AMD vs Intel

Why do you guys care so much about the perpetual flamewar between Intel and AMD? Why do you needlessly concern yourselves with proving a faceless "enemy" wrong, even though you have literally (and I mean literally) nothing to gain from it?

Neither AMD nor Intel will thank you for your efforts. Neither AMD nor Intel will change their strategies and products based on your idle banter.

Why can't you just use whatever CPU is the best performance for your budget? Or if you have other constraints (like being gifted an AM4 motherboard or something), why not just use the CPU you are in a position to use? Why does it always have to be a dick measuring contest? Why do you care so fucking much about a company that literally could not care less about your existence?

Because watching tech advanced is interesting for losers like us. Think of it like soccer for nerds.

Too many of us have been forced to pay out the ((((nose)))) for overpriced Intel CPUs. And then have the socket change a year later.

And then people don't realise that competition drives innovation and lowers prices.

Turkeys voting for Xmas.

Mainly because most techies are autist, I have money, so I pay for whatever fits my needs.

AMD makes horrible products, I will continue to expose them for their shady marketing and their awful engineering until the day I die. This is not about a fanboy war, this is about supporting companies that actually make good technology.

...

>Too many of us have been forced to pay out the ((((nose)))) for overpriced Intel CPUs.

Really makes you think.

then who pushed 64 bit for consumers
don't be retarded

>I support a company that has a borderline monopoly instead of actually wanting to see competition which everybody will benefit from
Uh-huh, so what's middle school like?

>only gayming
>no comparisons to x99
>the market it was aimed at minus the 1700

But it isn't watching tech advance. We can watch tech advance regardless of whatever arbitrary side we pick.

I get that it might seem like a sport, but the key difference there is that sports is all about the PROCESS. We are entertained by watching games, not what winning games affords the winning teams.

On the other hand, the CPU wars should be all about the results. We should encourage competition because of the better products that it will produce. What purpose is there in treating benchmarks like a spectator sport?

Intel fanboys aren't happy if they "beat" AMD fanboys because it will lead to better products from AMD. They are happy because of the neurotic obsession with seeing "their" team win. But seeing "their" team win doesn't actually yield them any benefits. And don't get me wrong, AMD fanboys are just as retarded.

If you are unhappy with an Intel product or decision, then don't buy them. And I'm not saying you shouldn't complain about them. But why needlessly side with the opposition in a "my guys can do no wrong" sort of mindset?

It is an objective fact that Intel has put out CPUs that outperform AMD CPUs at certain points in time. Why try to deny that reality, or attack the credibility of such a statistic with things like "muh jews" or "muh intel tax" or "muh socket changes"?

I feel the same way, which is really why I'm beginning to see how stupid this all is. I had an AMD Phenom II 955 back in the day while I was in college. Then I got a job and got money, and bought an Intel 5820k. Now that Ryzen is looking pretty decent, I might try out the 1800x with my next build. I don't see why I should have to stick to one side for "reasons".

>Conveniently leaves out the CPU it's suppose to compete against that cost twice as much
Really makes you think indeed

See, this is what I'm talking about. It "appears" like you are making arguments against the statistics, but what you are really doing is just moving the goalposts so that they fit your arbitrary use-cases.

I get that you like Intel CPUs, but why can't you bring up your gripes in a more constructive way?

"the x99 chipset CPUs should be compared to current gen Ryzens, because they outperform in compute related tasks"

Is that so hard? Why do you have to resort to greentext and memeing?

in their slides, that's what they compared them againist (minus the

they're simply more versatile than kaby

not everyone gaymes

minus the 1700 whoops

Fuck off, you're the exact same shill that's been flooding threads since Ryzen launched.

>supposed to compete against

You don't choose what CPUs you compete against, you go into the market and are forced to compete against what is there. Ryzen has utterly failed to compete against Intel in price, performance and power, it's a complete blowout.

by that logic, that means a xeon would be competing in the same market as an i3

it's not a blowout either, stop being dellusional

>You don't choose what CPUs you compete against, you go into the market and are forced to compete against what is there.
...like the 6900k?

>Shady

You mean now AMD bribed OEM to use thier shit chips,and punished those that used intel? Or how about the time they made a AMD compiler on efficient on AMD CPU,and take longer less efficient route for non AMD CPU? Or how about the time and locked thier CPU to make overclocker pay an extra shekel? Oh how about the time they used shit Tim,and solder paste to make overclocker have to break warranty since the Tim did nothing but give shit thermals? Or how about the times amd changes sockets every new arch?

you seem to think it's Intel fanboys vs AMD fanboys

when in reality it's tech enthusiasts vs Intel fanboys

>amd
>tech enthusiasts

>Find good thread about AMD/Intel flame shit wars on Sup Forums
>think about commenting
>read other comments
>find that thread has just turned into AMD/Intel flame shit wars thread
>die a little more inside