This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Apparently, AMD will have no new CPUs or APUs in 2013

#21Lonestar2000Posted 11/10/2012 8:24:01 AM
Nice source TC.
---
Rumble Roses. Someone enters the room.
Them: O_O Me: What?! I always play games without my pants on!- Inmate 922335
#22DiehardFFv2Posted 11/10/2012 8:24:52 AM
To me that graph shows that AMD products weren't worth their release price more than it does stagnation in Intel's pricing scheme. I was able to get a 3570k online within three months of release for just 200, no tax/no shipping.
---
Intel i5 3570k @4.2 GHz/ Asrock Z77 Extreme4 / 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 / EVGA GTX 570 / Corsair Force GT 120GB / Seagate Barracuda 2TB
#23kidersxPosted 11/10/2012 1:19:23 PM
Lonestar2000 posted...
Nice source TC.

---
i5 2500K | 212 Evo | HD6870 | XMS3 16GB 1600MHz | HAF 912 | EA650 650w | 2TB 7200rpm Barracuda | GA-Z77-UD3H | 21.5" 1080p
#24darkstar4221Posted 11/11/2012 11:01:40 PM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
In the case of Microsoft, they were sued for holding a monopoly.


According to antitrust laws being a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft was tried for abusing monopoly powers, not for being a monopoly. Antitrust law only springs into action against a monopoly when it destroys the ability of another company to enter the market and compete.

Sure competitors of Microsoft can compete using a different source code that isn't Microsoft's, but like I said before information (code) is not real property rights. Microsoft's monopoly is a combination of the network effect and copyright laws. Microsoft has the market share, it attracts software developers and hardware manufacturers, because it's illegal to use Microsoft's source code due to copyright laws that is why their monopoly is protected.
#25darkstar4221Posted 11/11/2012 11:05:08 PM(edited)
Erik212 posted...
darkstar4221 posted...
So the patents and scpa act serves as a barrier of entry to compete with Intel. It's the same way how Microsoft's monopoly is protected by copyright law.


Cause you know the people who invented those things really want to give give them to the world for free, not profit from them. What philanthropy.


These big firms in wall street; Intel, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple. They are all corporatist, they all benefit from intellectual property. In the words of Albert Jay Nock, they would rather see whole world burn down before they would accept a pure free market. And a pure free market does not include copyright or patents because information is not real property rights.
#26Mike_HD2Posted 11/11/2012 11:04:33 PM(edited)
From: GTRagnarok | #010
I don't don't see how Intel could be allowed to be the only seller of consumer CPUs. There has to be monopoly laws that prevents that.


Monopoly laws do not exist to keep unprofitable companies in business just to keep some kind of false competition going. Monopoly laws exist to prevent companies like Intel from abusing their power and market share to give themselves an unfair advantage which prevents competitors from growing.

If AMD tanks it will be mostly their own fault thanks to a series of huge screw ups.

Then again i find it strange that people are talking about Intel having a monopoly but seemingly ignoring the fact that mobile chips are the future and Intel have so far utterly failed to make inroads into that market.
#27y3kmanPosted 11/11/2012 11:03:59 PM
Intel will never let AMD leave the CPU market.
---
3DS Friend Code: 3179-6997-7741 ; PSN: y3kman
Currently playing: One Piece: Pirate Warriors
#28Snuckie7Posted 11/11/2012 11:11:01 PM(edited)
darkstar4221 posted...
Erik212 posted...
darkstar4221 posted...
So the patents and scpa act serves as a barrier of entry to compete with Intel. It's the same way how Microsoft's monopoly is protected by copyright law.


Cause you know the people who invented those things really want to give give them to the world for free, not profit from them. What philanthropy.


These big firms in Wall Street; Intel, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple. They are all corporatist, they all benefit from intellectual property. In the words of Albert Jay Nock, they would rather see whole world burn down before they would accept a pure free market. And a pure free market does not include copyright or patents because information is not real property rights.

A completely free market would actually promote monopolies and the abuse of monopolies. The big companies would acquire all the competitors and easily be able to stomp everyone out of business.

Edit: If you want evidence for this, I suggest you do a bit of reading on the economics of the US during 1877-1893.
---
#29Luminous_ArcPosted 11/11/2012 11:50:50 PM
kidersx posted...
Lonestar2000 posted...
Nice source TC.
#30DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/12/2012 4:39:02 AM
darkstar4221 posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
In the case of Microsoft, they were sued for holding a monopoly.


According to antitrust laws being a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft was tried for abusing monopoly powers, not for being a monopoly. Antitrust law only springs into action against a monopoly when it destroys the ability of another company to enter the market and compete.

Sure competitors of Microsoft can compete using a different source code that isn't Microsoft's, but like I said before information (code) is not real property rights. Microsoft's monopoly is a combination of the network effect and copyright laws. Microsoft has the market share, it attracts software developers and hardware manufacturers, because it's illegal to use Microsoft's source code due to copyright laws that is why their monopoly is protected.


... Wouldn't that sum up Intel pretty perfectly? They have patents on, more or less, electronic computing.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED