ED in the past usualy told that AMD isnt having a chance against Nvidia and that AMD (Radeon) is always having a hard time because of Nvidia (Geforce) and not comparable and what else. In term i did understand it wrong, then exuse me and i will draw it back. As far as i was able to read he was laughing at me (expressing that the stuff i said is hilarious).
Many of the stuff can be read on that topic. We had a discussion and i pretty much got smashed with a knuckle because i said that Radeon is a great brand and what else and people kinda was totaly destroying my good mood. Finally i just feelt like everyone was trying to tell me how superior Nvidia is and i was not even allowed anymore to tell "
that Radeon is a good competitor of the Geforce (and is giving Nvidia a hard time)", feelt like i was telling something no one would ever believe and the only one always having hard time is AMD, but never Nvidia.
For me that one sided view is simply out of reality, i never said that Nvidia is weak or what else but i said that Radeon products are great and a hard competitor, and i fully stand behind that opinion (no matter how much knuckles i will get in exchange for that view).
And, to wrap this up, I hardly think AMD's bane is going to be Radeon. No way. NVIDIA might keep fighting, but so will AMD. Maybe NVIDIA's faster, but AMD will go cheaper, and will find its market, for sure. Or maybe AMD goes "Eureka!" and brings us a real FX offspring.
Including APU (its Radeon based technology), a Radeon is inside a major fraction of AMDs products, so of course its very important.
The only thing AMD cares about is dead presidents. Bucks. Dough. Green papers. Dollars. If they're getting a nice beating when they release a CPU, they should focus on something they can shine. APUs look pretty nice for cheap gaming builds.
Strong IGPs such as APUs will have increased demand because the major fraction of the "console port" gamers wont anymore need boundless GPU power because the stuff is getting less and less demanding, in a time of mobile/social/online and console-port gaming where most publisher wont look at PC-only games anymore, unless its some sort of low cost Free to play or Online game with huge subscription (items or account related), because thats how capitalism works. Quantity always beats quality.
Needless to say, a major fraction of casual gamers are happy when theyr game is running at 30 FPS (and in term they are able to save bucks), but for enthusiasts the only stuff making them happy is 60 average FPS. Its same for me, but that doesnt mean that everyone got such a demand, thats the point providing such APUs. APUs and GPUs are a increasing market in a time where most CPU related stuff is Intel dominated (face reality, no one will beat them anymore at raw CPU power).
Regarding bucks, green papers and what else, isnt it the same for 99% of nowadays companys? Its all capitalism based... so im not to surprised. Still, i feel sad for todays world in general that the motivation is 90% monetary related, which is leading to many destructive results. Not using long term view, always just thinking short sighted and right to the next salary spot, creating unlimited risks. When capitalism is attached to material, the greed will be unlimited, and Intel is only holding back so they can provide more "in between upgrades", means the need for new material, thus providing capital, is even bigger doing it. Thats reality and i know about, but almost no one is without guilt as long as they dont take responsibility. However, it seems like human mind cant work properly when there is no capital, because the greed is creating boundless motivation, but it comes at very huge cost (in many terms to huge, its able to break the whole system* or very crucial parts of a existing system**). So, sometimes have to reduce the greed in order to implement another layer of motivation. Such a motivation is for example done at "crowd funding", in that term the motivation is "raw advancement" and prehaps some goodies but thats not nearly worth those bucks.
*We know what i mean
**For example high end gaming area for PC.
PC is still well supported. It may not have such a market share the gaming consoles have.
Ah yes? Tell me all the PC only games (no console ports) and then tell me the "rating" of those games (C, B, A, AA, AAA) in term of technology used (compared to what a PC is capable of).
pricing doesnt seem to terrible either 
