AMD announces Ryzen 9 3900X flagship desktop CPU, Ryzen 7 3800X, more

10thDmenxn

TS Member
It's less the speed of the memory and more the quantity of it :) I haven't noticed much difference with memory speed - haven't done any conclusive tests though... I can build a fairly high spec PC and money isn't an issue. I'm just finding it hard justifying getting a 16 thread CPU - is there anything that needs it?
Well, here's what I would point out in response to your inquiry. First, the newer systems allow not only much faster memory, but a lot more of it. You can put 64gig's of very fast DDR4 into a new system, and you will not run out of memory. This is another great function of upgrading, as the older chips didn't allow for as much memory.
My old computer had an i7 processor, and 16gb's of memory running around 1800mhz... I noticed a considerable difference when I built my current machine a few years ago, put a Ryzen 7 1700 processor in it, and was able to not only overclock that processor all the way up to 4ghz, but also my 32gb's of memory up to 3466mhz. My entire system zipped around like it was on steroids. Now I consistently run 15-18 projects at the same time with virtual machines, and never run out of memory or processor power. So by upgrading, you allow your system so many improvements throughout computing, especially for multitasking processor intensive projects. But the main reason why all those threads and cores are going to benefit you is that everything is moving in that direction. You will future proof your system. Now that all the newer chips are in a core/thread war, dev's are starting to write software to take more and more advantage of those extra cores and those extra threads. So while you might not have a reason at the moment for those threads, six months from now, there surely can be one.
For as cheap as the 3700x is, how efficiently it runs and all of the benefits it would bring to your computing, I could easily rationalize upgrading.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mbk34

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Well, here's what...
For as cheap as the 3700x is, how efficiently it runs and all of the benefits it would bring to your computing, I could easily rationalize upgrading.
One more thing I would point out. In my opinion, once I upgraded to an AMD system, my computing has run smoother, faster and more stable than any of my Intel systems ever did. The amount of multitasking I can do now, is light years ahead of what I could do on my older Intel i7 systems. And there have been sooooooo many security issues that the Intel chips have been vulnerable to, that I also feel a lot more secure on my AMD platform. AMD has better security, more efficient processors and at a much better price point. And even though I can afford to build what I want, wasting money does not suit me. With the Zen2 platform, you have security, speed, power and performance for a lot less money, and under a lot less heat.
Lastly, I am angry with Intel for the things they did to almost kill off AMD back in the early 2000's. For example, paying companies like Dell a billion dollars a year to NOT buy AMD chips, and other illegal thug like business practices. But then they milked their monopolized market for two decades, with minute upgrades with new sockets every time, demanding a tripled upgrade cost. That with their refusal to fix their gaping security holes, chip after chip, just caused me to lose my taste for their products. After using an AMD system over the last few years, while I watched AMD snipe every single market stronghold Intel had, I feel assured that AMD has just knocked out the heavyweight champ. They have gained a huge chunk of the server market with EPYC chips, Intel has nothing to compete with Threadripper, they have snatched a huge portion of the consumer market and are now dethroning Intel before our very eyes in the enthusiast market. And I haven't even mentioned the new GPU's... Those are the main reasons I am going with AMD over Intel. You of course, can choose as you like.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
What's unclear to me, is why so many people seem to be so against AMD's efforts, instead of cheering them on? And why anyone would defend Intel, after Intel has screwed over millions of enthusiasts by refusing to innovate and milking their monopoly for decades, making minute upgrades, changing the socket every time to force sales and charging ten times the price for things, because they could. Wanting Zen 2 to be good is what every enthusiast should feel. Because it affects all enthusiasts in a positive way if it is good. So why wouldn't you want it to be?
And yes, we all want to see the benchmarks in July. But that's still several weeks away, so we get to play this game in the meantime. I think it's very interesting.
Why would anyone want to cheer Intel or AMD on? (Or any other tech manufacturer). Both are massive multi billion dollar corporations who consistently lie to consumers and only really care about our money. They are all as bad as each other, there seems to be this myth floating around that AMD care more about consumers than intel do. But if you’ve been in this industry long enough you’ll know that’s not true. Both companies just want you’re money and that’s it.

