The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that Intel must be applying heavy-handed pressure to OEMs to keep them in line long enough for Intel to release a better architecture in a couple of years.
The realist in me says that AMD has had major supply issues delivering the 7nm Zen3 chips in any appreciable quantity while Intel literally prints 14nm chips like it's going out of style.
Given that you can spec a comparable Ryzen vs. Intel system on Dell's site I'm thinking Dell is just prioritizing their marketing focus on the systems where they can move the most volume. Else they'd be shooting themselves in the foot with "SOLD OUT" notices and backlogs.
People keep calling such suspicion "conspiracy theory" as if it's rare of unlikely. Intel in particular has been fined multiple times for this exact practice. Maybe they are back at it- if I were the regulator, I would at least take a look at the issue.
Conspiracy theories just need to be theories of conspiracy. It carries an implication of implausibility only because of popular perception. e.g. TV and movies like to show a "conspiracy theorist" as a person struggling with paranoia who has outlandish theories and no credibility.
Real, mundane conspiracies are numerous, and there are probably some outlandish ones, too. Every proven conspiracy must have started with someone's theory, if not an unprompted admission, so it's not always wrong to theorize. It's just silly to dedicate more than a little brain space*time to theories you've got no evidence for or hope of proving, conspiracy or otherwise.
You are correct about the dictionary definition of the word, but in popular parlance the phrase "conspiracy theory" has a massive negative connotation. I have literally never in my life seen someone use the phrase without intending to imply "crazy/unprovable/etc".
As a sort of recursive aside, the particular strength of the modern connotations of conspiracy theory are supposed to be a result of CIA propaganda produced to help cover up mkUltra.
The common parlance is very problematic. Anyone can see it is in fact a conspiracy theory, but if it's true, you're not supposed to call it that? How would you know?
Using conspiracy theory as a derogaratory term is a form of doublespeak that shield the conspirators and their conspiracies.
I, for one, will not stop calling conspiracy theories conspiracy theories, regardless whether they are true. Actually, especially when they are true.
"It's not a conspiracy if it is not illegal." By definition.
Garden-variety corruption doesn't need a conspiracy. The US is today the world leader in high-level, fully legal corruption. It took many decades to get there, but it will take even longer to choke it off, if we ever do.
We even elected an out-and-out con man to the presidency. Russia wishes it could be so corrupt, but just doesn't have the money for it. China does, but its corruption is mostly still technically illegal.
A lot of garden variety corruption such as this is actually illegal in the US.
However, you can also form a conspiracy to commit a legal act if it’s got some negative stigma your trying to avoid. For example students may conspire to lower the bar when graded on a bell curve.
A conspiracy theory is any suggestion that two or more people have conspired together to do something. It’s recently become a synonym for “anything I believe to be false”, but that’s not really what it means at all.
I really dislike the use of "conspiracy theory" as a thought stopper. Conspiracies and other underhanded behavior absolutely does exist. The FBI has an entire conspiracy division dedicated to organized crime.
The conspiracy theories that people usually mean by that term are the silly ridiculous ones like Qanon, outlandish "secret space program" stuff, we didn't land on the moon, etc.
I have a Ryzen 5950x system and like many other owners I suffer from poor stability. My machine crashes several times a week with CPU errors.
This seems to be the result of poor BIOSes from AMD and their partners, more so than fab faults - reddit is full of people who still have issues after their 3rd RMA.
I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole if I was Dell.
Very often, when Windows crashes due to hardware shenanigans, it writes a minidump into c:/Windows/Minidump folder. You can use WinDbg to see what happened. Sometimes the problem is faulty RAM or similar random fails, nothing interesting there, but more often the problem is specific piece of hardware, the minidump then tells which driver has crashed and what it was doing when it happened.
I have a 5950X as well and it's only mostly stable. I've been running at stock with just PBO enabled and it's mostly fine. It's not so unstable I regret building it since it almost always only reboots and logs a WHEA error when I'm not using it for some reason.
For sudden reboot issues, could be some power protections tripping? For me that showed up as shutdowns (that require turning the PSU off for a minute), but maybe depending on various components and could result in reboots as well?
PBO seems to result in some wild power spikes that don't ever happen with manual static OC. Try raising various overcurrent limits, that worked for me.
I installed the new beta BIOS update a week ago and since then my machine is been ROCK solid.
Interestingly, my fan is running harder now; whilst CPU usage is low but spiking on 1-2 cores. It never did that before; so maybe the problem was caused by a thermal bug in the bios.
That is not the issue, the issue is that AMD advertise 2700x and 5950x with the same TDP, so at the very least that should means that they both work fine when using the same cooling solution, which is not the case. Using my previous cooler 5950x was throttling at 100 Celsius.
I believe the real answer is between column A and column B. It would not surprise me to learn that Intel has exclusive product agreements with certain manufacturers top shelf products like the Thinkpad X1, Surface Pro, and the Dell XPS. Long before the shortage, people have been wondering why they can't buy any of these products with a Ryzen CPU. A Ryzen Thinkpad X1 would be an instant purchase for me personally.
However, there is no denying that AMD is having supply issues and is arguably mismanaging the supply they do have with their constant paper launches.
I believe the column A, column B description is apt. For sure AMD is struggling with supply-chain issues, but despite that, they are still managing to lead and stay afloat in terms of tech and mindshare.
These unfair practices by OEMs and Intel serve to exacerbate that problem and will make it harder for AMD to gather greater marketshare as well as mindshare which they could have otherwise reaped when supplies are greater. It's a double-whammy misfortune for AMD in that case, which they don't need as their tech really is advancing past Intel in many ways.
Yea, would love a ThinkPad with amd and 32gb of memory (looks like they now can go to 32gb, but think they were all soldered 16gb last time I checked). Not quite as pretty as a Mac, but probably they best laptop keyboard I've used.
Are there any USB 4 Ryzen laptops ? If there are it must be a very recent thing. AMD has only been viable in laptops for a short while and with limited availability - I suspect they are going to start to show up in premium laptops once they start becoming more common place - just look at the delays between desktop and laptop releases - it's obvious laptops are not a priority for AMD
This is not the impression of many review sites – a lot of the premium Ryzen laptop offerings from certain OEMs (not the big ones) like Asus and others out of Asia are amongst the top performers and have excellent features.
The issue at hand is that other, bigger OEMs are not putting AMD hardware into their best designs and thus yielding less than stellar performance or features. There are still cases of high-end Ryzen mobile CPUs being put into single-channel configurations!
I've looked at G15 Ryzen - it's USB 3.2 and sould out - so no USB 4.0 and limited availability like I said. I don't have any inside scoops into this industry but it could easily be that they are putting the new/untested parts in to lower tier products and reserving top tier ones for the tested configuration with a partner they know can deliver. Put it simply - X1 with AMD would probably sell out in a week, then they would be stuck with people waiting for that one over Intel, and they would cross Intel who still supplies them the majority of chips - sounds like a lose-lose to me.
I'd like to get a top tier AMD ultra portable for sure (eg. a Surface Pro) but AMD seems completely owhervelmed by demand in all areas and they prioirtise laptops the lowest (from their own release timelines and previous statements)
If there's no supply, then simply don't offer the product. However, Alienware, a Dell property, doing as described in this article, is not surprising at all. Dell got in big trouble for their behind-the-scenes favoritism of Intel [0].
The offerings of Ryzen laptops tells a similar story, even before the supply shortages of late. They are only now escaping their shells, but large OEMs still give the best specs to Intel-powered laptops. Better offerings come from the smaller vendors.
> #2 does not explain the single channel DDR thing.
Dell has done that on Intel systems for as far as I can remember. Buy the cheapest machine they sell and it's par for the course. This isn't something they do to nerf AMD performance, it's something they do to hit a particular price point, and they always have.
Using the phrase "conspiracy theory" to simply describe theories about conspiracies is pretty common nowadays, the phrase doesn't have an inherently perojative connotation. Just because it's true does not mean it is not a conspiracy theory.
That study is interesting, but us an extremely synthetic testing environment, where everything in the experiment group was called a "consipiracy theory" in a synthetic research prompt, not measuring how peopld respond to actual usage of the term.
"Being in a study" may have as large an effect on the result as "attitude toward the term "conspiracy theory".
In the past, Intel simply paid your marketing campaign when you advertised its products. Remember how every manufactor had fullpage advertisements of Intel PCs in every magazine you could buy?
My bet is they're giving dell a much better price and dell makes more money off those systems making it an incentive instead of pressure.
Intel fabbing their own chips gives them a lot more room for profit than amd in the end price - basically you could give the equivalent of half tsmc's cut to an OEM and still make more money than amd per chip.
