this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
142 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8615 readers
950 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because Intel is in a position where they would need to increase their market share first and foremost. They would not have any sort of benefit from offering overpriced GPUs that no one wants to buy.

[–] eatCasserole@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

So they're either in the "no one wants to buy" situation, with a product that doesn't quite measure up and a lower price is the incentive to buy, or they reach parity with AMD, and bring the price up to match as well.

Maybe there is a window in between where they're sacrificing some profit to grow their market share, and regular customers benefit, but I have 0 faith in this economic system.