AMD, like Intel have a history of over promising and under delivering so I will wait until independent testers can show us the real deal before we start announcing victors. I do think their new stuff does look very promising. And I would be very surprised if they don’t deliver more value than their current line up or Intel’s line up. But value is just one aspect, a lot of us tech enthusiasts flaunt value to have better performance. Say anyone who buys a 9700K for gaming for example.

Saying there is no proof for Ryzen 2nd gen being victorious is factually accurate, we don’t have any proof. It doesn’t mean I don’t want AMD to succeed or anything like that. I’d love it if they could offer more performance than what’s currently available for those of us who like to buy top end gaming CPU’s.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Why would anyone want to cheer Intel or AMD on? (Or any other tech manufacturer)...

AMD, like Intel have a history of over promising and under delivering...

Saying there is no proof for Ryzen 2nd gen being victorious is factually accurate, we don’t have any proof. It doesn’t mean I don’t want AMD to succeed or anything like that. I’d love it if they could offer more performance than what’s currently available for those of us who like to buy top end gaming CPU’s.
I agree with most of what you have written here. But I have a very different opinion on some of it. For instance, you ask why anyone would cheer on a tech company, and I have a simple incontrovertible answer, competition. The biggest reason I'm cheering on AMD, is because we've all witnessed the horrors of Intel's monopoly, as I've listed a few in my last posts. The second reason I cheer them on is because Their failures to deliver were from honest attempts at better tech. When you compare that to Intel's drip, drip, drip milking the industry with few innovations during the last two decades, it should be easy to understand. In example, every single time Intel put out a new chip, they changed the socket on the mobos so you had to spend massive money to upgrade, not to mention their price gouging. Contrarily, AMD is on it's third gen of chips in the last three years, and I can buy a Zen2 chip in July, and put it right on my first gen board with an AM4 socket. That shows care for the enthusiast, as they didn't have to do that, seeing as to how their competition never did. Lastly, I cheer them on also simply because they have shown a willingness to reach for the stars and innovate. They are pushing Intel to get off their lazy a$$es and actually work towards better hardware. They came out of the abyss to beat Intel to 7nm, beating Intel to PCIe4 and beating Intel to 16 cores and 32 threads. They are taking huge chunks of the server and consumer markets, and making a giant play here in the enthusiast market. The competition is exciting and entertaining, as well as beneficial. You gotta love that kind of a comeback, drive and innovation.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
I agree with most of what you have written here. But I have a very different opinion on some of it. For instance, you ask why anyone would cheer on a tech company, and I have a simple incontrovertible answer, competition. The biggest reason I'm cheering on AMD, is because we've all witnessed the horrors of Intel's monopoly, as I've listed a few in my last posts. The second reason I cheer them on is because Their failures to deliver were from honest attempts at better tech. When you compare that to Intel's drip, drip, drip milking the industry with few innovations during the last two decades, it should be easy to understand. In example, every single time Intel put out a new chip, they changed the socket on the mobos so you had to spend massive money to upgrade, not to mention their price gouging. Contrarily, AMD is on it's third gen of chips in the last three years, and I can buy a Zen2 chip in July, and put it right on my first gen board with an AM4 socket. That shows care for the enthusiast, as they didn't have to do that, seeing as to how their competition never did. Lastly, I cheer them on also simply because they have shown a willingness to reach for the stars and innovate. They are pushing Intel to get off their lazy a$$es and actually work towards better hardware. They came out of the abyss to beat Intel to 7nm, beating Intel to PCIe4 and beating Intel to 16 cores and 32 threads. They are taking huge chunks of the server and consumer markets, and making a giant play here in the enthusiast market. The competition is exciting and entertaining, as well as beneficial. You gotta love that kind of a comeback, drive and innovation.
So basically you’re a big AMD fan? Fair enough. Personally I don’t think there is much difference between the two companies. I’ve been building for long enough to know that neither company cares about you they just want your money. AMD are no better than Intel. The last time AMD dominated the benchmarks back in the mid 2000’s they went on a price gouging rampage just like Intel are now. AMD were charging around $1000 for their top end Athlon 64-FX parts and the enthusiasts lapped it up because it offered more power than anyone else could at the time, even if midrange Intel chips at the time offered better value.

I do like that AMD are back and competing but that doesn’t really excuse the last 10 years. It’s firmly AMDs fault that Intel had a monopoly because we can’t exactly criticise Intel for not releasing more powerful components when their only competitors are themselves. We need both AMD and Intel to be trading blows consistently, so I’m hoping AMD can continue to deliver after Ryzen 2. If Intel can get 10nm to market it’s beginning to look like AMD will need to step up again. And this is what we want to happen. The last thing I want is either of these manufacturers to start producing poor chips again.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
So basically you’re a big AMD fan? Fair enough. Personally I don’t think there is much difference between the two companies...

I do like that AMD are back and competing but that doesn’t really excuse the last 10 years. It’s firmly AMDs fault that Intel had a monopoly because we can’t exactly criticise Intel for not releasing more powerful components when their only competitors are themselves...
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. But I do have a few corrections for you. First, it's not that I'm a big AMD fan, although I am more of one right now than ever previously. It's that I hate the thuggery and illegal business practices that Intel commonly launched against AMD. I used to buy solely Intel. But I hate cheaters, liars and criminals. And the things that have come out that Intel was doing is as sleazy criminal as it comes. This changed my thinking about Intel, and I decided that I did not want to support a company like that, if I had another choice. It was only then that I started taking AMD seriously. And it was those illegal practices that caused AMD to disappear for huge gaps of the last few decades. So it's NOT AMD's fault Intel had a monopoly. Intel procured it.
And yes we can criticise Intel for not innovating. We absolutely can, and tens of millions do. And right now, we are doing it with our wallets. People were chomping at the bit to have a reason to buy anything but Intel. And when AMD came steaming back two years ago, people jumped on their bandwagon in droves! AMD has always offered better value for their hardware, than Intel has. AMD has made mistakes to be sure. But they did it in the name of reaching too far too quickly. And I will always excuse a failure, when the motivation behind it was to innovate. Conversely, Intel reverts to thuggery, having nothing to do with innovation, but instead being all about them. That's what I and tens of millions of others have witnessed over the last few decades. If your take is different, you have that prerogative. And I don't fault you for it. I just disagree. In the end, we can all agree that this new competition is exciting and beneficial to all of us. And make no mistake, I am not one of those who wants Intel to wither away and die a slow death. I want Intel to fight back and keep this heavyweight match going strong. I don't like a one-sided fight, even when it's in my favor. But I do enjoy seeing a bully get his teeth kicked in from time to time.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. But I do have a few corrections for you. First, it's not that I'm a big AMD fan, although I am more of one right now than ever previously. It's that I hate the thuggery and illegal business practices that Intel commonly launched against AMD. I used to buy solely Intel. But I hate cheaters, liars and criminals. And the things that have come out that Intel was doing is as sleazy criminal as it comes. This changed my thinking about Intel, and I decided that I did not want to support a company like that, if I had another choice. It was only then that I started taking AMD seriously. And it was those illegal practices that caused AMD to disappear for huge gaps of the last few decades. So it's NOT AMD's fault Intel had a monopoly. Intel procured it.
And yes we can criticise Intel for not innovating. We absolutely can, and tens of millions do. And right now, we are doing it with our wallets. People were chomping at the bit to have a reason to buy anything but Intel. And when AMD came steaming back two years ago, people jumped on their bandwagon in droves! AMD has always offered better value for their hardware, than Intel has. AMD has made mistakes to be sure. But they did it in the name of reaching too far too quickly. And I will always excuse a failure, when the motivation behind it was to innovate. Conversely, Intel reverts to thuggery, having nothing to do with innovation, but instead being all about them. That's what I and tens of millions of others have witnessed over the last few decades. If your take is different, you have that prerogative. And I don't fault you for it. I just disagree. In the end, we can all agree that this new competition is exciting and beneficial to all of us. And make no mistake, I am not one of those who wants Intel to wither away and die a slow death. I want Intel to fight back and keep this heavyweight match going strong. I don't like a one-sided fight, even when it's in my favor. But I do enjoy seeing a bully get his teeth kicked in from time to time.
You are incorrect. It is absolutely AMDs fault that Intel had a monopoly. They were making truly awful CPUs for years. This is their fault, they weren’t good enough and customers decided to buy Intel. Intel didn’t sabotage the FX generations, AMD did. Intel’s illegal practises go back to synthetic benchmarks from way before the core series was around (look it up). It certainly wasn’t really a factor in AMD hopeless FX lineup. Despite that, independent reviewers always did real world testing anyway. Intel shouldn’t have done it. But to credit Intel’s success solely on some synthetic benchmark trickery from a few generations previous is humourous. If FX wasn’t a heap of garbage Intel wouldn’t have had the monopoly they effectively gained.

