You previously mentioned how badly AMD handled the mining craze,why do you think intel should make the same mistakes?
CPU demand isn't as volatile as the effect mining had on GPUs, and Intel doing the production in-house doesn't get stuck with as much inventory on its hands as when you're contracting out to do the manufacturing.
Clearly, Intel dragged its feet on building more 14 nm capacity, perhaps hoping the 10 nm problems would get sorted out, or maybe fearing the demand would dry up by the time they built it. So, there's some logic to what you're saying. However, that's different than your previous claim that they were simply restricting supply to drive up costs.
In other words, I can sort of agree with what you're saying
now.
Yeah all the rest of your post has degraded to just mud slinging so I won't respond to any of that.
I'm not saying it's intentional, but you have a way of arguing broad points, without the facts to back them up which really frustrates people. If you feel a lot of negativity coming your way, it might be something to do with that.
In general, when you go against the tide of opinion or reach to make very broad claims, it would help if you can check your facts and maybe cite some references.
It doesn't matter which one is better or which has better technology.
A capitalistic company is measured by their capital.
Are you viewing them as an investor or a customer? What's good for one group is not necessarily good for the other. In fact, the interests of the two groups are quite at odds.
Investors want Intel to lock up the market by any means necessary, so they can cut R&D budgets and deliver more expensive chips year after year that are cheaper to make and offer minimal benefits to customers. That's how you maximize profits.
Customers want cheap products with real improvements and innovation. Innovation costs money, which investors don't like.
So, financial results can be misleading. They also don't answer the counter-factuals, such as what if Intel
had succeeded in ramping up 10 nm, when they originally planned?
if it sells just as well or in fact even twice as well then obviously it was a very good decision to create and sell it.
That depends on
why it sells that well, and whether their original plans would've resulted in even greater sales.
There's a problem with Jarred's car analogy, which is that Intel had to make CPUs bigger, in order to compete with Ryzen and continue offering value over its existing 14 nm CPUs. This reduced the number of chips per wafer, which is exactly the
opposite of what you want, in a supply crunch. So, sticking with 14 nm was a very costly decision, as opposed to the example of just continuing to build the same old car as last year.
Lol there isn't even a sign of them slowing down,
At the beginning of the year, the VP heading their data center group said he wanted to keep their market share losses down to the low double-digit %. I forget if he explicitly referenced AMD, or if he was also worried about other factors.
ZEN has allowed intel to make a ton of money.
How do you figure? How can you know that they wouldn't have made even
more money, without Zen in the picture?
AMD is selling server CPUs to fortnite gamers, of course they won't be making much money,they are completely miss marketing their products.
What should they be doing differently?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram