Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Intel: lol
 
  • Post
  • Reply
feller
Jul 5, 2006

surf rock posted:

I've been trying to read the last few pages of this thread in order to answer my own questions, but unfortunately, most of it is going over my head. I recently accepted a full-time writing job telecommuting, and I think it's about time to get an upgrade on my old Toshiba Satellite laptop that I purchased for college five years ago. I'm not having any technical problems with it or anything, I would just like an upgrade in technology and capability so that I don't run into aging hardware problems while trying to work.

While looking around for laptop recommendations, I'm seeing a bunch of people suggesting to wait until computers using this Haswell processor come out. Here's what I'm wondering:

1.) Will laptops with Haswell processors be really noticeably better for the average user who doesn't overclock their hardware or try to play Battlefront with super-mega-amazing-high graphics settings?

2.) If I don't need to be on the absolute cutting edge of hardware (and I doubt that I can afford to be, with a budget of $1,000-$1,200), will the release of Haswell-powered laptops mean price drops for laptops with the current cutting-edge, soon-to-be-outdated processors?

3.) Haswell processors don't seem to be impressing everybody. Is it just because they're difficult to overclock? Or, are there serious flaws with the actual product?


Haswell's big gains are more laptop/mobile focused. Its gains in power efficiency and integrated graphics aren't as impressive for desktops, so yeah not everyone will be as in love with it.
* # ¿ Jun 3, 2013 00:54
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 00:46
  • Quote
feller
Jul 5, 2006


 edit not quote

* # ¿ Jun 3, 2013 00:54
  • Quote
feller
Jul 5, 2006

surf rock posted:

This is extremely helpful, thank you. Can you tell me a bit about how SSDs are so much better than what I'm using now? It's speed and processing power, right? Is the reliability also better? I've heard that they're dramatically better than HDDs in everything but storage space.

Also, can you point me to any specific laptop models that fit your description? From the sounds of it, I'm in a great position. I've looking a little bit at the Lenovo ThinkPad W530, but I don't think that that has an SSD. I wouldn't mind if my laptop could do a little gaming, so I'd want whatever I end up getting to have an alright video card. If I have to spend a little extra for that and a nice display screen, I would probably be willing to do that.

Here's what I'm working with now, for reference: Intel Pentium Dual CPU T3400 2.16 GHz, with a 32-bit operating system and 4 GB of RAM. Judging from Ebay, my current processor is worth approximately two dollars. I imagine that I'm going to be pretty happy with whatever I end up getting, as pretty much everything will be an improvement.

If I ought to pipe down and take these questions over to the laptop thread, just let me know. I don't want to derail the Haswell-talk over here.

The integrated graphics inHaswell will be able to run almost anything as long as you don't expect amazing quality. If all you're going to play is LoL or Hearthstone ro something it will be more than sufficient for your needs.

There have only been a couple Haswell laptops announced yet. Check back tomorrow evening and there should be many more.

And if you want specific suggestions tomorrow, the new laptop thread should definitely have that covered.

* # ¿ Jun 3, 2013 03:17
  • Quote
feller
Jul 5, 2006

Factory Factory posted:

The semiconductor industry doesn't really work when modeled with an Econ 101 monopoly. SoCs, CPUs and GPUs are too custom and complex. IMO the better model is a Schumpeterian monopoly: Intel's future business depends on them having a better product that is better and more competitive than its last product, and its dominant market position gives it the resources to pump into R&D and compete with itself that a lower-margin firm cannot bring to bear. If Intel didn't have a better product year after year, 1) it wouldn't be able to sell new PCs to people who already had one, as there wouldn't be an upgrade available, and 2) another company would eventually leverage enough into R&D to dethrone Intel as the market leader.

It sounds a little counter-intuitive if all you've heard about monopolies is the Econ 101 version, but Intel being so dominant in the market isn't all bad by a long shot if it means a guaranteed RoI for giant research products that only it can finance at such a speed.

2 doesn't follow from the rest of your post. How does a company that makes massive profits from its monopoly get out R and Ded by some no name.

It's my understanding that you can't just genius your way to an amazing chip. You need a shitload of engineering expertise some no name ain't gonna have.

I understand your disdain for those Econ 101 types but sometimes a monopoly is just a monopoly.

* # ¿ Jun 7, 2013 06:34
  • Quote
feller
Jul 5, 2006

Factory Factory posted:

Let me expand:

2: If Intel WERE an Econ 101-style monopoly, then the logic goes that it would have no incentive to invest in new products, because it could keep selling the same old poo poo at crazy-high prices. As such, a company with lesser resources but with the will to innovate and invest in R&D could slowly but surely begin to compete again and disrupt Intel's monopoly. Therefore, Intel DOES have an incentive to invest in new products, and this incentive comes from the threat of competition. Therefore, the kind of market dynamics suggested by the kind of monopoly you learn about in Econ 101 doesn't seem to model reality very well. Joseph Schumpeter's model of monopoly, in which a dominant firm will innovate in order to maintain its dominant market position, using the resources its dominant position grants it, fits better.

Intel is still pricing above the market's competitive equilibrium, like a monopoly would, we're just talking about the dynamics beyond a simply supply and demand curve for interchangeable widgets.


I'm not disdainful. Econ 101 monopoly sounded better than "a monopoly, like, y'know, a regular monopoly monopoly." All the Econ 101 concepts remain crazily useful and relevant in further studies.

Haswell is primarily a mobile focused CPU. Do you agree? It does not do very much for desktop users - where Intel already has the dominant position.

I don't want to say that Intel is ignoring desktop users for mobile users (where it isn't as dominant), but the word 'ignore' isn't as far off as it should be.

I understood what you meant when you discussed Schumpeter's model, I just didn't buy your reasoning. It seems to be that Intel is only making substantial gains in the areas where it doesn't already have a commanding lead.

fake edit: I would argue that Haswell is basically selling the same old poo poo at crazy-high prices.

* # ¿ Jun 7, 2013 12:35
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Intel: lol