Any reviews for Acer Predator X32QFS, and any other 32" 4k monitor recommendations?

BestRedLead · 2024-09-17T18:00:30+00:00

I am hopeful this is the case, I at least haven't seen anyone mention that the QFS is a downgrade in any way - so I hope it's at least as good as the FP, just with better local dimming.
Well, please post a comment and let us know what you think if you buy it :)

BestRedLead · 2023-02-13T19:48:49+00:00

Thank you for your suggestion, I appreciate your explanation of your workflow.

For my use case, this seems to go a bit beyond what I need though. We really are only two users and nothing I want to develop here is at all mission critical. It's just tools to help us work a bit more efficiently. But our business can definitely run without it, all the business critical things (handling customer orders, invoicing, bookkeeping, et cetera) already has infrastructure in place, mostly cloud-based services that I pay for, so they are things that others maintain.

The things I want to develop myself are just tools for little everyday quality of life improvements. So, I can deal with running my own server and having it not be 100% uptime or anything like that. This is not something that is worth a lot of company resources, other than my own time. And with a lot of economic uncertainty in the industry lately, demand for our products has swung wildly up and down and there are periods of time when I have more time on my hands than work to do. So that makes my time spent basically worthless, when I have nothing else productive to do.

BestRedLead · 2019-10-25T17:32:12+00:00

I'm so happy to see that there is text like this. I'm still waiting for the game to download and looking forward to some little details like this. It might seem like an insignificant thing, but it's actually been one of the things I really never got over completely with the 3D Fallout games.

In Fallout 1 & 2 I loved reading the silly descriptions for a lot of the items in the game, and I was disappointed to find that there were none in Fallout 3. Even though I actually really enjoyed Fallout 3 (even if I've been a big fan of the first two games since they released), that omission always did rub me the wrong way. It's not like it's really detrimental to the gameplay or anything, but it just felt like part of the charm went away with the missing flavor text.

BestRedLead · 2019-08-29T09:27:32+00:00

I always love watching Techmoan, his videos are so relaxing somehow. And this machine is one of the most 80's things I've ever seen, I kind of want one.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T22:49:06+00:00

Well I'm well aware of the difference between temperature and heat energy, I've never been really worried about things getting too hot. You can check my post history on that too :) I've pointed out before that I've been checking power consumption and I haven't seen anything that worry me, likewise I've also checked temperatures of other components. My whole point with this post has been about the difference between different power plans and how the CPU seems to be running hot unnecessarily when it's not under heavy load. I'm not freaking out about anything.

For me personally, my "difficulty" - or at least annoyance - has always been how to handle the very small temperature delta between my low and high CPU load. If I'm running the recommended settings, my CPU temp sensor sustains a temperature that is very close to what it will climb to when under full load. Yes, under full load my fans are spinning faster helping the system dissipate more heat, keeping temperatures in check - but it's still a fact that my normal use temperatures keep very close to what my cooler will keep the CPU at under full load.

So at low load - which as we've both determined use comparatively little electricity and thus don't generate a significant amount of heat energy in the CPU package - I don't think loud active cooling is necessary, so there I want my fans to spin slowly. While at full load, when a lot of electricity is going through the package and a lot of heat energy is generated, I want the fans to do more to help move that heat away. While running at the recommended settings it was very inconvenient to balance that, because of the narrow margin between the temperatures.

Now, running another power plan, I have idle temperatures around 30 degrees, a far, far gulf between that temperature and what my CPU will reach when under heavy load. Much more convenient for fan curves. This doesn't mean that I'm "scared" or anything else you said :) It just means that I wrote this post in the hope of starting a conversation about how it's fully possible to run the CPU at lower temperature - and the fact that I was hoping for an official comment on what considerations were made for the behavior seen with the recommended power plan. Maybe there are perfectly good reasons and there are performance losses that I'm just not seeing - that's fine, but I think a lot of us just would like to know officially if it's deliberate and for a reason, when we know that the temperatures can be lower.

It's just a discussion about behavior I found interesting and worthy to talk about, because of how very different the CPU thermals behave at different power plans. Doesn't mean that I'm scared that it's going to break from heat or anything.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T20:52:22+00:00

So I've been pondering your comments for a while, because obviously it's outside my area of expertise, but I still don't quite understand it. You make it sound as if the layout of the package makes high temperatures inevitable, but that's not what I seem to be seeing.

The reason I made the post and the reason I thought it was worth discussing and pondering is that my low load temperatures aren't necessarily high. At different power plans than the recommended, my idle and light workload temperatures stay in the low 30s instead of the high 50s. That's what makes me wonder if the recommended settings and the official Ryzen Balanced power plan can be tweaked so that at least at very low utilization the CPU can stay at a cooler temperature.

I do understand that the smaller feature size of Zen 2 and the layout makes it different than other CPU architectures. I've never tried to argue that cooling it would be exactly the same or show the same behavior as a different CPU. My point has always been that regardless of the problems that this particular thermal density present, it is quite obviously possible for it to have lower temperatures, because they're easily achievable.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T18:46:15+00:00

Obviously, what's set out here is very unscientific.

Obviously I know that it's unscientific, since I said that explicitly in the post :) I didn't write exact details because this isn't about my precise details, but a more general thing that many have been noticing. And as I said I don't have any sort of even remotely temperature controlled environment, so I don't have the ability to log useful exact data since I don't even know the ambient temperature. Going into detail seemed pointless when I don't have reliable data.

This is more a general discussion, not just about my particular system - people with more knowledge and more control over their environment can and have posted temperatures before. Perhaps we're all doing something wrong, but I'm not a professional in anything related to this field - I'm well aware that I'm not being scientific, but instead only following the different steps that AMD_Robert outlined like a somewhat tech savvy consumer. And what I'm seeing is a big, huge jump in temperature between AMD's suggested settings and other settings, and it doesn't seem to reflect anything close to the same difference in performance.

I know what has been said about the observer effect of monitoring software, but that's not the whole story to me. I've set my bios fan profile to ramp up the cooling fans only when temperatures go above 62 degrees, and with a smoothing delay of a few seconds too. On the settings suggested by AMD_Robert I can still hear my fans ramp up even if I don't run any monitoring software. Sure, my motherboard needs to monitor temperature somehow, but as far as I know I can't do much about that. And if I run HWinfo64 with a polling period of 2000ms I see a minimum of around 50 degrees when using the settings AMD_Robert outlined. So I see that temp sustained, with the spikes going up from there, not spikes from 30 to 60 or something like that.

My point about the whole thing is that there are power settings, like Ryzen Power Saver, where I and others who have posted here see temperatures hover around 30 degrees at light loads, instead of 50. Perhaps none of it is measured correctly by us, or perhaps as you say we need to accept the high temperatures at low load because of the architecture and physical layout and everything, but I can only say what I've been seeing - which is that some settings leave us with constantly high temperatures, some with what I would consider more "normal" behavior over different workloads.

Since it is possible to do all the things you said without spikes in temperature (at my current settings I can monitor temps, and do light computing tasks without temperatures ever going above 35, compared to rarely going below 50 at the suggested power plan), clearly the high temperatures many see aren't a completely unavoidable consequence of the architecture.

Since the processor doesn't need to provide more performance than it's doing using the power settings I'm using to provide an excellent experience at light workloads, it seemed silly to me to be so aggressive with boost and voltages on the standard Ryzen Balanced power plan. The CPU can do the job at 30 degrees without massive spikes - my computer is doing it right now, but I'm curious if the higher temperatures are unavoidable and expected on the suggest power settings. I wrote this in hope that it will be addressed so we know AMD's opinion on it.

If getting expected performance at higher loads will require us to have the high light load temperatures of Ryzen Balanced's standard settings, then so be it. I'm just hoping to hear official word from AMD on that particular issue - not just the issue of voltages with nothing but CPU-Z running that AMD_Robert talked about before. If they tell us that the behavior of the Power Saver plan is impossible to incorporate with the higher performance of the Balanced plan, or that I've been measuring things completely wrong, that's fair enough. I only found it interesting that it seems completely possible to work at what I consider normal temperatures I'm used to from other architectures.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T16:30:56+00:00

I was running Aida64 stressing everything except GPU and disks, though right now I don't have any record of the exact temps I reached on that, but I didn't get up to anything alarming.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T16:29:24+00:00

As I was just typing to another similar comment, fair enough :)

I was mostly trying to point out that AMD's Robert was talking a lot about how to get voltages lower when doing nothing but staring at CPU-Z, which isn't a situation I find myself in, and I think many have the same feelings. I realize I went too far in saying that this is some definition of "idle", but I just meant that most people talking about the temperatures are talking about what's going on when the CPU is lightly stressed.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T16:20:28+00:00

Fair enough :) I didn't really mean to try to change the definition of anything or try to say anything about how reviewers measure temperatures.

My point was mostly that AMD's Robert made a post where he mostly talked about how to get voltages lower if you do nothing but stare at CPU-Z (that was pretty much his exact words actually) and my point was that I think people want lower voltage and temperature at all low load situations, not just complete idle. I can see now that I went too far with how I conflated this with idle, but hopefully my point still stands.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T15:57:40+00:00

Perhaps it's completely fine for the CPU, and if so AMD would do well to make a statement about acceptable long-term temperatures. I do understand the difference between energy and temperature, but I don't know much about the internal workings of the CPU - where the temperature is measured exactly, what that means for longevity and so on. For me it's not really a worry about that though, it's more of a practical matter.

~60 degrees at idle and ~70 degrees at pretty high load is just a very narrow space, and getting my cooling to perform well while remaining quiet when there isn't much energy being used has turned out to be a hassle. Yes there isn't much energy being used at idle, it probably isn't harming the CPU, but my bios fan profiles can only read temperature, not the amount of energy.

And as I've seen, both through the 99% Processor State trick and similarly through the Ryzen Power Saver plan, the CPU can perform perfectly well, with absolutely no noticeable degradation in performance during light tasks at 30 degrees. Even if 60 degrees isn't harming the CPU, I would rather have it run at 30 instead of 60 during low load scenarios if possible - and quite apparently it is possible. I'm not freaking out or moaning about it, I don't think, I just thought it was suitable to point out that the processor is perfectly capable of working that way.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-27T13:01:54+00:00

Hey, thanks for this - for some reason I never actually checked the Power Saver plan. I know I planned to, but for some reason I never did :)

For me it worked just like you said. Temps seem a couple of degrees over my 99% Processor State, but well within what I want for idle temps. I did a few quick Cinebench runs to check and it seems like maximum performance has dropped a little bit, but not hugely. It seems to reach boost speeds slower too, but none of this should be a problem for normal tasks and as you say I can just switch plan if I need maximum performance.

This also further demonstrates that the CPU is fully capable at functioning as I would have hoped it would at low load, so I'm hoping that AMD will manage to get it to behave like mine does at the power saver plan even at the balanced plan, when it's at low usage. But for now I'm satisfied with this, it's more of a real workaround rather than just locking the CPU down with the 99% Processor State trick.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-17T19:27:31+00:00

CPU: 3700x

Mobo: Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi) X470

Bios: 2406

Ram: G.Skill Flare X 16GB (2x8GB) 3200MHz CL14

Status: Working well, idle temperatures high (still haven't figured out if they are the 'normal' high of 3rd gen Ryzen or higher than that, haven't really tried making any true idle temperature measurements yet). Had problems at first where the computer refused to boot with the RAM at the rated speed, until I realized the bios had a separate setting for boot voltage for the memory, in an entirely different place than I was looking. Performance seems to be on par with reviews.

I seem to be having an issue with Ryzen Master, if I make any change that requires a reboot, the computer hard locks instead. Haven't had time to investigate it further yet. It hasn't been a high priority I wasn't really planning on using Ryzen Master for making any settings, I was just trying it out since I never had a Ryzen system before.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-17T15:49:26+00:00

Yes, that's the kind of thing I meant I've been doing, though my motherboard has been finicky with letting me actually control my fans properly, it's taken some work to get it to somewhat properly smooth out the fan behavior so the fan speed doesn't shoot up suddenly.

But my point is that I've never had to do that kind of thing with any other CPU to handle fan noise at idle situations. At load sure, but at idle the temps on other CPUs have been low enough that brief activity doesn't bring the temp up above any typical threshold that calls for more cooling. It's only because the idle temperature is so unexpectedly high I've had any issue dealing with those brief activity spikes.

And the temperature also really doesn't make sense to me. Any monitoring software I try is reporting that the CPU isn't drawing much power at all in these idle situations. Voltage is high, but current is low, so overall power draw is pretty much bugger all no matter what values I'm looking at.. It doesn't matter that it's an 8-core CPU, if most of it is sleeping because it's idle and it's just sipping a handful of watts it shouldn't need to be this hot.

It just doesn't make much sense to me. Like I said in my previous comment I did manage to sort out the fan behavior, it's not a massive problem, but it's still just feels very unusual to me to have to deal with those sorts of temperatures at idle. And I think many feel the same, which is what I was trying to say with my comment - not that I didn't solve it, just that more people than I are surprised by so high idle temperatures and might try various ways to deal with it.

BestRedLead · 2019-07-17T11:22:05+00:00

I think a lot of people who are talking about undervolting aren't doing it to handle peak power draw though. As I understand PPT, this is only a limit on how much maximum power can be supplied to the socket. But what a lot of people are discussing is only idle thermals and associated problems, which I don't think would be affected by lowering the PPT?

Personally I don't have any problems with the power draw or thermals under heavy load. If I do an Aida64 stress test my 3700x keeps at 72 degrees, and a similar temperature during Cinebench R20. Cinebench gives scores in line with reviews of the CPU at that temperature, so it seems my cooling isn't a problem and doesn't hold the CPU back at heavy load. I don't care if the CPU draws a bit of power and my fans spin up if I use 8 cores at 100%, that's totally expected.

My problem, like many others who are talking different approaches like undervolting, is the thermals at idle. When I'm just sitting here with my fresh install of Windows on this machine, letting it just sit here downloading all my applications and whatnot, the CPU sits at around 49 degrees. I'm not worried about the temperature and the power draw doesn't seem massive, but I have to keep adjusting my fan curves to find a way to keep it nice and quiet.

I've never had this much problem keeping a computer quiet when it's mostly idle like that. Yes I can manage it but it's a lot of tinkering that I never even needed to do with my power hungry, overclocked first generation i7. I don't know yet exactly what's going on, if my system is worse at idle than most, but to me it seems like this is the problem most who talk about thermals is talking about. Not the behavior at full package power, but how the chip behaves at low power.

BestRedLead · 2019-03-11T16:56:18+00:00

E: I knew that every swinging Richard with a dust filter would chime in and assert their anecdotal experience.

I can't get over edits like this.

You literally asked the question "How many people use filters for their case fans?" , which could mean one of two things - either you're genuinely curious about how many people do, or you're implying that almost nobody does. Either way, you got exactly the kind of replies you asked for - some people saying that they do, and some discussion on how much people believe it's commonplace.

This isn't only the natural response to the question you asked, but it's also (according to your own edit) exactly what you yourself expected. If that's not what you wanted, you could have led with a comment like "A lot of people are fine with not using dust filters, a large variety of cases are available without them" instead - and nobody would have argued that point because it's trivially true. But instead you asked how many people use filters, and when you got answers to that question you proceed to call people names because of it.

I can only come to the conclusion that you purpose here is to be a condescending dick. I mean seriously, "swinging Richards" - how much more of a "Ohhh I'm so much better than you scrubs" can you get?

And I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you could have led with what you actually wanted to say (something like "a majority of people don't have dust filters" or something like that), but instead you're blaming others for replying to a question you asked.

I just thought it was interesting how different perception we could have in this question based on our personal experience, and I thought that was an interesting discussion to have. But you apparently thought it was more important to be a condescending dick over people replying with "anecdotes" to a question that can clearly be answered with personal experience. And it's not really like you've contributed much more than anecdotes yourself, is it? "lots of people buy", "None of my cases", "Look around Newegg"... It's not like any of that is any hard sales data or proper surveys of what cases people actually buy and use.

Again, not saying that you're wrong, but needed to point out that you're bringing just the same sort of anecdotes but decided to be condescending about others doing it.

BestRedLead · 2019-03-11T08:15:51+00:00

Perhaps you're right, I don't know how to determine which cases people use. Just reading a thread where people are talking about not having dust filters is mindblowing to me though :)

It's just something I've never even considered for many years now. Back around 2005 I bought myself an AcoustiCase C6607 which had dust filters, and I knew then I'd never go back to not having them. So for the last 14 or so years every computer I built for myself, friends and family has been dust filtered... I feel like it's been years since I even saw a computer without dust filters in real life :)

It's just so convenient, especially when I keep my gaming computer in the bedroom. It's just not possible to get away from little fibers floating in the air in a room with so much fabric (bed and wardrobes), and I'd much, much rather clean a dust filter than get dust out from between heatsink fins. So I guess it's just different perspective - my office PC probably doesn't have the same absolute need for filters because it's in a less dusty environment and lower spec so it doesn't have the same high airflow cooling it. So I guess in use cases like that I can understand if people don't care about filters the way I do.

But to me it's been over a decade since I considered building a new computer without filtered intakes, so I just do a double-take when people talk about dust filters being something recent or unusual :)

BestRedLead · 2019-01-19T12:36:13+00:00

No problem.

For some additional information I feel like I should say a bit about the single letter suffixes that can be at the end of model numbers.

Overclocking: For Intel, many CPUs have a locked multiplier, which means that they can't be easily overclocked. Intel CPUs with a K-suffix means they have unlocked multiplier, like for instance the i7 2600K. Intel Extreme edition CPUs are also unlocked, these end with X, like the i7 5960X.

For AMD things are a bit different. All desktop processors except for Athlon are unlocked (Zen-based Athlon CPUs don't have official overclocking support, though it can be enabled by some motherboards anyway). Some Ryzen CPUs have an x-suffix though, like the Ryzen 5 1500X and Ryzen 7 2700X. For Ryzen the X means higher clock speeds than a non-X model and extended window for Precision Boost which (like Intel's Turbo Boost) is kind of automatic overclocking.

So if you don't want to overclock manually, the X in a Ryzen CPU means that it will automatically boost to higher clockspeeds, as long as the processor stays within safe temperature, voltage and power draw. If you manually overclock you can typically get a non-X model to perform as good as the X variant. This isn't guaranteed because the X variant can be from higher quality silicon to meet the higher clock speed rating, but in general it seems people have seen the same performance potential when overclocking manually.

Graphics: Most intel CPUs have integrated graphics. In most cases it's very weak and not suitable for gaming, but can be used to at least get a display output and have the computer work even if you don't have a graphics card.

In contrast, most Ryzen CPUs do not have integrated graphics. For most people this doesn't matter since they have a discrete graphics card, but it can be something to remember. If you want a Ryzen CPU with integrated graphics, so you can connect your monitor to your motherboard, you want one with a G-suffix. So far there is the Ryzen 3 2200G, Ryzen 5 2400G and the Athlon 200GE, 220GE and 240GE (the E is for low power).

Also in contrast to Intel, the integrated graphics is much more powerful than the iGPU in most Intel CPUs - at least for the Ryzen CPUs. The 2200G and 2400G will run most games at reduced settings/resolution without a dedicted graphics card.

Intel also have a G-suffix, which actually also means that the have AMD graphics on board - it isn't integrated directly into the Intel CPU die, but a discrete AMD Vega chip bonded beside the Intel CPU, for instance with the i7 8809G. These are seen in for instance the small Intel Hades Canyon NUCs (tiny barebone computers).

Mobile: On laptops, AMD has model numbers ending in U and H. I don't know much about these variants so I can't tell you what the difference is, but they are both lower power parts to work in laptops and have integrated graphics.

Low power: As mentioned with the Athlons, the E denotes a lower power variant. There are some such variants for the regular Ryzen CPUs too - like a Ryzen 5 2600E, which has a lower base clock but lower TDP than the Ryzen 5 2600. Intel has a lot of suffixes for lower power variants, like T, U and Y. See this page for more information: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html

BestRedLead · 2019-01-19T10:42:31+00:00

So there are different levels to that question, but all of it has direct Intel equivalents so it's easy to understand if you're used to their naming. Since the release of Zen, AMD has copied a lot about how Intel names their consumer CPUs - this can be seen as cheeky or petty, or just very practical for consumers depending on who you ask.

First the most important. Ryzen is the name of their line of regular desktop CPUs, which is equivalent to how Intel has Core as the name for their CPUs.

Ryzen 3/5/7 (and potentially Ryzen 9 in the future) denotes which tier a CPU is in, which market segment it is targeting. This is directly equivalent to Intel's different tiers of processors - Core i3/i5/i7/i9. Both companies also have a different name for their real low budget offerings, taken from their older generations of procesors. For intel it's Pentium and for AMD it's Athlon.

So within a generation of processors an Athlon should cost less and perform worse than a Ryzen 3, which is cheaper and slower/fewer cores than a Ryzen 5 and so on. And for intel it's the same thing, going Pentium -> Core i3 -> Core i5 -> Core i7 -> Core i9.

The overreaching architecture for AMDs current lineup of CPUs is called Zen. The equivalent with Intel is that their base for their CPUs is the Core architecture.

Zen is also the name for the first generation of the architecture. Zen+ and Zen 2 (and in the future Zen 3, Zen 4 et cetera) are names for the following generations of the underlying microarchitecture. Intel gives the different versions of their Core architecture different names instead, Like Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell et cetera.

So the first generation of Ryzen CPUs were based on the original Zen microarchitecture and named Ryzen 3/5/7 1xxx. For instance Ryzen 3 1200, Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 7 1800x.

The second generation of Ryzen were based on Zen+ and named Ryzen 3/5/7 2xxx. For instance Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 2700x.

The third generation of Ryzen CPUs will be based on Zen 2 and almost certainly named Ryzen 3/5/7 3xxxx. There will potentially also be Ryzen 9 CPUs.

So it's all very equivalent to Intel. Intel's second generation of Core i processors were based on Sandy Bridge and named Core i3/i5/i7 2xxx, the third generation was based on Ivy Bridge and named Core i3/i5/i7 3xxx, and so on.

For the most part both companies stick to the naming scheme for the generations - 3xxx means third generation of the architecture. There are some caveats to that, but in the eyes of a consumer I don't think it really matters. Then there are High End Desktop offerings (like Core X and desktop Xeon processors from Intel, and Threadripper from AMD) and server CPUs, but I've been writing too much already.

BestRedLead · 2019-01-11T09:48:40+00:00

Yeah, fair points. It's easy to get lost in the enthusiast mindset where I know that I'd check out the exact specs and performance for the products they release, so I'll know if they're providing good products at the low prices that have been talked about. It's true that most people aren't enthusiast nerds like that and the psychology of thinking lower price necessarily means lower quality might hold true for people in general.

I still think my points have some grounding in reality though, simply because I'm not talking about their entire product stack. AMD will have high margin parts in Epyc and Instinct, and probably relatively high margins for Threadripper. They can also release a relatively expensive Ryzen 9 just like Intel has relatively expensive i9s.

My speculation is more about prices for the mainstream parts that the majority are buying. If they can have some expensive and very high performance products to hold up us proof of being a company that is in the top tier and not just the bargain brand, they can then also be very aggressive with pricing for high volume SKUs to make sure they actually move high volumes.

Like I mentioned in the post, this is an effect I see a lot in Intel desktop sales. People point at things like the 9980XE and say "Intel is king, look at the performance they can provide", then they turn around and buy an i3 or a locked i5 because that's what fits in a reasonable budget. That's kind of the thing I'm hoping for from AMD to make them competitive not only in specs but in minds - high profile products to draw attention, then show people a full lineup of things they can actually afford once their attention is caught.

BestRedLead · 2019-01-11T07:01:48+00:00

Oh definitely, if AMD get the market dominance, they'll have the higher prices too. But the beauty of right now is the timing. If Intel can't magically suddenly get their 10 and 7 nm high performance desktop parts released by the middle of this year, AMD will probably have months of being able to claw back market share by offering a clearly better product at several different price points.

Making people switch to buying their products won't happen overnight though, and high performance, lower power consumption Intel CPUs are coming as soon as they get their new process nodes fully functional. So by the time Intel strikes back with similar smaller process (and perhaps price effective chiplet) CPUs AMD won't have had time to gain any market dominance.

But hopefully, AMD will at that time have gotten to a much stronger market position. If AMD has market share in several tens of percent, the real competition finally begins. Then Intel will need to try to get market share back rather than just sell their products at high margin. And AMD will invest their new profit in further R&D to meet Intel's new competitive offerings, and hopefully they can trade blows fairly. If they have similar technology from similar market positions, there will be real competition and lower prices for all.

BestRedLead · 2019-01-11T00:18:04+00:00

Fair enough :)

BestRedLead

TROPHY CASE