AMD EPYC Airport Ads Punch Close to the Belt

[[XC] Oj101]

Can they not advertise and show their own product in a good light without mentioning their competitor?

I distinctly remember Intel's Core i7 adverts, where half of the content was filled with AMD's products. Oh wait, no I don't.

 

[Hood]

Can they not advertise and show their own product in a good light without mentioning their competitor?

No, the underdog must forever ride Big Daddy's coattails, like their ridiculous "trade the 8086K you won for a Threadripper" ads.

 

[Vayra86]

Can they not advertise and show their own product in a good light without mentioning their competitor?

I distinctly remember Intel's Core i7 adverts, where half of the content was filled with AMD's products. Oh wait, no I don't.

When you have a majority of mind- and marketshare that is what you do. When you don't, you go the AMD route.

 

[HTC]

Can they not advertise and show their own product in a good light without mentioning their competitor?

I distinctly remember Intel's Core i7 adverts, where half of the content was filled with AMD's products. Oh wait, no I don't.

Really? And how about that whole "glued together" part that was in Intel's official slide decks?

Doesn't that count?

When you have a majority of mind- and marketshare that is what you do. When you don't, you go the AMD route.

In such a case, one doesn't even have to. In fact, with such a vast majority as Intel had, it "wasn't worth the time and effort".

Not so, anymore: both architectures trade blows currently, with one winning somethings while the other wins others, depending on the workload type. However, and as Epyc platform matures, unless Intel can remove their heads from their asses, it will be AMD who'll have the upper hand.

 

[dwade]

No wonder Epyc sold poorly. AMD’s marketing team is run by kids with “Poor Volta” and x399 copycat name. They even had a Z470 platform almost ready for the market lol.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

With how bad AMD's history in poking at Intel & Nvidia's trees couple of years back, I hope they don't get their trees shaken & dropped all their good fruits of labor by their competitors for another time...

 

[Caring1]

These types of advertisements essentially scream "I'm insecure!", in my opinion.

Did they mention you personally?

 

[Hood]

Not so, anymore: both architectures trade blows currently, with one winning somethings while the other wins others, depending on the workload type. However, and as Epyc platform matures, unless Intel can remove their heads from their asses, it will be AMD who'll have the upper hand.

If they're "trading blows", 16 core Threadripper costs $800 now, 16 core i9-7960X cost $1400 now - So, people must be really stupid for paying $600 more for the same performance. I agree that overall performance is within about 5% of each other, the Intel only slightly ahead. So how do you explain this discrepancy? Why are people still buying the i9? I guess there's more to it than just raw performance figures in play here, things like extensive validation, obsessive compatibility testing, comprehensive support, platform integration, and many other factors that add up to Intel just working better, and causing fewer headaches for IT departments, and users in general. Hard to quantify for the younger, less experienced epeen crowd, much easier to just keep pointing at core counts, Cinebench scores, and low prices as proof of supposed superiority.

 

[Foobario]

If they're "trading blows", 16 core Threadripper costs $800 now, 16 core i9-7960X cost $1400 now - So, people must be really stupid for paying $600 more for the same performance. I agree that overall performance is within about 5% of each other, the Intel only slightly ahead. So how do you explain this discrepancy? Why are people still buying the i9? I guess there's more to it than just raw performance figures in play here, things like extensive validation, obsessive compatibility testing, comprehensive support, platform integration, and many other factors that add up to Intel just working better, and causing fewer headaches for IT departments, and users in general. Hard to quantify for the younger, less experienced epeen crowd, much easier to just keep pointing at core counts, Cinebench scores, and low prices as proof of supposed superiority.

Nice post. A little long though, as you answered your own query correctly when you identified stupidity as the reason some still pay exuberant prices for Intel processors.

Over time, the stupidity will fade as "word on the street" about Ryzen/Threadripper will spread amongst those that still only know "Intel Inside" when considering a computer purchase.

As for others, maybe yourself included, they will continue to buy blue no matter what benchmarks, real world use cases or even common sense tells them is the rational choice.

