget that AMD has always been an innovator in terms of core count in CPUs too. Without AMD we'd probably still only be using dual/quad core CPUs at best.

[Phentos]

22 minutes ago, xriqn said:

Don't forget that AMD has always been an innovator in terms of core count in CPUs too. Without AMD we'd probably still only be using dual/quad core CPUs at best.

Yea. I just wanted to put special emphasis on their arguably largest and most defining contribution though.

[xriqn]

2 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Yea. I just wanted to put special emphasis on their arguably largest and most defining contribution though.

It's also looking like if we didn't have AMD - Intel competition then CPU lithographies wouldn't be going below 14nm any time soon.

[Phentos]

Just now, xriqn said:

It's also looking like if we didn't have AMD - Intel competition then CPU lithographies wouldn't be going below 14nm.

They still would, though not as quickly as what we have now. 

 

IBM, Samsung, and TSMC are major driving forces behind foundry technology still. 

[LogicalDrm]

There are rare times where free competition is bad for some consumers. But I don't see this being ever issue in tech world. By free competition being issue I refer to our new taxi laws. Before it was regulated and guaranteed all localities to have some number of service available all the time. With regulations lifted companies can select where they drive and how much service costs. It means slightly lower prices, but also much worse situation for rural areas where distances are long and there aren't so many customers as big cities would have

[Amazonsucks]

On 8/15/2018 at 4:18 PM, ManosMax13 said:

I always see on forums threads saying that AMD needs to catch up with intel or nvidia.I cant understand why does every body want competition.I have an amd cpu and an nvidia card.I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap and enough for what i do (gaming) but i will still support intel because it is the foundation.It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.And there amd comes to steal some of intels profit.Same with nvidia.Also more things make the consumer more confusedas to what to buy.Soooo... What do u guys think

Stop ripping off Jim Taggart or some other hyperbolic communist from Atlas Shrugged.

[Coaxialgamer]

For the last decade the best mainstream CPUs that you could buy were all quad cores, for 350$. From 2011 to 2017, we saw at most a 20% per clock performance improvement. 

If you wanted more you needed to buy an expensive x series board with a 400$+ Cpu, and that wasn't always better because of the older architectures these chips use. This culminated with the 180$ i3 and the 1800$ 10 core i7 with minor performance improvements over its cheaper 8 core counterpart. 

Amd ryzen changed that. With no competition, intel got complacent and milked their products as much as they could. 

[Dedayog]

On 8/15/2018 at 4:18 PM, ManosMax13 said:

I always see on forums threads saying that AMD needs to catch up with intel or nvidia.I cant understand why does every body want competition.I have an amd cpu and an nvidia card.I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap and enough for what i do (gaming) but i will still support intel because it is the foundation.It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.And there amd comes to steal some of intels profit.Same with nvidia.Also more things make the consumer more confusedas to what to buy.Soooo... What do u guys think

When you get out of middle school, you'll understand.  Let's hope you never have to purchase prescription drugs   

[Majinhoju]

With no competition Intel could charge what they want and take their time releasing new product and stagnant the market.

With competition they need to price their cpus low enough to keep their market share and they need to release newer and better cpus quick enough so their competition doesn't catch up.

 

In short, we get better prices and better products.

[Reznik]

On 2018-08-15 at 4:18 PM, ManosMax13 said:

I always see on forums threads saying that AMD needs to catch up with intel or nvidia.I cant understand why does every body want competition.I have an amd cpu and an nvidia card.I am still a fanboy of intel.I got the cpu because it was cheap and enough for what i do (gaming) but i will still support intel because it is the foundation.It has made the biggest discoveries and we owe to intel it got us where we are today when amd was not existent.And there amd comes to steal some of intels profit.Same with nvidia.Also more things make the consumer more confusedas to what to buy.Soooo... What do u guys think

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Competition fosters better products and services for consumers at a competitive price. This not applies to technology, but in many other sectors like retail and air travel just to name a few. For example, budget airlines right now are forcing your traditional legacy carriers to offer much cheaper fares or provide a much better customer experience.