As I noted several months ago, witht e level of prices set for Core 2, all ASPs in the semiconductor have shrunk though the industry has grown 19% in the last year.
Do you think that the Intel price war is really affecting the whole industry? I believe that it is and as long as they have most of their inventory under $300, ASPs will continue to sag as pressure is put on all players in the industry to keep prices down.
Back to the topic, how much of this can really be attributed to the price war? last time I checked sales were up a significant amount. And, do we really want this price war to be over?
I only hope it switches to the RAM industry.
If you think about it for a moment, you'll realize that it's not really a price war from the perspective of Intel because they still have processors priced at all ranges of the scale...low-med-high. However, from the AMD side, they are forced to lower their prices across the board because they cannot compete with Intel's VALUE/Price proposition.
When you say "affecting the whole industry", what segment are you referring to? If you are referring to other semi-conductor co's, then yes, they have new competition on the block. If you are referring to resellers, then no. Why would an inexpensive CPU affect the profit margin of a reseller? If anything, it gives them a little more wiggle room to play with the final price of a pc since joe consumer has been relatively conditioned over the last few years regarding what a pc costs.
If you think about it for a moment, you'll realize that it's not really a price war from the perspective of Intel because they still have processors priced at all ranges of the scale...low-med-high. However, from the AMD side, they are forced to lower their prices across the board because they cannot compete with Intel's VALUE/Price proposition.
This is a good point.... Intel introduced a product that really shifted the scale. Pushing the Pentium 4 line to the very low end, and AMD to the low end.
The push to dual core cannot help either as single core CPUs lose popularity more and more... AMD's die size is a distinct disadvantage. 65 nm could not come more quickly.
the whole single core thing really puzzles me, as I have pointed out in diffferent topics, AMD is releasing a 65nm single core called lima in 2007, what do you think of that Jack? :?
the whole single core thing really puzzles me, as I have pointed out in diffferent topics, AMD is releasing a 65nm single core called lima in 2007, what do you think of that Jack? :?
I find it puzzling too. The adoption of dual core chips took off this year, Intel (according to the last Mercury Research report) had a product mix of about 60-65 % dual core sold in Q3, AMD was about 50% dual core. (NOTE: I am pushing this from memory as I read the total numbers and did a quick in my head calculation, they are not accurate).
I think what you will find is that since added cores drive up costs, that the very low end (Celeron/Sempron) will mix in single cores. Value and low end chips may, in the future, be based on core count and not cache size and frequency binning. That is my guess.
I agree, introducing a new single core at this point in the game may not be a great revenue generator. Seems like I read somewhere that Intel decided not to produce a single core Core2 in 2007 for that very reason. No link though...can't remember where I read it, sorry.
I guess the one arguement to this could be that if one of the CPU's on a dual core die is dead, it makes sense to sell it as single core rather than ditch the whole chip. This I can see as plausible.
I think the market is going to turn into what Intel wants, and that is to see who gets the most cores. But I would much rather have a high clock dual or quad core than a 1ghz 80 core cpu
Not sure that a dual core with one dead chip would really work that well, unless if it had its own driver to eliminate the possibility of using the secind core, otherwise everything would be completely unstable
Not sure that a dual core with one dead chip would really work that well, unless if it had its own driver to eliminate the possibility of using the secind core, otherwise everything would be completely unstable
This is I believe already relatively commonplace - it works fine.
Single core CPU's whilst not useful for tech heads are great for poor countries and @ 65nm you get a lot of CPU's for your money. Imagine how many single core cpu's with say 256k cache AMD could get from each wafer.
good point, I think in addition to india, china. Though they have become extremely wealthy off the us, a lot of the people still don't have that much money. So I guess a sempron single core isn't a bad idea, especially for budget people
not being a gimp and all but, my socket a sempron runs bf2142 at all high graphics, and is what, a barton core so that is like 2003 year, and the k7 architecture dates back to 1999, think i have got my moneys worth out of it
I don't know but if you had 1 dead core on a C2D and you set the other's freq higher you end up with a 2.5 ghz clocked at 3.2 or so with lower power consumption and heat than a P4/D series proc. otherwise its just trash. why not sell it in a lo/medium price range in developing countries or domestic markets. Better tech/less waste. Of course I don't know if its possible or if the C2D process has enough thow faulty proccesors to make it practical
I agree, introducing a new single core at this point in the game may not be a great revenue generator. Seems like I read somewhere that Intel decided not to produce a single core Core2 in 2007 for that very reason. No link though...can't remember where I read it, sorry.
I guess the one arguement to this could be that if one of the CPU's on a dual core die is dead, it makes sense to sell it as single core rather than ditch the whole chip. This I can see as plausible.
Yep --- it is to Intel's advantage as they have the die size/cost advantage to drive the industry to as many cores as quickly as possible, they will be hampered by software though -- as we can see, quad is not a huge benefit except in a handful of cases.
Nonetheless, the more cores/socket pushed to market, the more pressure both in costs and pricing it puts on AMD. Look at cloverton, Intel is pricing that in ever so slightly above the dual core parts --- perf/$ in the 2P space went way up on Intel's side, putting even more pressure on AMD.
