Originally Posted by azanimefan
there is nothing wrong with intel giving their chips away. there wasn't anything wrong with it back in the p4 days if all they did was give their chips away.
However; intel didn't just give away millions of p4s for free. they gave them away with strings attached. The OEM could only get those millions of chips for free if 90% of their computers sold with an intel chip in them. THAT was the illegal practice back in the day. As long as these atom/baytrail chips are given away free of strings there is nothing wrong with that. However, if they are only given away with similar strings to those they used back in 2000-2006.... then there is a problem.
and i can't blame AMD for being alarmed
by an Intel rebate. Considering it was an Intel rebate that singlehandedly put them in the situation they're in now. It might be nothing, clearly the AMD spokesman had no details about the rebates so he was probably just shooting from the hip... but i don't think we can really blame AMD on this point.
Furthermore as consumers and enthusiasts this should raise caution flags for us as well. Intel got away with their last anti-competitive rebate... and buried their competition in the process. This is also an earily simmilar situation to back then as well... currently intel's x86 chips are not competitive with ARM, just like the p4 was with the athlon x64. About the only thing different today from back then, is AMD never penetrated 20% of the home pc market... so Intel had a lot of market position to leverage against the OEMs. Currently x86 SOC chips from intel are a fraction of the mobile market, the only leverage they have are with OEMs like Asus who make BOTH PCs and mobile devices.
We should all watch this news closely to see how intel is operating. Cause I for one do not look forward to the mobile market becoming a one man show like the desktop market has almost become.
I blame the consumer for this, people get too caught up on "what is the absolute best?" instead of "what actually works and meets my needs and then some?". For whatever reason people have decided to stop buying what actually does the job and have gone to buying the most expensive and powerful, even though there aren't any tangible gains when actually doing that.
An example for clarity:
Bill wants to browse the web, watch videos, check e-mail, and do his work. Instead of purchasing a lower cost AMD solution that will do all of this just fine, he goes for the more expensive Intel solution that isn't really going to do it any faster, but is more expensive.
Now people can flip out over that statement all they want and throw up synthetic benchmarks that show Intel is "better", but none of that matters, I don't care, because it doesn't translate into anything tangible in the real world!
Another great example, FX 8350 vs 3770K; time and time again in gaming it has shown that the 3770K is LOW double digit percentile faster than the FX. People run with this and scream how the 3770K just dominates the 8350 and how no one should buy the FX 8350 or anything AMD. Yet they completely ignore that the performance difference translates into maybe 8 to 10 FPS up towards the 100 FPS mark, or what have you.
What we have is a culture of people hung up on synthetic benchmarks that really have no real world meaning, and because of that they are giving one side near absolute control of the market.Edited by PostalTwinkie - 4/20/14 at 5:24pm