[freehunter]

Morality is not logical, so my saying "no logical reasoning" does not preclude a moral reasoning. There are a lot of things that people should do morally but they choose the logical answer instead.

Like I said, I don't want to play politics. I don't care about which option is morally superior. I worry about moral choices all day, I take the moral high ground where I can, I recycle and I buy fair trade coffee and I make sure my clothes don't come from sweatshops, but at the end of the day... I just want to play my video games. I owe absolutely nothing to AMD, they've never saved my kitten from a tree, so logically why would I buy their products if there is something that works better?

I mean if you want to bring up morals, think about that power draw reduction... I'm getting that power from a coal plant down the road. Isn't the morally correct option to go with hardware that draws less power so I can save the environment?

[Qwertious]

>Morality is not logical,

This is BS. Morality is extensively covered in game theory and is all about getting the best possible outcome for every member of the group, including not fucking yourself over long-term.

We don't buy Nvidia when they do this shit, because doing otherwise will encourage them to do it and fuck us over in the long-term when they potentially put AMD out of business in the long term and then they have us by the balls. More importantly, if all of us will sacrifice a little in the short term, we will ALL be better off in the long term.

It's logical, it's just not purely selfish (but a four year old could tell you that).

[ars]

There is a strange underlying assumption here that nvida is immoral and AMD is full of virtue.

I see absolutely no evidence that this is remotely true. At best there is evidence that AMD is incompetent.

So morality doesn't even enter into the discussion.

If nvidia required exclusivity that would be one thing, but they don't.

[FG_Regulus]

No one said AMD is virtuous. However they work hard to produce and mantain open standards that benefit everyone. The only other GPU producer is anti-competitive and anti-customer, so obviously we'll say "buy from AMD, they're better. " You bet the moment AMD starts bad practices (again?), I'll be putting the same critisisms on them.

With your last sentence, I don't see how meeting the basic "not exclusive" keyword to avoid legal trouble makes this okay? Nvidia doesn't allow the code to be shared or even communication with AMD (correct me if I'm wrong of course). I'm not really sure how AMD is supposed to work with that.

[freehunter]

Morality is not logical, although sometimes the moral choice is the logical choice. Here's what I'm talking about: two video cards, the $200 GPU runs the game at 90+ FPS and the $300 GPU runs the game at 85FPS [1]. You're paying $100 more for less performance. How is that logical?

I don't care about hardware vendors. Like I said, AMD has never done a thing for me, so why do I owe them loyalty? Why is AMD suddenly the good guy? Just because they're the underdog doesn't mean they're inherently good.

There's no moral dilemma. None at all. Do I want to buy the fast video card or the slow video card? I want to play my video game. I want to buy the fastest card I can get for the money. I've bought AMD for years only because they had faster and cheaper cards in my price range. That's not true anymore. Maybe someday they'll be able to compete again, and then I will buy their hardware.

If morality was always the logical choice, Nintendo would have the highest selling hardware in video games and everyone would be playing Mario. Instead it's Sony, and everyone is playing EA games. Because people want to play games made by horrible companies on the PS4, not the games made by good companies on the Wii U.

But it doesn't really matter, because right now I have a brand new AMD R9.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/why-wa...

[dragonwriter]

> Morality is not logical, although sometimes the moral choice is the logical choice.

There is no logical choice outside of a decision rule which must rest on first principals that cannot be supported by logic. Morality is a source of such first principals (aesthetics is another, though the boundary between the two is not well-defined.)

[dragonwriter]

> Morality is extensively covered in game theory and is all about getting the best possible outcome for every member of the group

You can derive some rules similar to those that some moral systems hold as first principals through game theory starting with simpler first principals, like some particular operationalization of utilitarianism, but that doesn't make morality logical, it makes it possible to use logic to derive a more complex moral framework from a small set of moral axioms. (And it may provide a tool for simplifying some pre-existing moral systems, to the extent that they have a large number of moral axioms but those can be derived from a smaller set of axioms through logic.)

[Houshalter]

We really need definitions of "logical" and "morality". Sometimes what's best for the group is not the best choice for any individual member.

Often economists call it "rational self interest" or just "rational". And most people use the words "rational" and "logical" interchangeably.

[Goronmon]

Like I said, I don't want to play politics.

It's more like you are trading short term gains (I just want my games to work) for long term losses (Putting Nvidia in a position to continue it's anti-competitive practice, potentially to the point of controlling the PC gaming industry to the detriment of everyone, but themselves, involved).

[freehunter]

Or the long term losses of continuing to buy AMD cards even though they're slower and more expensive, which gives them no incentive to improve. How long, in your opinion, do I have to buy AMD hardware before it's morally correct to switch to another vendor?

Everyone talks about voting with your wallet, but suddenly that all goes out the window... remember when AMD was the dominant force when all Intel had was the Pentium 4 and AMD squandered their technical advantage with Bulldozer and other crappy cores?

[FG_Regulus]

"Slower and more expensive".

Yes, $240 r9 290s all the time xs down to $260 at times. The former is very near the 970 and the latter overcomes in many games. Both are preferred at 1440+. A $320 970 is definitely worth it.

You may also want to consider that those AMD cards are years old while those are the newest Nvidia offerings (which aren't significantly better than Kepler - which now has poor driver support for because of this). AMDs 300 series coming out in 2 weeks (ish) is the competitor for maxwell. And instead of a minute cash grab update, it's a significant change.

Edit: There is no problem not buying inferior products. Sometimes there really isn't a choice because of the schism in features or performance. And sometimes the morality involved isn't worth fussing over.

In regards to that AMD comment: I honestly don't know what that has to do with this conversation. Amd isn't infallible amd their history had mistakes as well, but right now they're the best option for GPUs. I'll tell someone to buy Intel for performance everyday though. On the other hand, look at how little innovation Intel had brought up while Amd barely competes with them. Lack of competition produces high prices with little progress.

[freehunter]

Intel has had massive progress in their chips, reducing TDP and pushing really good integrated graphics. The new quad core Atom chips can run Skyrim on a Windows tablet.

[dragonwriter]

> Morality is not logical, so my saying "no logical reasoning" does not preclude a moral reasoning.

Moral reasoning is logical reasoning when the base set of axioms are moral axioms. So, "no logical reasoning" implies "no moral reasoning".