Try living in california where if you have a part time job you make more than the federal poverty line and don't qualify for anything but can't afford anything due to the cost of living.

http://sfist.com/2012/08/14/homeless_woman_killed_by_samurai_sw.php

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Most of this is conjecture on your part. While I agree prices will rise, the extent which is being discussed here is hyperbolic. Intel cares about its margins and while it might become the sole x86 supplier, at the end of the day, having a new chip isn't an absolute necessity in the same ilk of food. If they charge too high, there will be a point where they will fail to maximize their profit/revenue margins.

I know it's hard to believe, but companies like Intel hire economists and business heads for this very reason, to determine the best product to price ratio in order to maximize sales. If 100 people are willing to buy a $100 processor, you're not gauranteed to have anywhere close to that or even 20 at $500, even if you are the sole supplier of the market.

SolidPandaG

Except what you aren't understanding is they can cut R&D to a fraction of its budget and start producing chips that are 1/4 the physical demensions of what we have now and shut down a large amount of their very expensive factories.

All while raising costs. You call that conjecture and hyperbolic, but that existed. Back when AMD and Cryix were intel clones. Back then I bought a pentium 133 for 400 dollars and it wasn't even considered very good.

Not only has AMD made intels prices low, they created:

x86-64

integrated memory controller

dual cores

quad cores

Just to name a few. NONE OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE ON INTELS PROCESSORS WITHOUT AMD

We'd be using a single core 5 ghz tejas derivative right now if it weren't for AMD

Intel only competed on price and technology because AMD forced them to.

Because it is a better business model to make slight changes that cost very little than to dump billions into R&D and deal with a competitor

This was all true in the past. But Intel is nearly a monopoly at this very point in time, even if it's not officially. Yeah AMD contributed to their aggressive tick-tock strategy and heavy investment in R&D but they're now in a position where they can float along and just watch their profits continue to soar, which they've in part been doing for the past several years with all their incremental upgrades and diverging chipset branches.

Another thing you're failing to address is the fact that back then, people actually needed extra computational power to do things (ie. a step up from 133 MHz to 200 MHz was necessary) because processors just weren't adequate enough to do most tasks. Nowadays, grandpa Joe or grandma Jane or mom or dad can do almost everything with a 2006 class Conroe or 2008 Woldale. The enthusiasts in here make up a very small minority of consumers that Intel collects money from. Those typical folk don't have much incentive to upgrade now because the CPU has caught up to most software and even more so. Therefore, to entice the masses to invest in new hardware, Intel needs to keep their processors at a respectable price. That's why they won't suddenly start charging $500 for a low to mid end processor if AMD kicks the dust. They'll just eat into their own margins.

First you argue against what I said then you start to argue for it. If no one needs the i5 and i7s WHY ARENT THEY GETTING THE CHEAPER AMD CPUS THEN?

Sorry but you just backed yourself into a corner.

There is no need to "put AMD's CPU division out of its misery" because no one needs crazy x86 performance

If AMD disappears tomorrow, of course intel's prices won't double by the weekend. Long term though they will be over double what they are.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

There's no more clear distinction between low, mid and high end processors for Intel. In most cases, they're good enough because they're so far above AMD's crap offerings. Intel has no incentive to charge $500 despite your claim. They would effectively hurt their own sales. They didn't get to where they are now based on being business stunted.

If anyone needs a crash course in economics, it's you.

SolidPandaG

You really think that the i-3 2100 would only be in the low hundreds if intel was the only x86 cpu company?

You need to stop huffing glue.

With no competition the ASP will skyrocket, intel will stop spending money on r&d and you'll be getting single core celerons for the same price you are paying for an i3-2100

Most of this is conjecture on your part. While I agree prices will rise, the extent which is being discussed here is hyperbolic. Intel cares about its margins and while it might become the sole x86 supplier, at the end of the day, having a new chip isn't an absolute necessity in the same ilk of food. If they charge too high, there will be a point where they will fail to maximize their profit/revenue margins.

I know it's hard to believe, but companies like Intel hire economists and business heads for this very reason, to determine the best product to price ratio in order to maximize sales. If 100 people are willing to buy a $100 processor, you're not gauranteed to have anywhere close to that or even 20 at $500, even if you are the sole supplier of the market.

Except what you aren't understanding is they can cut R&D to a fraction of its budget and start producing chips that are 1/4 the physical demensions of what we have now and shut down a large amount of their very expensive factories.

All while raising costs. You call that conjecture and hyperbolic, but that existed. Back when AMD and Cryix were intel clones. Back then I bought a pentium 133 for 400 dollars and it wasn't even considered very good.

Not only has AMD made intels prices low, they created:

x86-64

integrated memory controller

dual cores

quad cores

Just to name a few. NONE OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE ON INTELS PROCESSORS WITHOUT AMD

We'd be using a single core 5 ghz tejas derivative right now if it weren't for AMD

Intel only competed on price and technology because AMD forced them to.

Because it is a better business model to make slight changes that cost very little than to dump billions into R&D and deal with a competitor

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Intel has no competition RIGHT NOW. They're playing with the market as they see fit. They keep segmenting the desktop brackets and constantly coming up with new LGA pin sets for every gen, resulting in more money spent by the consumer as a result of AMD's incompetence. I don't think it can get any worse. You have to pay for a different chipset to access CPU's that are considered higher end but from the same family (LGA 1155 VS LGA 2011).

People keep saying it if isn't for AMD, Intel would charge $500 for the lowest CPU. This is ridiculous. Intel is in the business of making money and if they drive the cost of their products up, their revenue share will utimately go down, regardless if there are a lack of choices. People will find ways of accessing computers through other means. If there was competition right now, you wouldn't see this abysmal incremental increases from one gen line of family processors to the next.

Also, Bulldozer was originally designed to compete post Nehalem, not Conroe or Wolfdale. It sucks so bad that it even loses on average to its predeccesor, Thuban.

SolidPandaG

You don't know what competition is because if intel didn't have any competition, their processors would be over 500 dollars for the mid range like in the bad ol' days and we'd be all using 4GHz pentium 5 single cores

And that is 500 bucks in not 2012 money, so it actually had value. unlike our 200 dollar or less cpus in worthless 2012 dollars.

Learn some business and then argue about business.

There's no more clear distinction between low, mid and high end processors for Intel. In most cases, they're good enough because they're so far above AMD's crap offerings. Intel has no incentive to charge $500 despite your claim. They would effectively hurt their own sales. They didn't get to where they are now based on being business stunted.

If anyone needs a crash course in economics, it's you.

You really think that the i-3 2100 would only be in the low hundreds if intel was the only x86 cpu company?

You need to stop huffing glue.

With no competition the ASP will skyrocket, intel will stop spending money on r&d and you'll be getting single core celerons for the same price you are paying for an i3-2100

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

How much longer till AMD's CPU division is put out of its misery?

SolidPandaG

Like they're not doing that right now? Please... anyone who thinks there's competition in the mid to high end segment is completely delusional. That's why all the upgrades post Conroe have been marginal at best right? Wasn't it amazing how when Athlon was legit, Intel scrambled to come out with Core 2, completely blowing the doors off of its mediocre Pentium 4 line? Nowadays, every half cadence jump yields 4-5% IPC across the board at best on average.

Intel is doing it right now. They're stretching the market and milking it for as long as they can because there is no competition. The only reason AMD is allowed to stick around is to keep the government off of Big Blue's back and complain that it's a monopoly.

Apparently you don't remember the aweful 33mhz boosts we used to see. Intel made AMD this way, through illegal practices. Bulldozer was supposed to come out to compete with core2.

you can thank intel and intel alone for the state of CPUs, AMD has been doing everything it can to stay relevant.

Yet you people keep shovelling money and praise upon intel, rewarding its illegal and unethical business practices and spit on AMD for being bad.

There is no such thing as a spanish, only spaniards.

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Just focus on making video cards now.

Talus057

you sir are and idiot

If you're going to be writing C, start with C#.

It's the most accessable variant and the best entrypoint for beginners.

Visual Studio Express is free.

An alternative would be Java in Eclipse.

MlauTheDaft

c sharp is an abomination

Feels good to live in silicon valley, where almost no one has air conditioning. Today we are expected to get to a high of 90 degrees, I might put on shorts.