We will have to agree to disagree, I really don’t think AMD are any more ethical than Intel as a company at all. I think you will discover this soon if AMD really are about to gain the upper hand in the market. It amuses me that you see Intel as a “bully”. I would advise you to look at both of these companies for what they actually are - massive, faceless, multi billion dollar American corporations who only give a dam about profit.

I will “support” myself. If a user decides to buy a weaker chip for their needs because they don’t like a certain corporation that produces better chips for their needs then you lose out and the other corporation gains and even worse they get rewarded for making sub par hardware. That makes zero sense to me. Unless one of these corporations starts murdering children or burning books etc then I will base buying decisions purely on how well the chips can perform for what I use them for.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Lol. It's like arguing with a stop sign. You are looking at surface and ignoring real world facts. It wasn't about fabricated benchmarks, even though that did happen as well. It was about paying off venders to ignore AMD, and using many thuggery tactics to bleed AMD dry. It takes money to develop, and intel deprived AMD of a lot of that money by using illegal business practices, and backroom shady deals. Intel's monopoly was manufactured by demolishing AMD's abilities to innovate. You have it completely backwards. AMD's demise was Intel's fault, not AMD's, and Intel's monopoly was manufactured by Intel, and was not AMD's fault whatsoever. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. And for someone who claims to only be on his own side, not one of the conglomerates, all of your arguments point to that being a false statement. You sound more like an Intel fan, than I do an AMD fan. And I've admitted to being an AMD fan. Lol. The point is, those who know, know. So there's no point in trying to convince someone determined not to know. And since, I get totally bored with watching a dog chase his tail, I will allow you to make whatever snide response you choose, but I will not continue debating the exact same points over and over. It's fruitless. So the floor is yours to get the last word, which you seem desperate to have.
 

jpuroila

TS Booster
You are incorrect. It is absolutely AMDs fault that Intel had a monopoly. They were making truly awful CPUs for years. This is their fault, they weren’t good enough and customers decided to buy Intel. Intel didn’t sabotage the FX generations, AMD did. Intel’s illegal practises go back to synthetic benchmarks from way before the core series was around (look it up). It certainly wasn’t really a factor in AMD hopeless FX lineup. Despite that, independent reviewers always did real world testing anyway. Intel shouldn’t have done it. But to credit Intel’s success solely on some synthetic benchmark trickery from a few generations previous is humourous. If FX wasn’t a heap of garbage Intel wouldn’t have had the monopoly they effectively gained.

We will have to agree to disagree, I really don’t think AMD are any more ethical than Intel as a company at all. I think you will discover this soon if AMD really are about to gain the upper hand in the market. It amuses me that you see Intel as a “bully”. I would advise you to look at both of these companies for what they actually are - massive, faceless, multi billion dollar American corporations who only give a dam about profit.

