It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
In case you didn't know, I hate Intel with a passion for how they've been smothering the CPU market for years. Well, in my travels on the Internet, I came across an article discussing the typical marketing piece about how Intel's CPUs are better than Apple's M1 CPUs.

As expected there is plenty of dodgy testing, which just makes me seethe with anger. But then they mention games, and we see three icons: STEAM, Windows store, and GOG...... Intel isn't mentioning Epic, or Uplay, or Origin... but GOG. Intel is saying that if you want to play all your Steam/Windows store/GOG games, you are better off if you stick with Intel.
Attachments:
test.jpg (96 Kb)
I find it funny how aggressively Intel acts after Apple announced the end of their collaboration (due to M1).

I even saw some recent Intel ads around the internet that basically do the same: defend PCs against evil Macs.

But yes, mentioning GOG instead of Epic / Ubi / EA is unexpected (good I guess?).
avatar
MadalinStroe: In case you didn't know, I hate Intel with a passion for how they've been smothering the CPU market for years. Well, in my travels on the Internet, I came across an article discussing the typical marketing piece about how Intel's CPUs are better than Apple's M1 CPUs.

As expected there is plenty of dodgy testing, which just makes me seethe with anger. But then they mention games, and we see three icons: STEAM, Windows store, and GOG...... Intel isn't mentioning Epic, or Uplay, or Origin... but GOG. Intel is saying that if you want to play all your Steam/Windows store/GOG games, you are better off if you stick with Intel.
Intel are right though. Although technically they should be saying "x86-64" rather than just "intel", but it's their marketing material, so I'll forgive them that.

Game compatibility is better on x86-64 Windows and Linux (mileage may vary) than it is on M1 running Mac OS.
avatar
Panaias: I find it funny how aggressively Intel acts after Apple announced the end of their collaboration (due to M1).

I even saw some recent Intel ads around the internet that basically do the same: defend PCs against evil Macs.
Well Apple move is a huge middle finger to gamers on Mac (from those who played native or used VM or dualboot), Intel would be dumb to not try to take advantage of it.
avatar
Gersen: Well Apple move is a huge middle finger to gamers on Mac (from those who played native or used VM or dualboot), Intel would be dumb to not try to take advantage of it.
I agree, Apple's move is a bad move for gamers on that platform.

I was merely pointing out how funny it is that Intel "immediately" started giving bad publicity to the M1. Like, in an instant :)
avatar
Panaias: I agree, Apple's move is a bad move for gamers on that platform.

I was merely pointing out how funny it is that Intel "immediately" started giving bad publicity to the M1. Like, in an instant :)
At the start is the best time to do it. Compare Facebook to Myspace (or Bebo). Myspace could have bought out its competitors at an early stage - they didn't and the site is now very much a niche player. Facebook bought out anything it saw as a threat at an early stage and squashed the competition.

I know Intel isn't buying and squashing the M1 process, but it's a similar thing - it's easier to squash something early doors than it is once it's running rampant and eating your market share. That being said, I don't think that this ARM chip will cause much damage to the larger x86 market.
I'm glad you all finally noticed that Apple is a bad solution to gaming, several years after it became obvious.

I wonder how long it'll take people to notice that Apple has become a headless chicken?