AMD Outsells Intel 2:1 on European Retailer Mindfactory.de

[notb]

You literally claimed cartels are OK.

I haven't. And you've quoted my "Well, precisely" from a part where I admit for not owning a car. Nice touch.

And then people would ask "why did you ask the user if he/she/zee is working at Intel".

If I remember correctly, you've used this argument earlier (also replacing Intel with Nvidia).
I don't know the reason: maybe you're simply jealous? They've been ignoring your applications for a decade or what?

How many of their clients order 80+ million chips of 300mm^2+ size.

Why would it have to be that much? AMD could be bumped by a company that orders less volume but can pay more. It's even better for TSMC.
Apple is likely to start making their own CPUs and GPUs quite soon (20 million Macs sold yearly). I wonder who'll make them...

Nvidia will move to 7nm as well and they have pretty big chips (you love mentioning that, don't you? ;-))

Yeah, what if?
Or you mean "to prevent AMD from buying stuff from TSMC".
Hell, why not.

The reason is not important, isn't it?
AMD based their whole strategy on utilizing a limited 7nm. It might be that they have contracted enough volume for next 10 years of significant growth.
But it also could be risky. We'll see soon enough.

 

[trparky]

If Intel raised the prices high enough, a competitor would appear.

That would be true only if Intel didn't hold such a stranglehold on x86. Besides AMD, Via is the only other company that can legally produce an x86 processor and they've not done anything in years so I consider Via a non-competitor so that leaves us with AMD as the only alternative.

If AMD had not come out swinging with Ryzen and AMD had ended up going under (like some experts said that they were in danger of) Intel would then have absolutely nothing to stop them from charging $1000 a piece for even a Core i3. Why? Because no competition. Healthy competition is needed to make sure that no one single company can be a straight up dick about pricing.

 

[medi01]

I haven't.

Wiggle-wiggle.
Your argument was "but people are buying, so price is ok". People were buying fuel from Standard Oil Cartel too
"Oh, but I meant something else, let me make it up... mm... no good idea let, let's pretend I dind't say it".

Sure thing, sweetie, why, the f*ck, not.

Why would it have to be that much?

How could it be less than Microsoft and Sony sell? And I'm not even counting AMD's own chips.

AMD based their whole strategy on utilizing a limited 7nm.

Underdog's need to gamble. I'd call game theory for this, but it's pretty obvious.
They should get more cations once firmly back to black.

 

[notb]

Wiggle-wiggle.
Your argument was "but people are buying, so price is ok".

Because it's true. Isn't it logical?

People were buying fuel from Standard Oil Cartel too
"Oh, but I meant something else, let me make it up... mm... no good idea let, let's pretend I dind't say it".

People are buying oil from a cartel all the time. Ever heard about OPEC?

Underdog's need to gamble. I'd call game theory for this, but it's pretty obvious.
They should get more cations once firmly back to black.

Well, maybe AMD has to gamble. Fortunately, clients - both consumers and corporate - don't have to.

 

[medi01]

"but people are buying, so price is ok"

Because it's true. Isn't it logical?

If that is logical, then cartels are ok too, meat bag.

Ever heard about OPEC?

A clinical case I guess.

 

[notb]

If that is logical, then cartels are ok too, meat bag.

At the moment our civilization can't survive without oil.
But I'm pretty sure humans can exist without PC gaming. Vastly different cases.

You could have get a different hobby. You didn't. So the gaming equipment was priced according to your demand.

Just the fact that people buy Intel CPUs for entertainment means prices are set properly (by definition).
There isn't really anything to discuss here.
I have no idea what you're trying to achieve.