Originally Posted by Serandur
Duh? I never said they did. Obviously, the fact that they're doing it means they don't need anyone here's approval. The terms "consumer-justifiable reason" and "because Intel can" should have tipped you off. I'm explicitly not
talking about reasons they can't
do something. Instead, I was referring to those in this thread who justify shunning complaints on the basis of "you're just cheap" when the disapproval's really a much more complex "no, I just remember overclocking being a thing before stupid premiums, know it's a ripoff market segmentation strategy, and as a consumer (which all of us here), I don't approve".
No one's talking about them needing our approval. Them not needing our approval, however, doesn't mean they have our approval and doesn't mean forumgoers can't be critical about it.
That's great... except every chip Intel sells falls under the category of either locked or unlocked and the general umbrella of Intel's market segmentation strategy. Every person buying any modern x86 chip suitable for the express purposes of performance and/or efficiency are going to be buying Intel. Therefore, every person that's buying a modern x86 chip suitable for performance and/or efficiency are supporting this practice and therefore shouldn't complain because complaining is meaningless? Wonderful, what's next? Every x86 buyer not buying Intel supports antiquated, poorly-performing, inefficient designs unsuited for various workloads and therefore shouldn't complain about those issues because complaining about a company whose product you own is meaningless? Are people's complaints now valid only if they don't buy from the company they're critiquing... even if they really have no other choice? And then, if they're buying from another company and critiquing Intel's products, those people will be met with claims of "you're just being a fanboy trying to justify your purchase".
I don't buy Intel to support their practices, I buy Intel because there is no reasonable alternative for what I need an x86 CPU for. Which is the same reason why Intel are comfortable administering these practices. If complaining, on a forum centered around these types of discussions, is the last course of action a consumer can reasonably take, they are certainly free to complain and are not inherently wrong for doing so.
I agree with everything you are saying man but lets face it, until AMD comes out with something that even remotely competes with Intel in the x86 arena they are going to continue to do what they've been doing since SB because there is absolutely no incentive for them not to. As you said, people like you and me are not in favor of their current business practices but aren't going to put up with far inferior products just to stand on principle. Its a real catch 22 because, while I'd love to go for anything other than Intel the fact remains that there is nothing out there that can remotely compete with even my IB-E processor, much less the new Haswell-E or even Skylake mainstream stuff. I understand perfectly KyadCK's point that complaining about it here on OCN has absolutely zero impact on intel's business strategy but this is a computer DISCUSSION forum after all and we should be able to discuss our dissatisfaction with any product here if we like (although with some discussions the "beating a dead horse" aspect of the discussion can get old after countless threads and posts on the subject; MS and Windows comes to mind here).
I think you make a great point that what you are arguing about isn't intended to have any effect on Intel at all (and that would be silly to expect that in the first place) but, instead, is intended to counter the frankly insulting and elitist position several other members here on OCN that people are simply being cheap in not wanting to just buy -K processors and shut up already. The fact is that the majority of people around the world simply cannot afford these premium products and are stuck with lower priced components as their only options. For the young kid building his first gaming rig or the parent of 3 kids trying to put together a competent family system on a small budget it would be nice to be able to buy a $100 processor that they could squeeze some extra performance out of, many of which (on Intel's side) are very much capable of delivering hardware-wise but, for wholly arbitrary reasons, have not been allowed to do so...
Originally Posted by provost
Makes sense to me, as I am having a déjà vu about the same argument being made (stop whining, don't like it, buy something else argument, that is) by Nvidia fans here innumerable times ... Lol
But, I don't have as big an issue with Intel, as CPUs don't have as much an impact on PC gaming that involve discreet gpus. But, having limitations of various kind on the discreet gpus is what impacts most of the folks here (other than 2d benchers), I would guess.
I rarely disagree with you on anything but in this situation I would actually argue that Intel is far worse than Nvidia for this simple reason: At least on the discreet graphics side there is viable competition for Nvidia's products. Sure the 980Ti is the top card out there but if you don't like Nvidia for whatever reason you can easily buy a Fury X or Fury and still have a very competitive product on your hands. With processors there is basically Intel and nothing else unless you are talking about gaming exclusively, and even then the Intel products provide a very significant performance advantage...Edited by Majin SSJ Eric - 2/6/16 at 7:30pm