I will “support” myself. If a user decides to buy a weaker chip for their needs because they don’t like a certain corporation that produces better chips for their needs then you lose out and the other corporation gains and even worse they get rewarded for making sub par hardware. That makes zero sense to me. Unless one of these corporations starts murdering children or burning books etc then I will base buying decisions purely on how well the chips can perform for what I use them for.
Intel's illegal practices(which go far beyond just cheating some benchmarks - the worst is probably when they were illegally bribing OEMs and got away with a slap on the wrist) cost AMD potentially tens of billions of dollars and you think that had no impact on their R&D capability? LOL
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Intel's illegal practices(which go far beyond just cheating some benchmarks - the worst is probably when they were illegally bribing OEMs and got away with a slap on the wrist) cost AMD potentially tens of billions of dollars and you think that had no impact on their R&D capability? LOL
Exactly!!! It's like me handcuffing someone to a rail in my house, and then blaming them for not leaving...
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
And let's not forget about Intel's blatantly lying and being subversive at their keynote, where they were showing benchmarks to make them look better, but it turns out they were against very old systems, instead of last year's chips. They also announced the 9900KS, but didn't give a price or TDP. What? Well, we all know why they omitted that information... And then we found out that in their benchmarks, they had all of the "required" security patches turned off. And we all know that there is a huge substantial speed difference between having those patches on and off. Lol. These days, Intel is continually getting caught doing some very sleazy things. They appear to be in full meltdown mode, as AMD continues to make great progress.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

TS Maniac
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. But I do have a few corrections for you. First, it's not that I'm a big AMD fan, although I am more of one right now than ever previously. It's that I hate the thuggery and illegal business practices that Intel commonly launched against AMD. I used to buy solely Intel. But I hate cheaters, liars and criminals. And the things that have come out that Intel was doing is as sleazy criminal as it comes. This changed my thinking about Intel, and I decided that I did not want to support a company like that, if I had another choice. It was only then that I started taking AMD seriously. And it was those illegal practices that caused AMD to disappear for huge gaps of the last few decades. So it's NOT AMD's fault Intel had a monopoly. Intel procured it.
And yes we can criticise Intel for not innovating. We absolutely can, and tens of millions do. And right now, we are doing it with our wallets. People were chomping at the bit to have a reason to buy anything but Intel. And when AMD came steaming back two years ago, people jumped on their bandwagon in droves! AMD has always offered better value for their hardware, than Intel has. AMD has made mistakes to be sure. But they did it in the name of reaching too far too quickly. And I will always excuse a failure, when the motivation behind it was to innovate. Conversely, Intel reverts to thuggery, having nothing to do with innovation, but instead being all about them. That's what I and tens of millions of others have witnessed over the last few decades. If your take is different, you have that prerogative. And I don't fault you for it. I just disagree. In the end, we can all agree that this new competition is exciting and beneficial to all of us. And make no mistake, I am not one of those who wants Intel to wither away and die a slow death. I want Intel to fight back and keep this heavyweight match going strong. I don't like a one-sided fight, even when it's in my favor. But I do enjoy seeing a bully get his teeth kicked in from time to time.
You are incorrect. It is absolutely AMDs fault that Intel had a monopoly. They were making truly awful CPUs for years. This is their fault, they weren’t good enough and customers decided to buy Intel. Intel didn’t sabotage the FX generations, AMD did. Intel’s illegal practises go back to synthetic benchmarks from way before the core series was around (look it up). It certainly wasn’t really a factor in AMD hopeless FX lineup. Despite that, independent reviewers always did real world testing anyway. Intel shouldn’t have done it. But to credit Intel’s success solely on some synthetic benchmark trickery from a few generations previous is humourous. If FX wasn’t a heap of garbage Intel wouldn’t have had the monopoly they effectively gained.

We will have to agree to disagree, I really don’t think AMD are any more ethical than Intel as a company at all. I think you will discover this soon if AMD really are about to gain the upper hand in the market. It amuses me that you see Intel as a “bully”. I would advise you to look at both of these companies for what they actually are - massive, faceless, multi billion dollar American corporations who only give a dam about profit.

I will “support” myself. If a user decides to buy a weaker chip for their needs because they don’t like a certain corporation that produces better chips for their needs then you lose out and the other corporation gains and even worse they get rewarded for making sub par hardware. That makes zero sense to me. Unless one of these corporations starts murdering children or burning books etc then I will base buying decisions purely on how well the chips can perform for what I use them for.
It's sad when you have an opinion without knowing the facts. Intel actually paid off vendors and retailers and even companies like HP / dell and the likes so they wouldn't sell AMD cpu's. They even gave them bonuses and pricecuts if they sold 100 Intel cpus for every 1 AMD (I took the numbers out of my ***, but that was their practice). That was actually back in an era that AMD was kicking ***, especially when it came to gaming with their first FX cpu's. We are talking about 2002 to 2005.