Intel provides backend rebates to channels or even large commercial end users (usually if you use Intel ssd) for exclusivity. AMD does the same — I’m sure HP has favored pricing.
As someone who bought large numbers of devices in the last year, I would say that the AMD devices had more supply chain issues than any other devices, from thin clients to desktops to laptops.
That may not mean it’s an AMD thing, those issues may well be due to the OEM as many devices/components are constrained.
> The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that Intel must be applying heavy-handed pressure to OEMs to keep them in line long enough for Intel to release a better architecture in a couple of years.
But what kind of pressure can Intel even apply? Intel CPUs are more expensive and have sub-par performance? Why would any OEM favor them?
"Hi Dell, this is Intel calling. You know how you are one of the biggest computer hardware vendors out there and we give you 30% off on our stuff because you sell insane volumes of it? Yeah we're gonna have to stop doing that if you continue this worrying trend of selling more and more of those AMD chips. We did the math and this will actually hurt you more than you could bring in on the AMD stuff. Ok thanks bye now"
Or maybe the other way around
"We'll give you 40% off instead of 30 if you stop moving so many AMD chips."
It is probably worth while for Intel to do things like this for now and stop the bleeding while AMD is ahead for once.
See my sibling comment. Intel has applied incentives to OEMs before to give them preferential treatment. Dell got caught, but it's likely it's happened with others based on the same pattern existing elsewhere.
The public perception is still that Intel is superior. If you don't have Intel products available or with a competitive price, you will lose market share.
Remember that most people are tech illiterate (or not savy enough) to know/care about technical details more than they trust marketing and brands.
AMD notebooks/systems usually come with less memory, storage and inferior GPUs, despite being faster than Intel. The thing that makes me most upset are inferior displays; often the top AMD model has some TN panel at 1920x1080, whereas top Intel model has an OLED 4k. This is criminal.
I had to buy an Intel-based Razer with 4k@120 and 3080 because there is no similar AMD model provided by anyone. Like nobody in the whole world has a comparable AMD system.
Maybe it's just market segmentation with better GPUs aimed at gamers and better CPUs aimed at "creators"? I think a lot of games won't fully use 16 cores but many creator-type applications use as many as available while not needing cutting edge graphics.
A 4K notebook display barely improves what your eyes see, at the cost of an enormous bump in power consumption. From an engineering perspective that's not a good tradeoff for battery life. This may be why they don't dominate the market.
ASUS makes multiple AMD laptops with high resolution and/or high refresh rate. Not sure if any are 4K OLED 120Hz, but the fact that you chose a corner case display constraint that was only satisfied by Intel machines may be more a reflection of the constraint than a conspiracy. The vast majority of Intel models don't offer that option either.
Also it's very easy to find IPS and VA laptops, but if you noticed a TN panel being offered for a gaming machine that's because it offers superior response time at the cost of contrast and color accuracy.
> Several bones to pick with your post but the salient one is that a 4K notebook display barely improves what your eyes see, at the cost of an enormous bump in power consumption.
No, it might barely improve what _you_ see, but for me the difference between screens on work laptop (FHD) and my personal X1C is enormous and immediately obvious.
> No, it might barely improve what _you_ see, but for me the difference between screens on work laptop (FHD) and my personal X1C is enormous and immediately obvious.
Between FHD and 4K for sure there’s a huge difference. But 4K is way overkill for 15“. And I really don’t understand why there’s like nobody except Apple who uses panels in a sweet spot between FHD and 4K. I have a HP ZBook 15“ with an FHD panel as my work laptop and it’s a bad experience especially when you’re dealing with text all the time. My personal MacBook Pro doesn‘t have 4K but a lot more than FHD and it’s perfectly fine.
Same thing I didn’t get with aspect ratio. Apple did use 16:10 for years until some OEM realized that 16:9 is just bad for everything except movies.
"Despite losing considerable market share to AMD, Intel held on to a commanding lead by exerting its influence on computer manufacturers. Most famous was the “Intel Inside” co-branding program, in which Intel gave “market-development funds” to computer manufacturers if they highlighted the Intel brand on their products. But “Intel Inside” was not nearly as controversial as Intel’s practice of paying “loyalty rebates” to computer manufacturers for not using AMD chips. On the surface, Intel’s loyalty rebate programs appeared to be innocent volume or bundled discounts. Courts had struggled to apply section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to the issue of bundled discounts, as it was hard to distinguish harmless discounts from loyalty rebates provided for the sole purpose of acquiring or maintaining monopoly power. But by taking into consideration the market conditions at the time and the nature of Intel’s relationship with the computer manufacturers, the monopolistic intent underlying Intel’s actions is noticeable. The commoditization of the PC market had severely impacted the profit margins of computer manufacturers, leaving their hopes of meeting quarterly earnings targets at the mercy of Intel’s loyalty rebates. In internal emails at major computer manufacturers, company executives were clearly distressed by the risk of losing such rebates, and most importantly, profitability, if they adopted AMD chips—or, as one Dell executive poignantly put it, Intel was “prepared for ‘jihad’ if Dell joins the AMD exodus.” Indeed, AMD’s biggest barrier in breaking 25% in overall x86 market share was its failure to court Dell, the biggest U.S. computer manufacturer. Dell was for a long time an exclusive Intel customer, but actually had been quite eager to use AMD’s chips. In an e-mail to Intel’s CEO in 2005, Michael Dell wrote, “None of the current benchmarks and reviews say that Intel based systems are better than AMD. We are losing the hearts, minds and wallets of our best customers.” Intel was quick to address Dell’s concerns. Intel’s CEO, Paul Otellini, replied, “[W]e are transferring over $1B per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This [should be] more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues.” Soon after, Dell’s CEO Kevin Rollins announced that Dell had “made no plans to begin using” AMD chips, which Otellini described as “the best friend money can buy.” "(1)
(1) [See Subheading: Intel Gets Sneaky]
"Intel and the x86 Architecture: A Legal Perspective
Written by Greg Tang
January 04, 2011"
While there is no question (it has been proven in court, IIRC) that Intel has used leverage to coerce computer makers into favoring their CPUs in the past, the fact is that currently AMD is selling all the chips they can make. So a less dramatic reading is "Alienware Wants To Convince Everyone Willing to Buy Intel To Do So, Because They Can Sell All Their AMD Systems Regardless".
Go into any Staples regular brick and mortar Retail location and look at the Laptops on the showroom Floor and see if they have any AMD laptops on display there! And If they do not then ask the sales associate why. And I've asked and been told that they have AMD options but the AMD laptop has to be ordered online! So do that at Staples and other Office Stores that have brick and mortar retail locations!
This is likely due to low stock of AMD laptops in general (they sell like hot cakes). Once stock availability is improved, I would expect to see more in-store stock.
No that's not the issue if Staples does not have any AMD laptops in it's brick and mortar store locations to begin with and only sells AMD laptops online. So that's the issue of not giving AMD's laptops any showroom floor retail presence and gives Intel an unfair advantage!
Shoppers are much more likely to purchase directly from the showroom and with AMD's laptops Not stocked at all at the retailer's brick and mortar locations and only Intel's laptops in stock there and Intel's more than likely to get a retail brick and mortar store sale so really the Antitrust folks need to be made aware of this tactic!
Staples has no display AMD models to speak of, stock of AMD laptops or not, and Display models are not sold until that model is no longer being sold by the retailer as they are display units! I was told that AMD laptops are only available Online from Staples! Staples is being incentivized it appears!
I’ve been watching whether there are AMD laptops in retail stores for years. I’ve been pretty consistently disappointed. I’d estimate I saw about 10 Intel laptops for 1 AMD for sale. They typically only ever had lower tier stuff if anything at all. Usually the bottom tier APUs. None of the higher range processors that were competitive. It created an image that AMDs processors are only low range.
The last time I went to Costco though, they had an HP Envy x360 with an AMD 4700u in it. There was maybe a 1 to 4 ratio of AMD to Intel machines. I think AMDs offerings are too good to ignore at this point.
I bought the R10 late last year (before the new Ryzen chips were in stock) so ended up getting the AMD Ryzen 3700x. I was quite confused why Dell was even offering the single channel RAM option.
The actual hardware Dell uses is a bit annoying. It seems even the GPU I got was a Dell specific version. The motherboard is also their custom chipset. I am fine with what I have but it is perplexing that Dell positions Alienware to be upgradable and makes it pretty difficult to do so (e.g. I made the mistake of not getting the system watercooled .. the steps required seem out of my hardware skill level). I'd also be keen to swap the Ryzen 3700 for the newer series chip .. but have no clue whether that is possible on that motherboard. Also, can I say AMDs numbering makes no sense to me personally.
It's a custom motherboard but not a custom chipset. The chipset comes from AMD.
> I'd also be keen to swap the Ryzen 3700 for the newer series chip .. but have no clue whether that is possible on that motherboard
If the chipset is A520, B550 or X570, you have Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 support, though it probably requires a BIOS update. You might also have Zen 3 support on B450, B550A, X470 [0]. Check the BIOS release notes for your machine.
> I made the mistake of not getting the system watercooled
Most water cooled systems only water cool the CPU, which in your case (a 65W TDP CPU) is absurd. Good air coolers match the performance of twice as expensive AIOs [1] and have far less potential for breakage.
> Also, can I say AMDs numbering makes no sense to me personally.
The first digit is the generation. 1000 series -> Zen 1 architecture, 2000 series -> Zen+, 3000 series -> Zen 2, 5000 series -> zen 3.
The higher the number after that, the better the CPU is within the generation (more cores/cache, higher frequency).
> The first digit is the generation. 1000 series -> Zen 1 architecture, 2000 series -> Zen+, 3000 series -> Zen 2, 5000 series -> zen 3. The higher the number after that, the better the CPU is within the generation (more cores/cache, higher frequency).
Except in APU territory, where nothing makes sense and cpus with the same first digit will be of different zen generations.
Half of the mobile 5000 APUs are Zen 2 and half are Zen 3. The Zen 2 chips may or may not be the same as the 4000 series chips with a new code name (it seems likely, but isn't totally clear yet). So far it seems like desktop 5000 series APUs will all be Zen 3, but there's still plenty of time for AMD to make model numbers more confusing before those become available.
The 4650G I got from aliexpress last year is pretty nice though; wish I could have bought it domestically.
> Alienware should hang its head in shame at the idea of charging people $3,400 — the minimum price for a Ryzen 9 5950X system — for a boutique PC stuck behind 16GB of single-channel memory without so much as a warning
I used to work for an x86/x86-64 system manufacturer (primarily servers, but also high end workstations) some 15+ years ago. This is truly inexcusable and a sad reflection on how the consumer facing side of the industry really hasn't changed in the past 15-20 years. I saw competitors doing exactly the same sort of thing, selling things to end users who had more money than technical acumen or common sense.
And people wonder why the serious enthusiast crowd still prefers to build their own PCs in the year 2021...
I'm curious if Intel will be able to turn tides in time before mainstream opinion follows reality. AMD is quite far ahead, ARM (not just with Apple M1) is a generation ahead, and Microsoft dominance (i.e. x86 dominance) is fading.
Either Intel has a fully new architecture ready and is just waiting for the best time to unveil the beast in the making, or they're starting to be part of history.
Reminds me a bit of Boeing in the face of SpaceX and Airbus. Maybe a bit unfair, since Intel is innovating, just apparently without much luck until today.
Intel is not called Chipzilla for no reason. AMD's been working like crazy to keep up, but Intel still has a lot of cash reserves and innovation. And though I prefer AMD as a company, I cannot deny that advances that have come from Intel and also from the AMD/Intel rivalry. It's better for both of them, and even more players, to succeed.
What is not right is for one or more players to use their market dominance to stifle innovation from competitors. I would be upset if AMD did the same thing (though they'd have to do it a lot, i.e., to the same level, before I would feel the same as I do about Intel).
ARM really isn't a generation ahead. Put a good x86 core on 5nm, and it might be slower but that's not a generation. Especially if you take generation to be like, pentium to pentium pro kind of leap.
Intel should have an escape plan off x86, but people are way way too stuck on the idea that x86 is a dead end when a good microarchitectural leap could offset it.
How could you offset it when you have no power budget to work with? The charger for my M1 is 30 watt. That can run the machine /and/ charge the battery.
Even if a comparable intel machine can get that down to 45 watt, they still need a much bigger battery for the same operating hours, which means a heavier computer (or better battery tech, but a fundamental shift in the battery to e.g carbon based batteries is something I would expect from either Samsung or Apple).
At the end of the day, modern x86 cores are essentially high performing RISC cores with a vdry intelligent CISC decoder. An ARM core just has to be a high performing RISC core.
It used to be almost all non-technical businesses used Windows and other Microsoft products for almost everything. I don't know if you're younger but you may not be able to appreciate how much their dominance has faded in the last twenty years, due several shifts after each other, but most recently to the comprehensive switch to software-as-a-service.
Windows is down to 75% desktop usage share worldwide and 60% usage share in the United States. Still a majority, but a far cry from the days where it held 90%+ usage share. It's usage share has gradually and very quietly eroded.
Nevermind that the desktop/laptop OS market itself is no longer as important as it was in the 2000s.
I think the better metric is the size of Microsoft's moat. How many applications are left that people depend on that only run on Windows? I could switch to Mac today and not miss anything. Linux, not so much, but a lot of normal, non-techie people find it's enough.
What I meant is: a few years ago, Windows was set - either you used Windows (usual) or MacOS (you got spare money), or you probably used Linux or something else (geek).
In Server-Space, you mostly used either Linux or Windows ASP. Nowadays, not so much anymore. Linux prevails (and doesn't care if x86 or ARM) and Windows is losing grounds week by week (even MS itself seems to favor Linux for server-side stuff, or technology-agnostic NPM etc.).
Even on laptop and desktop machines Linux is gaining momentum (but is still far behind Microsoft), but that market is getting smaller and smaller.
So, my personal opinion is that the x86 dominanace is fading. Not Azure, not Microsoft as a whole, but the presence of its desktop operating system, as it seems to me, definitely is losing importance fast.
I'd not be surprised if MS offers a linux window manager which emulates windows, so to speak.
I'm not really sure what to make of that. On one hand, yes, more and more things are being done in browsers, and possibly on phones, which in theory de-emphasizes the importance of x86 and Windows.
On the other hand, especially when it comes to laptop market share diminishing, I don't even know how many times and over how many years I've heard people say that laptops will become obsolete because of phones.
Hasn't happened, at least for people who use their devices for almost any kind of work. For finding a repair shop for whatever you need repaired? Sure, most people will probably use their phone for that, and people who only need an internet device for things like that might not bother with more than a phone. Writing a report or a plan? Not so much.
I honestly don't think the market for laptops is going to diminish that much when jobs become more and more white-collar.
With Apple's non-negligible market share and their using a different CPU architecture, combined with the emphasis on web and browsers, x86 will probably become less of a de facto standard. But it would take a lot to topple the inertia of Windows in the consumer on non-tech work market.
I didn't want to argue laptops are becoming obsolete. In fact I think they'll become more important - the share of desktops + laptops is shrinking, but laptops are gaining disproportionally over desktops.
Nevertheless, the importance of the OS shrinks in my opinion. Either you use windows, then you're (still) bound to x86 (yes, Windows technically supports other platforms, but this is mostly history), or you're using a Mac (BSD-based OS, doesn't really care which architecture) or something else (i.e. Linux, which also doesn't care).
Microsoft isn't stupid by far. As soon as the market doesn't favor Intel/x86 anymore they'll pivot to providing a linux window manager (earning money with telemetry and their office platform).
I'm convinced Intel has to play a big card soon (and I'm quite sure they will), or they're history, comparable to IBM in 2000-2010.
Laptop sales grew slightly in 2019 and massively in 2020, desktop sales have dropped for the past 10 years every year, tablets were big in 2013-15, but dropped about 25% since then.
These days you have to cover 5 platforms, Windows, Mac, iOS, Android and Web, so most people, including Microsoft, pick Web first and everything else is based on that web version.
I will be on a laptop/desktop always, because they are just better.
That said I can also see the business savings from switching to something like an iPad or a Chromebook. Excellent battery times, no need to manage the devices and if they are lost or stolen you just grab a new one from storage. As a company you are using cloud based stuff anyway (Microsoft or Google, it doesn't really matter).
There might be some specialized stuff that you can't do on a Chromebook (software development comes to mind) but for sales, business and everything else?
As for personal stuff? I can see more students buying an iPad or a Chromebook and just typing out their essays on that.
Indeed. The big boys all made their own CPUs, and the growth market has been mobile. And x86 isn't there. The architecture is still big, but under pressure from both sides.
Everyone I know is buying new M1 macs. There is simply no competition currently for the price and performance. I hate Apple, but I am considering getting one too. I am tired of my Intel laptop constantly spinning loud fans.
