Are Intel joking re: i3 pricing?

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


LOL - gotta agree with that. I really wish the mods would add the term "spintel" to the prohibited word list so that it appears as asterisks or dancing bananas [:thegreatgrapeape] [:thegreatgrapeape] [:thegreatgrapeape] [:thegreatgrapeape] [:thegreatgrapeape] [:thegreatgrapeape]
 
There are few I respect more than W1zzard, and if he indeed did say that, Im sure he didnt expound on it, but it exists none the less. Does this mean being bought? No, but anyone rmember badda boom? Anyone remember the 295 paper launch?
Anand said he prefered cards to be available before he does a bench inro.
Yet, he was diappointed by the lack of LRB not coming. Can this be attributed as favortism, to some. From AMDs anylist day, speaking on BD, he puts a huge Intel slide on the front page, doesnt have the full story, and finally makes another story for follow up. Can this too be considered favortism?
When badda boom was released, it contained the same 5 games in almost every site, except Anands abd a tiny few others, as that was wat nVidia wanted, TPU also ran other games as well.
Yes, some sites stick to what theyre asked or given, but, I point all of us to Toms earlier article where Cleeve ran a boutique, meaning very limited setup, running AMD vs Toms best build using i7, and the costs showed that even with better cards i7 won.
Because the numbers were so far off, Cleeve did another article, this time with a decent AMD setup, where we saw the AMD solution aften tie the i7 setup, and Id point out, this was before we saw the MT driver improvements from ATI, where the gap closed even further.
So, yes, theres a tendency here, and no, I dont explicitly blame favortism, but laziness
 




LMAO we need more dancing bananas.
 



I couldnt agree more with that post. Which is bad since I have always been an Nvidia fanboy.

But on topic if no link can be presented, then it didnt happen.
 

I prefer a regulated market, not regulated by government but regulated in it's very nature to be tailored to serve the interests of the people by Democratic means.

In short it would work like this (without going into detail). The removal of Wage Slavery is the first key step. This means that you cannot simply purchase land, build a factory and higher skilled workers to make you money (which is making money with money which is generally acquired through generational wealth or inheritance if you will).

It works by allowing co-operative companies to function in the system which in turn are not regulated by any state but rather by the employees themselves. Each employee has a democratic vote and elects a body to represent his/her. This body meets, comes up with suggestions to improve business and presents those suggestions to the workers who once again vote democratically.

This ensures that companies mirror the wants and needs of the people and of their communities and not some out of touch wealthy elitist whose never worked a day in his/her life (as is the case with most majority holding Corporate shareholders).

That is freedom to me because it allows the people to make choices and decisions themselves rather than having a hierarchical system in place where decisions come to the top in a fascistic format (which is how Corporations and Businesses operate... it's fascism).

That is Libertarian Socialism in a nutshell (anarcho-syndicalism, Libertarian-Left etc).

It's all based on what you think is more logical. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one) or that the needs of the one outweighs the needs of the many?

Democratic means allows the individual to have individual rights and the ability to make an individual choice but not to impose his/her individual choice on the many by tyrannical means (which is what Free Market Capitalism does). And then we wonder why 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth.
 

+1
link or it didn't happen. Because its very easy to have a statement grow and grow each time its told, forum to forum. You know the old skit where a rumor exponentially grows as each person whispers it to the next.
Reps from Intel and AMD , video card makers, motherboard company representatives I'm sure discuss with Toms, Anand their product, results, testing methods, especially if the rep notices a unexpected result. Theres no news to that fact. But I'd have to read a on record account myself that xxxx maker said to outright lie about his product. Or it didn't happen.
We just saw in a memory test ocz sticks bought new doa in a review. Do you think they were happy ? I'm sure they conferred with that tester to make sure everything was done to get that ram to run, so as they won't look 'bad'.
 
@ Elmo, while I agree this makes for a great scenario, where we do see employees making up the majority, or in rare cases ownership thru stocks or even % of actual ownership.
As having been part of a partnership before, they are extremely hard to work, as each wants his/her say, and not all activities are geared for that given partner, yet needs to be done.
But, lets look at history, where land was free, maybe either no taxation, no representation and farming constituted the vast majority of mans fiscal activities.
In those times, we saw servents/slaves, as defined as a debtor, and many subscripts in the army of a local well doer.
As well as trade, where you found sailers, also subs to the captain etc.
Your scenario would have to co exist with well doers, and they do toady to a smaller extent than in the past possibly. But since we are "represented" and surely taxed, I believe incentives in this approach of yours should be welcome, and to some degree also, regulations, and laws is all we have.

Oh, I wont spread FUD about W1zzard, as my respect runs too deep for that.
Ny saying it could of happened is only explained by a few things. His brutal honesty, and larger openess as compared by many in his position,
Also, theres always certain things companies wish to show, its best foot forward, so, whethether he said this in this context, never said it at all, to me doesnt matter, as I see it as a possibility, and pointed to some (Cleeve as example) as their passions and honesty come first, as well as their integrity
 
I don't really care about what the i3's pricing is, because I had already got an i5 and it was the best bang for the buck and one of the top end CPUs WHEN I bought it. That's all what I care about! :)
 


Hmm, how do you think Bill Gates & Microsoft, Steve Jobs & Apple, Larry Page & Sergey Brin of Google would have done under your socialistic organization? Even your former company Dell probably would not have fared well against Gateway & the other competitors if run by employee committees.