 

[Hood]

As for others, maybe yourself included, they will continue to buy blue no matter what benchmarks, real world use cases or even common sense tells them is the rational choice.

I'm sure that's true. The vast majority will buy blue because they just want a smooth, hassle-free experience, and don't worry much over brute power and bargain prices. My use case has always been gaming, with occasional audio/video conversion, so Intel has served me well so far. I will probably always feel this way. I'm never going to need 8 or 16 cores, but I'm happy for those who do, and glad they can get their core fix for cheap these days, instead of paying too much for Intel's HEDT platform. I've had the money to upgrade that way for years, but no plausible reason to do so (I don't care about bragging rights). Even the i7 I bought was overkill for me, really. I may talk shit, but in truth I respect AMD for the progress they've made, and give them full credit for lighting a fire under Intel's ass. But why would that make me, or anyone else, an Intel hater? My preference for Intel doesn't make me hate AMD, sometimes I just like to laugh at their latest shenanigans, just as you enjoy laughing at Intel's.

 

[Foobario]

I'm sure that's true. The vast majority will buy blue because they just want a smooth, hassle-free experience, and don't worry much over brute power and bargain prices. My use case has always been gaming, with occasional audio/video conversion, so Intel has served me well so far. I will probably always feel this way. I'm never going to need 8 or 16 cores, but I'm happy for those who do, and glad they can get their core fix for cheap these days, instead of paying too much for Intel's HEDT platform. I've had the money to upgrade that way for years, but no plausible reason to do so (I don't care about bragging rights). Even the i7 I bought was overkill for me, really. I may talk shit, but in truth I respect AMD for the progress they've made, and give them full credit for lighting a fire under Intel's ass. But why would that make me, or anyone else, an Intel hater? My preference for Intel doesn't make me hate AMD, sometimes I just like to laugh at their latest shenanigans, just as you enjoy laughing at Intel's.

Wow! You actually provided valid reasons to stick with Intel. Currently, the one area that Ryzen noticeably lags Intel is in audio conversion. Also in gaming, but one would only notice the difference if they looked at the FPS counter. They are already too close to visually see the difference. However, I'm not gonna argue that point as there are plenty of hopped up gamers that insist they can see the difference between 95 and 90 FPS on their 60 Hz monitors. Nvidia has made billions off this particular delusion. Lol

Props to you for stirring the pot. I apologize for implying you were amongst the stupider side of society. Lol

 

[hat]

More choice is a good thing. Intel is still best for gaming, but AMD can at least keep up now. If you have heavy multithreaded work loads, Ryzen or even Threadripper is likely both a wise and economical choice... unless you're just plain silly, or have a silly amount of money, then you can pay twice as much for a little faster performance in that area with Intel as well. Once upon a time, AMD was in a position where they were the lesser performing, yet more economical underdog... these days, they're still more economical, but they're catching up pretty good on the lesser performing part.

 

[Arjai]

I currently only have two AMD machines, an A10, that build is waiting for me to get some memory and time to build it, and another AMD3 machine that I bought the wrong CPU for. Plus the hard drive took a dump and I have that on the back burner also.

In the meantime, I have an i5 laptop and 3 i3 HP UltraSlim's crunching for WCG. I also have a Dell OptiPlex i5, with an upgraded i7, but I static charged it, killing the drive, or the memory.

Point is, Intel has a decent product, has for a while. If I had the money, I would build a cruncher around a 1700 65W cpu. But, I am check to check. I might buy a T 3500 workststion w/ a xeon 5670, soon. I found a place selling them cheap, less than $200! That's 12 threads running 3GHz+! It's a 95W cpu but, not bad.

If I had some spending money, that sounds sweet, I would get a ThreadRipper and be able to sell off these i3's!

But, I started on Socket A. Pumping up a mobile 2500+, or maybe it was a 2600+, to 1 GHz stable, before any P4's could do that!!

 

[lexluthermiester]

before any P4's could do that!!

You mean P3? The Pentium 4 hadn't been released yet and they started out at 1.3ghz.