Can you imagine having a far superior product for about 3-4 years and still not being able to outsell the competition because of those practices? Imagine if AMD was outselling Intel in the era of FX8xxx. That's exactly what was happening back in 2002-2005, since Intel had the equivalent of the FXxxx cpu. Slow, huge consumption, insane temperature, overclocked to the limit to compete with mildly clocked AMD's cpus.
 

Strawman

TS Maniac
I assure you no zen2 chip will beat a 9700k/9900k overclocked at 5,2ghz. Those comparasions are stock. This is why Intel is releasing a 5ghz all core 9900ks.
I assure you no Intel chip will beat a 9700/9900k @ 5.2ghz cause there isn't any 9900k running at 5.2ghz. Let me guess, are you telling me that 5.2 is the typical run of the mill average overclock for that CPU? And here I am struggling to reach 5ghz on my 8700k.....
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
Intel's illegal practices(which go far beyond just cheating some benchmarks - the worst is probably when they were illegally bribing OEMs and got away with a slap on the wrist) cost AMD potentially tens of billions of dollars and you think that had no impact on their R&D capability? LOL
This all happened over a decade ago. And AMDs incompetence is well documented, they used to be expert at losing money.

Let’s agree to disagree, although I genuinely pity anyone who thinks that AMD would have been amazing if Intel wasn’t around.

These companies are just as bad as each other, you will all learn that after you’ve been around here for a while (might be a long while, it seems AMD just finished about 15 years of being asleep).
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
This all happened over a decade ago. And AMDs incompetence is well documented, they used to be expert at losing money.

Let’s agree to disagree, although I genuinely pity anyone who thinks that AMD would have been amazing if Intel wasn’t around.

These companies are just as bad as each other, you will all learn that after you’ve been around here for a while (might be a long while, it seems AMD just finished about 15 years of being asleep).
It's absolutely amazing to me, how far in the sand you prefer to keep your head. It's not that this all happened over a decade ago, the fact is that it's been happening for almost two decades in recent times, and has been going on since the mid 1980's. And you choose to ignore all of the thuggery and illegal business practices that Intel has levied against AMD, which is your choice. But the rest of us remember and hold them accountable for it. In my opinion, that's the biggest problem with your generation, no responsibility for anything. It's like an entire generation who couldn't care less about accountability. For the record, even IF it all happened ONLY over a decade ago, so what??? It's still the same thug illegal tactics no matter when they did it. And you laugh it off... I will never understand people who see such horrible things, and laugh it off. And to make matters worse, you blame AMD for being asleep! Lol. That's like me slipping a mickey into your drink, and then admonishing you for sleeping through your work hours. AMD wasn't asleep. They were trying to recover from the devastation Intel illegally unleashed on them. AMD has never been a company to lolligag. They have been the company first to dual core, first to flash memory and first to 7nm. This is not a company that sleeps. This is a tenacious company from its inception. Yet, you label them erroneously, even knowing what Intel did to them. This says more about you than them.
You also continually try to say that these companies are just as criminal as each other. NO! they are not. Intel has been caught time and time and time again doing illegal business practices, and AMD has never been labeled doing the same things. They are not the same at all. But if it helps you sleep better at night, you can believe whatever you choose; Doesn't make it right. I've been around a lot longer than you have. I guarantee it. I was watching this very competition when Intel couldn't compete with AMD in late 80's and early 90's, and so tied them up in litigation for half a decade, trying to bleed them dry monetarily. But AMD actually ended up winning all of those lawsuits, and thus propelled them onward. So No, AMD is not as bad as Intel. That is comical. But typical as well...
 

jpuroila

TS Booster
This all happened over a decade ago. And AMDs incompetence is well documented, they used to be expert at losing money.

Let’s agree to disagree, although I genuinely pity anyone who thinks that AMD would have been amazing if Intel wasn’t around.

