>http://hackaday.com/2015/12/09/echo-of-the-bunnymen-how-amd-won-then-lost/
Reminder to all my brothers not to buy Intel because they rose to the top spot by using underhanded tactics which should be thoroughly discouraged, not to mention they provide marginal performance gain for a huge difference in price.
Some Intel sins include
>From 2003 until 2006, Intel paid $1 Billion to Dell in exchange not to ship any computers using CPUs made by AMD.
>Intel held OEMs ransom, encouraging them to only ship Intel CPUs by way of volume discounts and threatening OEMs with low-priority during CPU shortages.
>Intel engaged in false advertising, and misrepresenting benchmark results.
Shill.
>>51802929
I'm not telling you to buy anything, I'm just telling you to not buy Intel because if moral reasons
>>51802940
Next you gonna tell us to go vegan because chickens have feelings?
They offered preferential treatment to their exclusive partners? That's so underhanded!
AMD is shit, crimson drivers is the worst trash ever; playmobil interface and half the features missing. next time I'm going for the jewtel+nvidiot combo.
>>51802940
>>51802986
He shilling so fucking hard. Oh no your not shilling AMD, then what you faggot you want us to get a VIA cpu? Gtfo
>>51802911
>Although both Intel and AMD produced chips that could take full advantage of these new instructions, the official Intel compiler was optimised to only allow Intel CPUs to use these instructions. Because the compiler can make multiple versions of each piece of code optimized for a different processor, it’s a simple matter for an Intel compiler to choose not to use improved SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 instructions on non-Intel processors. Simply by checking if the vendor ID of a CPU is ‘GenuineIntel’, the optimized code can be used. If that vendor ID is not found, the slower code is used, even if the CPU supports the faster and more efficient instructions.
That's dirty
I don't buy nVidia gpus no matter how superior they are to AMD because nVidia is anticonsumer but CPUs is where I can't make a compromise
>>51803015
That basically makes all the benchmarks on the market redundant because they were likely compiled in Intel machines, meaning AMD chips might be even better than Intel but we wouldn't know because the benchmark software won't even use the advanced features that AMD chips provide.
>>51802991
it's subliminal faggotry. aka advertising.
>From 2003 until 2006, Intel paid $1 Billion to Dell in exchange not to ship any computers using CPUs made by AMD.
claiming that intel actually gives their customers money for buying their product, is the most retarded thing i've read.
>>51802991
Bribing someone not to use your competitor's product comes under anti competitive laws and is a felony
>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/08/ftc-settles-charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel
>http://money.cnn.com/blogs/legalpad/2007/02/suit-intel-paid-dell-up-to-1-billion_15.html
>>51803074
>The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals’ access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers’ central processing unit
>>51803033
I used to think the same but after the crimson debacle my next gpu will probably be nvidia
>>51802991
I'm with this guy, other than blatantly giving companies money that's just good business tactics
>>51803044
you can know if you test it yourself.
just don't post REAL performance values or else the boogyman will get ya
>>51803044
It's not software compiled on Intel machines that's affected, it's software compiled with Intel's compiler. Most people use Microsoft's compiler or one of the open source ones.
OP isn't shilling. Also, about 10 years ago Intel actually performed sabotage by detecing if an AMD graphics card was installed on the system. If so, programs would run slower
citation: http://betanews.com/2005/07/13/suit-intel-sabotaged-compiler-for-amd/
>>51803543
He isn't shilling? He is saying not to get Intel, meaning you would have no choice to get AMD.
Tbh AMD only even exist because of Intel
>>51803100
What crimson debacle?
Using afterburner and overdrive at the same time?
When the product isn't used as intended it's not the manufacturers fault.
Don't believe the slander
You can and should safely buy Intel CPUs
I'm more concerned about the universal CPU backdoor from the Intel Management Engine
>>51803643
The fan speed bug could happen without using any third party software if you enabled Overdrive then disabled it.
Plus Crimson introduced rendering bugs in both Fallout 4 and Battlefront (literally the biggest new game releases at the time). They didn't QA it properly at all.
>>51803578
>Tbh AMD only even exist because of Intel
How young are you? Too young to remember who ruled the CPU market in the 80s?
>>51803675
Got any source for that?
>>51803708
The exact nature of the bug is mostly hearsay, but if you look through AMDs statements on the matter and the changelog for the hotfix they never mentioned third party software being the root cause.
It's fairly safe to assume that they'd shift the blame if they could.
>>51803578
AMD literally predates Intel
>>51803006
No, you should push for MMIX chips to get produced.
>>51803741
Just looked it up, seems like you're right.
Although I have to admit I'm impressed AMD publicly acknowledged it and released a fix so soon.
