Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rahul Sood criticizes the Intel/AMD price war

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Do you agree that the price war is stupid?

Total: 81 votes

  • Yes, why not keep some money for R&D.
  • 20 %
  • No, why not throw away billions to defeat a competitor?
  • 81 %
January 23, 2007 4:34:15 PM

Rahul Sood of VoodooPC seems to agree with me about this insane price war that is decimating operating income and even profits on both sides.

He also advocates, "fair, yet realistic" pricing and a realiztation that there will be a duopoly regardless of price wars and less of this means more money for newer faster chips.

Linkage!
January 23, 2007 4:46:19 PM

Awwww ... the CEO of a company that sells overpriced crap is whining about low CPU prices cutting into his profit margins.

NOW I CAN ONLY SNORT TWO LINES OF COKE FROM A HOOKER'S BREASTS, NOT THREE. HOW WILL I FEED MY FAMILY?
\
:cry:  Sood

:roll:

Companies charge as much as they possibly can ... no less. Supply vs. demand.
January 23, 2007 4:56:57 PM

So Intel and AMD should agree on prices? Illegal, my friend.
Related resources
January 23, 2007 5:01:10 PM

Quote:
Awwww ... the CEO of a company that sells overpriced crap is whining about low CPU prices cutting into his profit margins.

NOW I CAN ONLY SNORT TWO LINES OF COKE FROM A HOOKER'S BREASTS, NOT THREE. HOW WILL I FEED MY FAMILY?
\
:cry:  Sood

:roll:

Companies charge as much as they possibly can ... no less. Supply vs. demand.


You are obviously emotionally motivated and not financially. Imagine a company that doesn't get $2500 per system.

But then the prices they charge are for custom craftsmanship and the company was worth enough for HP to buy them.

Hopefully Intel and AMD will listen. I'm really tired of being the only person that admits how much this is hurting the whole industry.
January 23, 2007 5:04:44 PM

Quote:
Rahul Sood of VoodooPC seems to agree with me about this insane price war that is decimating operating income and even profits on both sides.

He also advocates, "fair, yet realistic" pricing and a realiztation that there will be a duopoly regardless of price wars and less of this means more money for newer faster chips.

Linkage!
Do i detect some worry about AMD's future from you?

Just STFU, and enjoy cheap processor prices, while they last.
January 23, 2007 5:05:15 PM

Quote:
So Intel and AMD should agree on prices? Illegal, my friend.


No, but fair market value was already established. People were buying just as many processors BEFORE the price war. He is not advocating prices that are too low or too high but "reasonable."

I paid $396 in Oct05 for a 4400+ and that to me was fair considering how much single core chips (even Steam is showing most people still have them) cost at the time.

Prices need to return to 05 levels. Hopefully AMD will raise the prices on Barcelona duals and quads while phasing out K8.
January 23, 2007 5:07:58 PM

Prices will climb later this year with the introduction of Stars and 45nm C2D. Like someone said, enjoy the prices while they last.
January 23, 2007 5:08:14 PM

Quote:
Rahul Sood of VoodooPC seems to agree with me about this insane price war that is decimating operating income and even profits on both sides.

He also advocates, "fair, yet realistic" pricing and a realiztation that there will be a duopoly regardless of price wars and less of this means more money for newer faster chips.

Linkage!
Do i detect some worry about AMD's future from you?

Just STFU, and enjoy cheap processor prices, while they last.

I don't care that much. This was CPU news and reflects EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

CPUs don't work without mobos so they are only AS important. Mobo prices have stabilized to around $100 so paying a little more for the CPU shouldn't be a bother when X2 and ESPECIALLY Core 2 are OVERKILL for most applications and usage patterns.

Do a test with E6300 and 965EE and you STFU.
January 23, 2007 5:09:24 PM

Quote:
Prices will climb later this year with the introduction of Stars and 45nm C2D. Like someone said, enjoy the prices while they last.


The industry as a whole is more important than a few dollars. Maybe I shouldn't care but I do.
January 23, 2007 5:10:42 PM

Quote:
So Intel and AMD should agree on prices? Illegal, my friend.


Yes. That is called collusion and it is illegal.
January 23, 2007 5:11:08 PM

Quote:
Rahul Sood of VoodooPC seems to agree with me about this insane price war that is decimating operating income and even profits on both sides.

He also advocates, "fair, yet realistic" pricing and a realiztation that there will be a duopoly regardless of price wars and less of this means more money for newer faster chips.