These companies are just as bad as each other, you will all learn that after you’ve been around here for a while (might be a long while, it seems AMD just finished about 15 years of being asleep).
And Bulldozer came out 8 years ago, so it absolutely DID cripple the amount of R&D money AMD could put into developing Bulldozer. Frankly, I don't see how you could possibly even argue otherwise. Unless you're just shilling, of course.
 

144hzGamer

TS Addict
It's absolutely amazing to me, how far in the sand you prefer to keep your head. It's not that this all happened over a decade ago, the fact is that it's been happening for almost two decades in recent times, and has been going on since the mid 1980's. And you choose to ignore all of the thuggery and illegal business practices that Intel has levied against AMD, which is your choice. But the rest of us remember and hold them accountable for it. In my opinion, that's the biggest problem with your generation, no responsibility for anything. It's like an entire generation who couldn't care less about accountability. For the record, even IF it all happened ONLY over a decade ago, so what??? It's still the same thug illegal tactics no matter when they did it. And you laugh it off... I will never understand people who see such horrible things, and laugh it off. And to make matters worse, you blame AMD for being asleep! Lol. That's like me slipping a mickey into your drink, and then admonishing you for sleeping through your work hours. AMD wasn't asleep. They were trying to recover from the devastation Intel illegally unleashed on them. AMD has never been a company to lolligag. They have been the company first to dual core, first to flash memory and first to 7nm. This is not a company that sleeps. This is a tenacious company from its inception. Yet, you label them erroneously, even knowing what Intel did to them. This says more about you than them.
You also continually try to say that these companies are just as criminal as each other. NO! they are not. Intel has been caught time and time and time again doing illegal business practices, and AMD has never been labeled doing the same things. They are not the same at all. But if it helps you sleep better at night, you can believe whatever you choose; Doesn't make it right. I've been around a lot longer than you have. I guarantee it. I was watching this very competition when Intel couldn't compete with AMD in late 80's and early 90's, and so tied them up in litigation for half a decade, trying to bleed them dry monetarily. But AMD actually ended up winning all of those lawsuits, and thus propelled them onward. So No, AMD is not as bad as Intel. That is comical. But typical as well...
They are both bad. No excuses. Intel just usually had superior products, apart from a few exceptions like you mentioned. AMD played dirt a lot of times, specially on the second FX line up. You can dodge it if you want.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
They are both bad. No excuses. Intel just usually had superior products, apart from a few exceptions like you mentioned. AMD played dirt a lot of times, specially on the second FX line up. You can dodge it if you want.
Link? Proof? There are tons and tons and tons of links and proof about all the dirty illegal acts Intel did. It's all over Google. And they were punished for some of them by the courts. But there is no links, or proof that AMD did anything like that. But, if you know more than alllllllll of the news outlets, then let's see it. Otherwise, what you are saying is just speculation and worth nothing... So present your proof, or stop spreading lies.
 

stevae

TS Booster
They are both bad. No excuses. Intel just usually had superior products, apart from a few exceptions like you mentioned. AMD played dirt a lot of times, specially on the second FX line up. You can dodge it if you want.
So you're still going on about this? They are NOT both bad. ONLY one of them has been consistently admonished and punished for illegal deeds, Intel. AMD has NOT been found to be doing illegal business, and the courts historically have gone AMD's way. In three days we will have our second edition of AMD beating Intel into submission. Can't wait.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
So you're still going on about this? They are NOT both bad. ONLY one of them has been consistently admonished and punished for illegal deeds, Intel. AMD has NOT been found to be doing illegal business, and the courts historically have gone AMD's way. In three days we will have our second edition of AMD beating Intel into submission. Can't wait.
Actually it would be very bad for AMD to beat Intel into submission. We don't want it to go that far. We just want AMD to push ahead of Intel, to force Intel into actually working and innovating. The competition is beneficial for all of us.
 

stevae

TS Booster
Actually it would be very bad for AMD to beat Intel into submission. We don't want it to go that far. We just want AMD to push ahead of Intel, to force Intel into actually working and innovating. The competition is beneficial for all of us.
It wouldn't bother me for Intel to hit rock bottom, and be out of it for a while. But I get what you're saying.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
I hope they introduce more of the line, and a few benchmarks during E3 to stop these guys from speculating. Otherwise we have to wait another month.
 
Last edited: