Quote (yupitsmeh @ Jul 30 2017 07:12pm)
lol you have no logic do you
7870 and 670 are the cards needed right now on pc for xbox one ports
you telling me why that should possibly change in the future titles?
wouldnt it be simpler to start with them and work up since those are the equivalents
console hardware isnt going to change
jesus christ its like talking to a wall like the other topic when you assumptions on anti competition laws
Why shouldn't it, if they aren't willing to continue to optimize for 670/7870 levels of performance? Maybe pc port sales aren't enough to justify the cost. It's cheaper for them to do it this way.
It is called cutting corners to increase or maintain profit, it's why Intel switched from solder to TIM with ivy bridge and then from copper to full aluminum heatsinks with skylake. If you project that cutting costs by x amount will yield greater savings even factoring in the projected decrease in sales, you do it. That's just the smart thing to do.
Quote (yupitsmeh @ Jul 30 2017 07:12pm)
jesus christ its like talking to a wall like the other topic when you assumptions on anti competition laws
admittedly i was being a pedant there but the fact remains that anti-competition laws aren't what's stopping intel from offering better products that could potentially put AMD out of business. This happens all the time and it's called survival of the fittest, the heart of capitalism, indeed it's what competition is all about. When you're ahead of the competition you are not being anti-competitive if you choose to not sit on your laurels as Intel did for all of this decade, but you will be subject to anti monopoly laws and harsh regulations if your competitors go out of business so it is not on your best interest to do that. You simply used the wrong term to describe the reason Intel's is intent on keeping AMD around and used an irrelevant example of actual anti-competitive practices they have done in the past that have no bearing.
What they did then with OEM's during the athlon x2 days was almost the exact opposite. Intel had the inferior product and was trying to make up for that by paying off OEMs to use their shit instead rather than offering a superior item. Before Ryzen, Intel had the superior product and simply chose not to innovate further, there was nothing telling them they couldn't, and even if they had, and AMD died, they would have won fair and square. At that point facing harsh government price regulation and possibly having their company split in order to prevent a monopoly, but not in the name of anti-competition.
This post was edited by DCSS on Jul 30 2017 06:54pm