My old MacBook Pro is in desperate need of an upgrade, but I'll probably wait for the next iteration on the M1 (probably due sometime this fall) before I upgrade. Far too much stuff I use comes from outside the Apple RDF, and is likely to drag its feet for as long as possible before bothering to make a native build.
(Plus I still occasionally have reason to fire up VMware, but I'll soon offload that job to a separate machine.)
Thankfully I've always treated my laptop as a secondary machine, and my current one only gets painful (or really just hot and poor on battery life) when I'm trying to run modern video codec stuff on it.
The dominance of x86 PCs, which are Microsoft's bread and butter (the "Wintel" platform), is fading, as more people are using ARM devices as their main or only computing device. Arguably. I think that's what they meant, anyway.
I've been wanting a 5950x at MSRP since last December. This is the one time in recent history I'm not sure any of this really matters to AMD. They physically can't produce enough chips to meet demand. I'm even skeptical of any future damages this could cause by harming their brand image at this particular point in time; everybody wants AMD right now and this is further enhanced because "you can't have it".
Given the supply issues and the challenges with most OEMs placing AMD products in inferior packages with subpar support.
Wouldn't it make some amount of sense for AMD to focus on a preferred OEM who put their products in a premium package with dedicated focus?
Right now it seems that most OEMs are hesitant to commit to the product line given supply issues.
Isn't the problem that companies have plenty of products with Intel chips that nobody wants and they just don't want to go bankrupt so they use different tactics to manipulate consumer into buying such product?
I am looking for a laptop with the new Ryzen and it is very difficult. It seems like companies do their best to make it hard to find any of their product with AMD inside and Intel is all over the place.
I am not sure if they realise how this damages their image? Why a consumer would buy a machine with reheated vintage Intel CPU that is already obsolete when it leaves the store new?
the problem is.. it's intel.. and they've lost multiple court battles showing that they used illegal/protective contracts in the forms of rebates/discounts/kickbacks to block out AMD from the market. And this is likely a continuation of that. This isn't just Alienware pushing one over another, they're actively making one look bad / less attractive.
It proudly shows two desktops, one at the left, another at the right. The left one is Intel, the right one is AMD. Sure, some of the fine prints may suggest Intel is better (like saying "Up to RTX 3090" instead of 3080), but other fine prints suggest AMD is better (16 vs 8 cores).
If Dell actually doesn't want me to buy AMD, they sure have a really roundabout way of saying it.
The article lists several points (I believe at least 6) where the Intel system is either configured better than the AMD one or the language used indicates it's the "better" system. And these configuration changes are choices – like dual-channel RAM for Intel and single-channel for AMD.
Linus (Tech Tips) had an employee buy computers on the phone, and the Dell sales put on several extra warranty packages despite the "mystery shoppper" saying she didn't want them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go5tLO6ipxw
The not-shifting of the R10 number could also be because it's using the same motherboard, which is possible with AMD but not with Intel.
However if they haven't redesigned the motherboard it would mean that they couldn't take advantage of PCIe 4.0 on the AMD which would be a problem in itself of course.
I wonder if it's really pressure from intel that makes this bias happen by the way. Intel can hardy keep up with demand and performance right now, and many OEMs have already started AMD offerings, especially in the crucial business market. Additionally, regulators are more aware of these practices now.
Not only that, the AMD Ryzen will support ECC memory, while Intel will not. (Now if only you could get ECC memory for the additional 15% it actually costs.)
It's a good idea to wait because Ryzen 5000 mobile devices are starting to come out. The Asus Zephyrus has been getting accolades for it's design and performance, but if you're looking for thin-and-light or ultrabooks, the Zenbook (also Asus) is well regarded too.
There are a slew of models out there. Lenovo usually has some good ones too but they lag a bit behind other OEMs in their offerings.
If they really don't want you to buy an AMD Ryzen PC for whatever reason, why would they go to all these shenanigans instead of simply increasing the price on Ryzen-based computers? That would be a win-win, they get the AMD sale reduction (no matter why they wanted that) and a larger margin.
The realist in me says that AMD has had major supply issues delivering the 7nm Zen3 chips in any appreciable quantity while Intel literally prints 14nm chips like it's going out of style.
Given that you can spec a comparable Ryzen vs. Intel system on Dell's site I'm thinking Dell is just prioritizing their marketing focus on the systems where they can move the most volume. Else they'd be shooting themselves in the foot with "SOLD OUT" notices and backlogs.