- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 3,931 (0.59/day)
- Location
- Northern Ontario Canada
Processor | Ryzen 5700x |
---|---|
Motherboard | Gigabyte X570S Aero G R1.1 BiosF5g |
Cooling | Noctua NH-C12P SE14 w/ NF-A15 HS-PWM Fan 1500rpm |
Memory | Micron DDR4-3200 2x32GB D.S. D.R. (CT2K32G4DFD832A) |
Video Card(s) | AMD RX 6800 - Asus Tuf |
Storage | Kingston KC3000 1TB & 2TB & 4TB Corsair MP600 Pro LPX |
Display(s) | LG 27UL550-W (27" 4k) |
Case | Be Quiet Pure Base 600 (no window) |
Audio Device(s) | Realtek ALC1220-VB |
Power Supply | SuperFlower Leadex V Gold Pro 850W ATX Ver2.52 |
Mouse | Mionix Naos Pro |
Keyboard | Corsair Strafe with browns |
Software | W10 22H2 Pro x64 |
Opinion, not supported by market status or Intel's own actions.
All depends what competetive means. If it means earning good profits, then I would say they are doing well.
If it means good price/performance vs. competitions offerings for consumers & enterprise, then obviously not.
Now usually if you can't compete or not competitive you go the way of the dodo, and I don't see that happening to Intel in the immediate future.
That isn't 100% accurate, at least so far as consumer segment is concerned, especially DIY. Intel has huge demand in the enterprise space, especially like the one you mentioned, as the Pentiums & Celeron still vastly outsell anything Athlon in this space. But huge part of the major issue (demand?) is rebates or promotional $ which are tied to the way Intel works & how they still have a deathgrip on the likes of HP, DELL etc.
Take away this artificially pent up "demand" & their numbers aren't all that great, especially against Athlons & R3 where Intel is horrendous value not to mention anorexic performance!
I don't disagree one bit, and I do agree they should be more competetive in price vs. performance. But I guess my question is, do they have to or even want to given the profits they are making now anyways?
Last edited: