>monopolies are bad >amd must die How can an average /g/

>>55981021
Intel is an American based company, that means that if AMD dies then Intel will be split into multiple sections like what happened to Bell Labs back in the day.

it's not a conflicting view, propping up a duopoly where one side is already a very marginal/token competitor is just as bad as a full blown monopoly. if AMD dies there is at least a chance of forcing renegotiation of the x86 license and selling the CPU business to a company that can design competitive x86 CPUs again.

doublethink.

>>55982088
>>55982284
Thread's over

amd should add an amada sticker to each gpu

sales will skyrocket

>>55981021

they are obviously VIA fags

>>55981021
>implying anyone but /v/ wants AMD to die

>>55982284
This.

By supporting AMD you are actually keeping Intel and Nvidia in power.

It's exactly what they want you to do. They want a token competitor that can't do shit.

>>55981021
It's not so much AMD must die as just an awareness that they haven't improved their CPU speed since 2011. I want AMD to succeed, but it is impossible to recommend their processors right now.

>>55982088
this will never happen.

companies don't get broken up anymore. even microsoft was able to successfully appeal its breaking up.

and now microsoft is bigger than it was in the late 90's.

phone division, console division, still makes keyboards and mices, os, internet, enterprise, everything.

I don't care about monopolies. All I want is my VR waifu.

>>55982284
no one will carry on amd's x86 ambitions if they actually buy the license from intel.

x86 development is insanely costly. samsung won't do it. no one will do it. if they buy it, they will just sit on it.

File: 556585.png (151KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 400x400px

ATI/AMD has a monopoly on shitty drivers.

>>55983438
Intel literally won't exist if AMD fails as it will be broken up. The new companies will all be more competent than AMD and we'll get out of the duopoly once and for all.