IMO, employee-owned or run companies may work for established brick & mortar companies, but for modern, exponential-growth tech companies, control by one or two highly skilled & motivated owners is essential to their success.
 

Microsoft is a Monopoly so I wouldn't use that example but in terms of Apple... they would have faired better under my scenario.

Think of it this way. Let's say you're playing CoD4. Your opponents are all individuals seeking their own rational self interests without any community cohesion. Your team is all on vent and organized and communicating. Which team is likely to win the most rounds? When you have one person making decisions, those decisions are far more likely to fail. When you have many people bringing arguments to the table and decisions being made democratically amongst them.. odds are the tactics employed will have been better filtered (and win). We're a social species.

The reason why co-operatives don't function well is because we live under Authoritarian Free Market Capitalism. Kind of hard to bring community cohesion when you live in a system which teaches us all that greed is a virtue. The environment needs to be changed and this requires a massive shift in what the majority deems to be common sense.

Working together wins more often than going at it alone and not only that.. each individual who works in a group stands to benefit. So the end result is more individuals succeeding rather than ONE individual (Bill Gates) succeeding. See, in the current organization, you're used and you're dropped. Your creative talents are exploited and you're layed off whenever it is deemed that your services are no longer needed by a greedy individual at the top. Everything you've done which brought success to the company (in the form of millions and billions of dollars in profits) ends with you losing your job.

That, in my opinion, is wrong. Because it is not the people are the top who innovate and create the products... it is the workers. Those at the top do sweet fack all except "manage" something we can all do amongst ourselves. How so? If we all own the business we work for then we're self interested in seeing it succeed. We won't need to be told to work or have someone breathing down our necks as the companies success is our success.

Needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or of the one.
 


?? Apple was very successful under Jobs' leadership - they floundered after the BoD forced him out, almost to the point of bankruptcy, and didn't start recovering until he came back. Most people credit him with the iPod & iPhone, both of which are leading their respective fields at least in mindshare. IMO, an employee committee would have played it safe and stuck with the iMac. I just don't see committees of any time possessing much vision or innovation, unless there is one or two dominant members present to pursuade/force consensus to their point of view, in which case they generally get elected to be CEO anyway.

Think of it this way. Let's say you're playing CoD4. Your opponents are all individuals seeking their own rational self interests without any community cohesion. Your team is all on vent and organized and communicating. Which team is likely to win the most rounds? When you have one person making decisions, those decisions are far more likely to fail. When you have many people bringing arguments to the table and decisions being made democratically amongst them.. odds are the tactics employed will have been better filtered (and win). We're a social species.

The reason why co-operatives don't function well is because we live under Authoritarian Free Market Capitalism. Kind of hard to bring community cohesion when you live in a system which teaches us all that greed is a virtue. The environment needs to be changed and this requires a massive shift in what the majority deems to be common sense.

Working together wins more often than going at it alone and not only that.. each individual who works in a group stands to benefit. So the end result is more individuals succeeding rather than ONE individual (Bill Gates) succeeding.

Needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or of the one
Click to expand...

Hmm, this sounds like something out of the United Federation of Planets manifesto, or maybe Star Trek III - The Search for Spock 😛. While I agree in principle, remember that the Federation depended on the Captain Kirks to kick Klingon butts & take Romulan names :). Plotting strategy in private, maybe a committee would work. But in the heat of battle, if you don't have one person calling the shots you're gonna get paved over - there's no time to sit around & discuss crap. That's why you have a General or Admiral running wars, not a committee 😛.

Communism also depended on changing human nature, where the worker produced for the good of the community, and failed for that very reason. Until somebody genetically removes the greed & self-interest tendencies out of humanity, which were bred in through eons of survival of the fittest if you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, I seriously doubt the Federation utopia will ever arise.
 
My earlier points about partnerships shpwed that sharing ideas and work doesnt allow for best fit.
As each partner may excel in their particular bit, be it large or small, expetient or not, outside of their excellence doesnt make for greater contributions.
If those contributions are vital, and only shared and excelled at by a few, but come up often, you can see how someone not of this experience feels slighted or can become a drag on the motions of a superior business model.
Each person would then just have to eat it and trust, things that us social animals arent good at.
It can work, but that shared mindset isnt ideal for many, as I pointed out the subscripted "slaves" and soldiers and sailors. Not everyone wants the responsibility, and Hollywood et al does a great disservice propogating the ease of this responsibility.
Hooh up average Joe in these scenarios, let him see the commitment needed, the need to stifle when appropriate tc, and indeed, this also would make for a better understanding of large or just business in general
 

It's not a conspiracy, they do that. But PR pressure is not the same as buying out a review. It's the job of PR to mislead, they have an obligation to their company to do so.
 
Sure it is. Its a "look here" so you wont "look there" thing. All companies do this, and if youre a laxy writer/editorcheap owner, and deadlines matter more than integrity, we have more of it.
While sometimes we have slight favortism, which can shift over time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom