Nice play by AMD, scooping all the big orders for their APU-s. And this is Intel taking up for having prices above the competition.
I own Intel and recommend AMD on notebooks; and I think this is very healthy to the market. I wouldn't want by any means Intel selling there too, AMD deserves to have a bigger profit that hopefully will be invested in more R&D.
Lack of backwards compatibility (or very little) didn't stop the PS3/360 from being a success
Because you've spent money on them, continue to play them, and do not want to pay again for the same game?The whole idea behind the next gen is next gen games, why play your old stuff on the new system. Keep your old system if you want to play those games. To me the next gen is a joke when compared to my current gaming pc (GTX 690,i7 @ 4.5, 2560 x 1600, 512gb SSD)
Intel laptops are far superior to AMD, AMD notebook/laptops have the worst reliability issues ever, there's a reason Intel costs more, core for core intel destroy AMD every time AMD rely on the mid range gaming market to stay alive where intel has it's hands in both, if you want mid range get a cheaper i3/i5 for gaming if you wan't high end buy an i7.
Because you've spent money on them, continue to play them, and do not want to pay again for the same game?
I have a Sandy Bridge i7 in my laptop; 2 colleagues have an i7 on their laptop too with a lot of heat problems, lag peaks, etc. I don't have problems with mine except with some buggy drivers in graphics and Turboboost (eating up all your RAM after a lot of use in a same session).
One year ago, a neighbor bought a nb with SB i3 and a classmate a notebook with an AMD APU and both felt well in use; being the AMD more balanced in performance/multimedia than the i3. The APU could handle Command & Conquer 3 fine in high preset [very low, low, normal, high, very high]; the i3 barely on normal preset; I have switchable graphics and I can choose when to run on the integrated graphics or NVIDIA GT540M, my HD 3000 graphics looses in high preset against the AMD.
Both using it for over a year and the AMD APU still kicking in with XCOM, Diablo 3 and Warface with not the maximum but nice graphics; while my neighbor with the i3 can barely play most games in low quality. Besides, drivers updates for AMD are released more often than the ones of Intel.
4 months ago I recommended an aunt a nb with AMD APU and for her teacher's use is fine and cheap; while my little cousin can casually play the games she likes without worrying about the graphics. AMD is more balanced in all aspects, not brute force, but average performance balanced. I have nothing against Intel, I own only Intel and I'm not complaining about it; is just that AMD deserves sales for the good of the market and all of us.
Well I can safely say I've had nothing but the opposite, all the AMD laptops we had here from HP have all but melted themselves to death and we get on average 300-400 laptops a year and they have performed terribly compared to their intel counter part, intel systems last longer in my opinion an i3 with a graphics card added will out perform an AMD APU but my i5 has been nothing but bliss and has already outlasted my HP AMD laptop, we get many different brands a year and it's been the same storie over and over for the last 8 years.
I can also backup this claim, HP are our main supplier and we are also a reseller of there's. Over the fast 5 years I've worked at my company We have ordered around 40 AMD laptops and well over 100+ Intel's for ourselves. It must be in the thousands per year of actual laptop orders for our clients etc.. Anyway...
Pretty much every single Intel laptop (Mixture of Corei3's and i5's) run superbly, ever since Sandy Bridge not a single one has failed or had any significant failure due to hardware (except for a few people pouring drinks over there's but even then, HP's Sink hole systems seem to work pretty well most the time).
Now the AMD laptops, I can safely say as of late last year every single one has been thrown in the bin or melted, or are just unused. They are first and foremost, slower, I don't know what it is but even the higher end AMD's just can't get close to an i5 when using something like VMware workstation all day.
Second, battery life pretty much sucked on every single AMD laptop, would be lucky to get 2 hours, maybe 2 and a half, all Intel laptops could get 3+.
Finally, the heat generated from the AMD's were intense, I mean really intense, they just got very hot, after a BIOS update on a few of them it sorted out a few but then they were constantly loud as the fan was working harder.
The reason we got the AMD's though were more of a test, if they were able to cope with what we needed them for they were a much cheaper alternative, unfortunately it was a costly mistake, we will not make that mistake again.
Some of our clients have had AMD laptops exclusively, one client hated them, every single one they ordered (60+) had a bug whereby the screen would be completely covered in grey and black stripes, this was due to a firmware / heat issue, even after updating all the laptops, some still had the issue.
Another client though with AMD laptops seem to be quite content, maybe its pot luck if you get a decent AMD system perhaps?
Compatibility damages innovation so suck it.
I don't think he was thinking it through completely when stating this, however, I have to admit, when you look at Wii and Wii U, they both have backwards compatibility and both have dreadful specs and (in particular the Wii) a lot of devs just ignore them. I don't know if the backwards compatibility is causing the low specs on the consoles or what but it really doesn't put Nintendo's consoles on the forefront of modern (or even multi-platform) games.Just how does compatibility damage innovation and what, exactly, is 'innovation'?
I don't think he was thinking it through completely when stating this, however, I have to admit, when you look at Wii and Wii U, they both have backwards compatibility and both have dreadful specs and (in particular the Wii) a lot of devs just ignore them. I don't know if the backwards compatibility is causing the low specs on the consoles or what but it really doesn't put Nintendo's consoles on the forefront of modern (or even multi-platform) games.
Sure, the Wii has some fancy controllers, Sure, Wii U has a fancy screen, but what use are they when game devs just don't care? The only good games (not always of course, but generally) that get released on Nintendo consoles since the Wii were first party games.