Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize you're mentioning a 2600 right? Which will place a tremendous limit on 1440p gaming? My suggestion over the included build is spending $10 more on the build and getting a 10600K. Silicon Lottery has found 100% of 10600ks will do 4.7 Ghz sustained all core . Even at that number it will easily out perform a 3600 in a meaningful way. Over 70% of them do 4.9 Ghz which where it starts to reach i9 levels of per…
A 2600 + RTX 3070 will outperform a 10600k + 5700XT in 1440p gaming. You're way overestimating how much a 2600 would bottleneck the GPU.
Intel's disruption is now complete
591–600 of 638 posts
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
A: Power corrupts - is not a joke. Reelection doesn't prevent corruption at all. It's a complete non-factor. B: Elected officials are supposed to be the overseeing representatives, rather than functional executives.(think board vs C-suite). Elected executive is overall a poor idea.
The person you're responding to provided a published study from Harvard as their evidence. What's your evidence he's wrong?
It's a shame. I like the idea of not concentrating power.
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of when I went to visit Intel a few years ago. I was shocked at the bare bones amenities and that employees had to pay for everything (snacks/drinks/etc.). That might sound insignificant but in the talent war in SV that stuff mattered a lot back then. It was a stark contrast from nearly every other fast-growing tech company in the area.
Hardware companies, and even some legacy software companies, have very different cultures than recent software companies. The 'recent' upstarts like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are either powered by massive profit engines or endless VC/investment money. Those places can set standards that aren't achievable by older companies that have lower margins and need to actually show profits. There is also a cultural differ…
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporate tax rates can be lower, ideally at 0, but I doubt our current system incentivizes corporations retaining profits. On the contrary, recently many needed to be bailed out because they paid out too much to shareholders instead of saving enough for a rainy day. Making a better product also doesn't necessarily lead to profits. That's an oversimplified perspective. There's a far greater correlation between monopo…
> Corporate tax rates can be lower, ideally at 0, but I doubt our current system incentivizes corporations retaining profits. Multinational corporations commonly avoid taxes by keeping profits offshore in a low tax jurisdiction. In order to pay the money to shareholders they have to repatriate them and pay corporate income tax on the money, and then the shareholder has to pay tax again on the dividend or the capital…
That does happen, but many including the biggest tech companies found a clever way around it. Via a combination of ultra-low interest bearing bond sales and share repurchases. It does the same thing but avoids those taxes. So there's no incentive for profit retention on net.
> COVID-19 isn't a rainy day, it's a once in a century pandemic.
Part of going into business is accepting risk, including systemic risk. That's why the corporate veil exists and it's generally positive for the overall economy when weak businesses fail. A strong business would have an operating model that can withstand such risk.
> To expect companies to have saved enough money to survive rare systemic events without that is to penalize and destroy any company lean enough to have been unable to save it to begin with.
Maybe those companies shouldn't have been in business then and that capital would have been better deployed somewhere else. I'm surprised that opportunity costs of capital allocation are ignored when defending bailouts. They introduce market inefficiency and reward complacency.
> Making a worse product in a competitive market has a strong relationship with going out of business.
In principle, yes. In reality, most markets are not competitive to that degree. Perfectly competitive markets don't exist in a modern regulated economy. We can talk about removing regulatory burden to make this true, but that's not where we are now.
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I've observed is also that (for performance / reward purposes), managers lie as hell when it comes to their team performance. The bigger the company, the less actual signal is received by upper managers because everyone doctors the hell out of this numbers. It might be impossible to even KNOW who the best team in your company is.
Yes. In fact, I would argue it should not be possible to have this "the best team" - if teams in different parts of the org are directly comparable, then they must be doing the same exact thing, and why do you have multiple teams scattered around doing identical things? That is, a well structured org will have teams working on Thing A and Thing B. If a brand new Thing C comes along, it isn't either Thing A or Thing B…
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 2600 + RTX 3070 will outperform a 10600k + 5700XT in 1440p gaming. You're way overestimating how much a 2600 would bottleneck the GPU.
Making a wrong statement confidently doesn't making true.
Ryzen 5 2600 + RTX 3070[1]
80 FPS - Ghost Recon: Breakpoint 1440p / Very High
78 FPS - Horizon Zero Dawn 1440p / Ultimate
72 FPS - Red Dead Redemption 2 1440p / High
115 FPS - Death Stranding 1440p / Very High
220 FPS - Doom Eternal 1440p / Ultra
124 FPS - Resident Evil 3 1440p / Max
75 FPS - Gears 5 1440p / Ultra
i7-10700k + RX 5700XT[2] (I couldn't find benchmarks for an i5-10600k with this GPU from the same source. The 10700k should be as good or better than the i5 though) 67 FPS - Ghost Recon: Breakpoint 1440p / Very High
73 FPS - Horizon Zero Dawn 1440p / Ultimate
70 FPS - Red Dead Redemption 2 1440p / High
111 FPS - Death Stranding 1440p / Very High
185 FPS - Doom Eternal 1440p / Ultra
104 FPS - Resident Evil 3 1440p / Max
77 FPS - Gears 5 1440p / Ultra
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkQuyRIbWpIRe: Intel's disruption is now complete
#597As someone who worked on Intel's phone chip: we definitely didn't win it. We fucked it up twelve ways to Sunday. Why: giant egos. There were turf wars between Austin, Santa Clara and Israel over who would design it, and the team that won out had long since lost its best principle engineers and had no clue how to spin the architecture to meet the design win. Otellini's hindsight hedge is pure spin: we knew the landing…
Entrepreneurs typically rate low. They rely on goodwill and reciprocity and great relationships to get things done as they have zero power. Early power comes from getting people to buy into your vision.
Corporate middle / senior managers rate higher because it it generally all about the power.
The interesting insight was that as an entrepreneur, when your business scales it is hard to retain the “low Machiavelly” approach. This is where a lot of the growing pains come from..
Edit: add link https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/machiavellianism...
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already hi…
"When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already high enterprise value higher." Extremely well said, and having worked at two (initially) successful behemoths so far, I couldn't agree more.
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
People root for anything-but-intel because competition is a good thing and intel had none for very long time. I don't know where the notion of "Intel is about to die and TMSC will make us suffer due to monopoly" comes from but before having people cheer for Intel again they probably need some time to have their execs cure some disease in some poor part of the world, do a few AMAs on reddit, open-source something, don…
> TMSC will make us suffer due to monopoly The fears have less to do with TSMC the company and more the fact it's a pawn in the geopolitical chess game between the US (and her pacific allies) and China. The issues with supply chains through Taiwan have little to do with whether gamers are buying their CPUs from AMD or Intel, but the fact that a critical piece of infrastructure in the Western economy is very precariou…
Re: Intel's disruption is now complete
#600In general mobile chip margins aren't great unless you are apple. That is why you don't see too many competitors in the mobile chip market. You have Qualcomm, but they have a Radio monopoly and their performance isn't that great. Intel architecture isn't even that bad. Intel used to have a manufacturing advantage which they longer do. That is where they are trailing: Material science and manufacturing. This stuff cos…
There are multiple 4g, and 5g radio vendors, just most people never heard of them so obscure they are.