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

AMD = Finished

#11LostHisHardcorePosted 9/12/2013 1:21:36 AM
I like to think that AMD will earn lots of money with the release of the new consoles over next few years, that and hopefully the devs building games for amd hardware for the next 5 years will bring out some decent optimizations. Either way hopefully they'll earn enough from the deal to pour more into R&D to get back into the game CPU wise.
But time will tell I guess.
---
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate!"
"I'm you, I'm your shadow!"
#12Cool_Dude667Posted 9/12/2013 5:07:32 AM
inb4snuckie
---
Not changing this sig until Christ returns -- Started 30 A.D
3770K @ 4.2Ghz | 16GB Corsair Vengeance | GTX 670 SLi
#13Flaktrooper123Posted 9/12/2013 6:29:04 AM
AMD is doing well in the graphics section. But they are fighting against Nvidia there, not Intel. Their GPU business is one of the things that keep them alive. We can still use their products even if we use Intel processor you see.
#142Dhas_a_MIGRANEPosted 9/12/2013 6:48:36 AM
Panzer_Squid posted...

Furreal friends this time.


Fixed.
---
Pearl Code: 0731 1228 8254 White Code: 0862 2790 1982
SSBB: 0989-1461-9542
#15MasterDonGeroPosted 9/12/2013 7:31:36 AM
darkstar4221 posted...
Yeah Intel is very close to monopolizing the market thanks to patent law, although as of now you can consider them a monopoly.

The problem is patents as well as other ip laws such as sui genrus covers semiconductor chips. You want to talk about corporate protectionism, if I owned a company who manufacturers semiconductor chips and my company produces cpus that were similar to the i5 series, I would be fined and my company would be shut down because intel owns the "design" of the i5 chipsets.

This is the philosophical problem of patent law, that ideas are considered a property right, this isn't even dealing with the issue of piracy and copyright because there is no piracy here. No one should need a license to manufacturer and sell cpus whether be an x86 cpu, powerpc cpu, or a tegra 4 processor. Without patent law covering chip designs, cpus would be much cheaper and more widely available then they are now.


And why should specific CPU architecture not be covered under patent laws, in your opinion?
---
3570K (4.8 GHz) | Dual-X 7970 | ASRock Z77 OC Formula | Corsair Vengeance 2x 4 GB | WD Black 1 TB | Corsair TX750 | XSPC Raystorm 750 RS240 Kit | NZXT Phantom
#16ShubPosted 9/12/2013 7:35:07 AM(edited)
darkstar4221 posted...
*verbal diarrhea*


AMD pumping out inferior CPU after inferior CPU has nothing to do with Intel's patents on x86.
---
-What is best in life?
-To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
#17darkstar4221Posted 9/12/2013 10:53:50 AM(edited)
MasterDonGero posted...
darkstar4221 posted...
Yeah Intel is very close to monopolizing the market thanks to patent law, although as of now you can consider them a monopoly.

The problem is patents as well as other ip laws such as sui genrus covers semiconductor chips. You want to talk about corporate protectionism, if I owned a company who manufacturers semiconductor chips and my company produces cpus that were similar to the i5 series, I would be fined and my company would be shut down because intel owns the "design" of the i5 chipsets.

This is the philosophical problem of patent law, that ideas are considered a property right, this isn't even dealing with the issue of piracy and copyright because there is no piracy here. No one should need a license to manufacturer and sell cpus whether be an x86 cpu, powerpc cpu, or a tegra 4 processor. Without patent law covering chip designs, cpus would be much cheaper and more widely available then they are now.


And why should specific CPU architecture not be covered under patent laws, in your opinion?


Semiconductor chips are covered under patent and sui genrus law. In other words if you want to compete with Intel's x86 or even IBMs powerpc cpus your chip design has to be completely different.

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, to invent a microprocessor that's different from any of today cpus is like reinventing the wheel. It would be a waste of money and it would lead to nowhere.
#18darkstar4221Posted 9/12/2013 11:30:19 AM(edited)
Shub posted...
darkstar4221 posted...
*verbal diarrhea*


AMD pumping out inferior CPU after inferior CPU has nothing to do with Intel's patents on x86.


Yes it is, copying any of Intel's technology can result in a lawsuit. There is a reason why Intel has constantly been in the top 10 in patent recipients.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_patent_recipients

And keep in mind Intel's produce line is mostly semiconductor chips so what the hell are they patenting? Are they patenting every single part of their microprocessor?
#19MasterDonGeroPosted 9/12/2013 10:51:42 AM
darkstar4221 posted...
MasterDonGero posted...
darkstar4221 posted...
Yeah Intel is very close to monopolizing the market thanks to patent law, although as of now you can consider them a monopoly.

The problem is patents as well as other ip laws such as sui genrus covers semiconductor chips. You want to talk about corporate protectionism, if I owned a company who manufacturers semiconductor chips and my company produces cpus that were similar to the i5 series, I would be fined and my company would be shut down because intel owns the "design" of the i5 chipsets.

This is the philosophical problem of patent law, that ideas are considered a property right, this isn't even dealing with the issue of piracy and copyright because there is no piracy here. No one should need a license to manufacturer and sell cpus whether be an x86 cpu, powerpc cpu, or a tegra 4 processor. Without patent law covering chip designs, cpus would be much cheaper and more widely available then they are now.


And why should specific CPU architecture not be covered under patent laws, in your opinion?


Semiconductor chips are covered under patent and sui genrus law. In other words if you want to compete with Intel's x86 or even IBM's powerpc's cpu your chip design has to be completely different.

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, to invent a microprocessor that's different from any cpu's in today's market and still be just as efficient is like reinventing the wheel. It would be a waste of money and it go nowhere.


So if I create the best way for a product to work, others should be allowed to take the idea I thought up on my own volition to compete with me? Okay, buddy.
---
3570K (4.8 GHz) | Dual-X 7970 | ASRock Z77 OC Formula | Corsair Vengeance 2x 4 GB | WD Black 1 TB | Corsair TX750 | XSPC Raystorm 750 RS240 Kit | NZXT Phantom
#20darkstar4221Posted 9/12/2013 11:19:25 AM(edited)
MasterDonGero posted...
So if I create the best way for a product to work, others should be allowed to take the idea I thought up on my own volition to compete with me? Okay, buddy.


Oh and because chip designs are covered under patent law, Intel is close to monopolizing the market, since their technology can't be copied. You need a license (ie permission) from Intel to use their chip designs. It says so on the wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for more than 20 years[1] and so cannot be subject to patent claims. This subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open.

Yeah the 80486 is fully open, but it's such an old architecture, no one would bother to build on that. I believe patents are 20 years of coverage, so Intel is always pumping out newer cpus because A) they have the budget to outspend and outperform their competitors B) there is a time limit before their chipsets can be copied although 20 years is a lot of time when it comes to tech C) to monopolize the market just like in the 1990s