Linkage!
Do i detect some worry about AMD's future from you?

Just STFU, and enjoy cheap processor prices, while they last.

I don't care that much. This was CPU news and reflects EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

CPUs don't work without mobos so they are only AS important. Mobo prices have stabilized to around $100 so paying a little more for the CPU shouldn't be a bother when X2 and ESPECIALLY Core 2 are OVERKILL for most applications and usage patterns.

Do a test with E6300 and 965EE and you STFU.Who's to say that '05 prices were fair and reasonable...Maybe they were too high, and the bubble got a much-needed burst.
January 23, 2007 5:11:49 PM

We are end users, not investors. I like the price war and think this thread is stupid.
January 23, 2007 5:21:41 PM

I think the "price war" only makes sense if it is sustainable. If Intel is undercutting at a level they can't maintain just to cut AMD out of the market then I agree that prices should be higher. But consumers never what to pay high prices whatever the longterm consequences (IE Walmart's popularity) so you won't here complaints here.
January 23, 2007 5:23:49 PM

Quote:
We are end users, not investors. I like the price war and think this thread is stupid.


I'm an end user too. I think the price war is stupid. As cheap as I am I would have had LOTS to say if I couldn't find a QUALITY system for what I got one for.

Sure the FX62 was $1000 but the 4400+ was only $396 and the 4200+ was around $40 less. Single core chips like the 3700+ and 3800+ were half that and were just as good at games.

You're advocating both companies going out of business if dual core has to be as cheap as single core.

Have you not seen the ALL negative numbers in Intel's Q4? There will be a trickle down. I guess we can try to look at every OEM, VAR, etc. and see how healthy the industry is.

I have to ask if you bought or recommended any chips in 05.
January 23, 2007 5:24:32 PM

I don't see how you can say that intel is under charging for their products when they are still posting sizable profits every quarter. Granted, not as much as in the past, but still far more than most companies in that market cap.

If intel were operating at a loss every quarter, your argument would have merit. But they are not. Most of us sympathize with AMD, but the hard truth is that they are getting their ass kicked right now. They must innovate and turn the curve and soon.

Keep in mind also that CPU unit growth% year over year is just a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Therefore for AMD to grow, intel has to shrink. I don't believe intel wants to shrink anymore than it already has.
January 23, 2007 5:35:32 PM

Quote:
We are end users, not investors. I like the price war and think this thread is stupid.


I'm an end user too. I think the price war is stupid. As cheap as I am I would have had LOTS to say if I couldn't find a QUALITY system for what I got one for.

Sure the FX62 was $1000 but the 4400+ was only $396 and the 4200+ was around $40 less. Single core chips like the 3700+ and 3800+ were half that and were just as good at games.

You're advocating both companies going out of business if dual core has to be as cheap as single core.

Have you not seen the ALL negative numbers in Intel's Q4? There will be a trickle down. I guess we can try to look at every OEM, VAR, etc. and see how healthy the industry is.

I have to ask if you bought or recommended any chips in 05.

Baron,

My apologies about my first post, I should have been more respectful and I thank you for being respectful to me inspite of my rudeness!

I think Intel is doing a reasonable job. They are profitting.

AMD is the one that could possibly be taking losses. However, AMD can't raise there prices because otherwise there would be very little incentive for people to purchase their products. Intel and AMD aren't really in a price war. Intel is setting the price/performance curve and AMD is doing it's darndest to match it. If AMD didn't lower their prices so drastically I wouldn't have bought my Opty in November. I would have taken the extra money and bought RAM and an LGA775 motherboard. I hope that by the time I upgrade that K8L will be killing Conroe so I can continue to purchase from AMD.
January 23, 2007 5:43:28 PM

Quote:
I don't see how you can say that intel is under charging for their products when they are still posting sizable profits every quarter. Granted, not as much as in the past, but still far more than most companies in that market cap.

If intel were operating at a loss every quarter, your argument would have merit. But they are not. Most of us sympathize with AMD, but the hard truth is that they are getting their ass kicked right now. They must innovate and turn the curve and soon.

Keep in mind also that CPU unit growth% year over year is just a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Therefore for AMD to grow, intel has to shrink. I don't believe intel wants to shrink anymore than it already has.


Intel's revenue only grew (slightly)with the market and certain sales and cost cutting methods. Operating income is down, profits are down, EPS is down ALL IN DOUBLE DIGITS. How is that a good thing or sustainable?

AMD should come out with at least 26% of the market from 23% in Q3, maybe a little less. They have reported significantly increased sales and we'll see tonight how things actually turn out.

As far as market growth, do you realize that 68% of the market is outside of the US? China has just really been cracked and they are 3X the size of the US. India is close to that also.
I believe growth is at about 13%(some analyst post). That means if 200 million PCs are sold this year 226 million will be sold next year and around 270 the next.

The market determines how large Intel is not Intel. The same goes for AMD.
January 23, 2007 5:45:50 PM

If Intel were cutting prices to the point they are losing money to try to cut AMD out of the market then they would be fools. They have already had eyes staring at them in the past for possible monopolistic business practices. They wouldn't make that mistake I would think.

I am not too concerned overall as it means better market for those I DO care about, US, me and you and everyone here who is an end user and is reaping the benefits right now.

I seriously doubt that they (AMD and Intel) are making 0 profit off their chips, they might be making less profit than in recent years but still there is profit there or they would both be risking their demise. Its sort of like a couple years ago when no one was buying cars due to the high petroleum prices. That summer, car dealers were in a price war, 0% interest, some even cutting prices in half for some models just to move inventory. Now I'm not saying its apples to apples but the thing is they still weren't losing money, maybe the point is that CPUs already had a high margin of profit apparently and they're cutthing their profit, not going under.
January 23, 2007 5:47:24 PM

Methinks the poll choices are more than a little slanted...
January 23, 2007 5:49:41 PM

Quote:
We are end users, not investors. I like the price war and think this thread is stupid.


I'm an end user too. I think the price war is stupid. As cheap as I am I would have had LOTS to say if I couldn't find a QUALITY system for what I got one for.

Sure the FX62 was $1000 but the 4400+ was only $396 and the 4200+ was around $40 less. Single core chips like the 3700+ and 3800+ were half that and were just as good at games.

You're advocating both companies going out of business if dual core has to be as cheap as single core.

Have you not seen the ALL negative numbers in Intel's Q4? There will be a trickle down. I guess we can try to look at every OEM, VAR, etc. and see how healthy the industry is.

I have to ask if you bought or recommended any chips in 05.

Baron,

My apologies about my first post, I should have been more respectful and I thank you for being respectful to me inspite of my rudeness!

I think Intel is doing a reasonable job. They are profitting.

AMD is the one that could possibly be taking losses. However, AMD can't raise there prices because otherwise there would be very little incentive for people to purchase their products. Intel and AMD aren't really in a price war. Intel is setting the price/performance curve and AMD is doing it's darndest to match it. If AMD didn't lower their prices so drastically I wouldn't have bought my Opty in November. I would have taken the extra money and bought RAM and an LGA775 motherboard. I hope that by the time I upgrade that K8L will be killing Conroe so I can continue to purchase from AMD.


Maybe you should really read what the blog says. The high end perf market is a VERY SMALL part of the industry (he should know) and X2 was worth it before Core 2 and would still be.



E6300 is worth $300.
PERIOD!!
January 23, 2007 6:04:03 PM

Why would people cry about low price cpu. Honestly i just want to use my computer and who ever get me the best price / performance i will go for it. And if intel is losing money they will not engage with nvida,ati video card high end too, that what they are going to do at the moment. Maybe why the price is low is the method they are using to produce the processor that cost them less then ex: amd does. And i think that people are whining about price that they are low its because they bought a amd at high price and just couple month after Core 2 Duo was out at like half the price and overkill the performance.
January 23, 2007 6:06:47 PM

Quote:
Rahul Sood of VoodooPC seems to agree with me about this insane price war that is decimating operating income and even profits on both sides.

He also advocates, "fair, yet realistic" pricing and a realiztation that there will be a duopoly regardless of price wars and less of this means more money for newer faster chips.

Linkage!


Rahul is asking to cartelize the processor industry. That´s quite a good sign for insanity.

He´s got a point about innovating instead of cutting prices though. Sure it´s easier to retake market with an innovative product, but innovation takes time and preparation. Cutting prices works immediately.

And his nvidia example is a terrible one. Let´s just take a look at the competition on the GPU market...
January 23, 2007 6:08:18 PM

Both companies are suffering financially - but both can survive with what they're making.
January 23, 2007 6:15:08 PM

I think it should be noted that Intel has almost always operated their CPU division at a loss. Intel rakes in the big bucks in their other departments and it allows them to play the price war without it hurting their bottom line too much. AMD operates the same way, except lower margins on their CPU's hurt their bottom line more. Flash memory and related products are these two companies bread and butter. CPU's are the way to get the media attention. Vooddo and Alienware ARE over priced for what they offer hardware wise. They aren't hurting as bad with this price war as they want it to seem. Why pay $4500 for a computer you can build for $2000 or less with the exact same hardware? Easy, the special touches that the companies put into their systems like the unique cases, mods, overclocking and system stability. Oh, and Intel has barely touched their CPU prices in months. I bought my E6600 back in Sept for $316 from NewEgg. It's still within a couple of bucks of that price right now. AMD was doing price cuts, but is now bumping prices back up because they went too low. Overall, competition is good for the market. Competition also means price wars. There's no two ways about it.
January 23, 2007 6:18:48 PM

Competition is good for consumers, but not for Intel and AMD. Problem is now the price of memory seemed to went up since the last couple of years and we need some competition there.
January 23, 2007 6:20:34 PM

Quote:
Who's to say that '05 prices were fair and reasonable...Maybe they were too high, and the bubble got a much-needed burst.


It's a good question to consider. Myself, I come down in the middle on it. I think probably the "price war" the media phrase that is easy for writers to use, is actually mainly a result of Intel pretending it would hold above 80% market share always, and building plants according to that plan.

This resulted in big Intel layoffs recently.

And a lower stock price, as profits have been squeezed by the "price war."

The prices will probably rebound a little, but for you and me, what we pay in the future will depend on AMD staying competitive.
January 23, 2007 6:21:57 PM

Quote:
Rahul Sood of VoodooPC seems to agree with me about this insane price war that is decimating operating income and even profits on both sides.

He also advocates, "fair, yet realistic" pricing and a realiztation that there will be a duopoly regardless of price wars and less of this means more money for newer faster chips.

Linkage!


Rahul is asking to cartelize the processor industry. That´s quite a good sign for insanity.

He´s got a point about innovating instead of cutting prices though. Sure it´s easier to retake market with an innovative product, but innovation takes time and preparation. Cutting prices works immediately.

And his nvidia example is a terrible one. Let´s just take a look at the competition on the GPU market...

nVidia is the perfect example. G80 came out at $650 for GTX. By summer there will be G80s that cost $150-$200 that will be faster than the current $150-200 units.

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't pay $300 for E6300? How about $250? How about $600 for an E6700? Maybe $575?
January 23, 2007 6:24:19 PM

Two things I wanted to say to BM:
First, your polls choices are stupid and only reflecting your narrow view.
Second, you are obviously careless about the price war as a "user you claim to be" because it sounded to me that the last cpu you bought was the 4400+ ( should have gotten a 939 opteron instead, buddy!). What's up man? when are you going to get the 4X4 platform you said you would?
January 23, 2007 6:26:57 PM

Quote:
...Can you honestly say that you wouldn't pay $300 for E6300? How about $250? How about
$600 for an E6700? Maybe $575?


I was thinking about this a lot yesterday. There's the gap between the $320 e6600 and the $520 e6700 (rough prices). It would seem reasonable for the e6600 to be close to $400, and probably bring in greater *total e6600 revenue* (which is what counts), then at $320.

When Intel engages in it's market share games, the actual owners of Intel -- your parents and mine if they own many mutual funds....are the people who are paying for Intel's arrogance.
January 23, 2007 6:28:11 PM

Quote:
As far as market growth, do you realize that 68% of the market is outside of the US? China has just really been cracked and they are 3X the size of the US. India is close to that also.
I believe growth is at about 13%(some analyst post). That means if 200 million PCs are sold this year 226 million will be sold next year and around 270 the next.


I think your statement above is a consideration in the price-slashing. Look what China is doing with its' own DVD format.

Developing countries such as India and China is where the future money is. If the CPU prices remain high, then there is enough room to be undercut by a third party - especially if it is subsidized by a government such as China. A platform in this sector would not have to be x86 based, nor would it have to run Windows. By keeping prices low, they are keeping out additional competition from the bottom-end, thus it benefits Intel and AMD as well as other vested parties such as Microsoft.
January 23, 2007 6:30:58 PM

Quote:
People were buying just as many processors BEFORE the price war.


Just a point: no they weren't. Sale volumes are up Q4 '06. I believe both AMD and Intel set records for the number of CPUs they sold. Profits are a different story.

I think Intel will have a much better profit margin once they've cleared their stock of Netburst parts. The C2D prices seem to be very reasonable.
January 23, 2007 6:35:02 PM

Quote:
Developing countries such as India and China is where the future money is. If the CPU prices remain high, then there is enough room to be undercut by a third party - especially if it is subsidized by a government such as China. A platform in this sector would not have to be x86 based, nor would it have to run Windows. By keeping prices low, they are keeping out additional competition from the bottom-end, thus it benefits Intel and AMD as well as other vested parties such as Microsoft.


Speaking of India, China, and Windows, I think MS is shooting themselves in the foot with all their anti-piracy measures. The number one reason to buy an OS from MS is because everyone else has it. The "legacy factor" accounts for probably 95% of current software and hardware development. Now if MS were somehow able to make everyone in India and China pay for their pirated OS, well, these people would just start using something else. The sheer numbers and growing market would mean that whatever those in Asia start using will come to the West.
January 23, 2007 6:35:40 PM

Quote:
As far as market growth, do you realize that 68% of the market is outside of the US? China has just really been cracked and they are 3X the size of the US. India is close to that also.
I believe growth is at about 13%(some analyst post). That means if 200 million PCs are sold this year 226 million will be sold next year and around 270 the next.


I think your statement above is a consideration in the price-slashing. Look what China is doing with its' own DVD format.

Developing countries such as India and China is where the future money is. If the CPU prices remain high, then there is enough room to be undercut by a third party - especially if it is subsidized by a government such as China. A platform in this sector would not have to be x86 based, nor would it have to run Windows. By keeping prices low, they are keeping out additional competition from the bottom-end, thus it benefits Intel and AMD as well as other vested parties such as Microsoft.

I agree that the low end prices for asia are a good thing.

But speaking of the upper end prices here, see my post above.
January 23, 2007 6:36:14 PM

Baron, Do you sell or make cpus?

I ask this because I (unfortunately) worked as a car salesman 2 years ago, paid off of commission. The previously described situation of huge price cuts, low intrests rates, and other incentives had a dramatic negative effect on the livelyhood of myself and the other salesmen. I barely got by.

The profits were drastically cut, and thus was the takehome of the salesmen.

I can understand this sympathy, anger with the ongoing cpu price war, But I do not agree with it.

Back when Ford first came out with the Explorer, all the salesmen were on there way to early retirement. But Ford failed to innovate, along with the firestone tire debacle, and the company and salemen have lost the lead. (sounds similar to AMD being overtaken by C2D, then having to drastically cut profits to compete)

When/If AMD reinvents themselves with AMD/ATi innovation, they will be back up rolling in the dough. I believe its a natural part of business in a free market.

While I personally suffered for 6 months trying to get by selling cars, I understand why the market was the way it was.

Likewise, if you aren't getting paid because the price war, then I sympathize for you. But as a consumer the price war can only lead to better product/price/innovations for me.
January 23, 2007 6:36:47 PM

A "price war" where both competitors sport 50% Gross Margins? In a manufacturing industry no less? 99% of rest of the business world would kill, probably literally, for margins like that.
January 23, 2007 6:47:39 PM

Quote:
Speaking of India, China, and Windows, I think MS is shooting themselves in the foot with all their anti-piracy measures. The number one reason to buy an OS from MS is because everyone else has it. The "legacy factor" accounts for probably 95% of current software and hardware development. Now if MS were somehow able to make everyone in India and China pay for their pirated OS, well, these people would just start using something else. The sheer numbers and growing market would mean that whatever those in Asia start using will come to the West.


Precisely.
January 23, 2007 6:47:46 PM

Quote:
nVidia is the perfect example. G80 came out at $650 for GTX. By summer there will be G80s that cost $150-$200 that will be faster than the current $150-200 units.

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't pay $300 for E6300? How about $250? How about $600 for an E6700? Maybe $575?


It's funny you mention nVidia Baron, because you seem to forget they are 'undercutting themselves' Intel Netburst vs C2D style by pricing the 8800GTS cheaper than the 7950GX2.

I personally wouldn't pay $300 for an E6300. If it was, I'd wait for a pricedrop before buying. It's also why I never spent $400 on an X2 3800+ back in the day, even when X2 was clearly the better performer. AMD priced me out of the equation on this one, luckily Intel didn't.

Call me cheap, call me whatever, but I've always bought cheap and highly overclockable CPUs. I guess I caught the Celeron 300A bug. 8)
January 23, 2007 7:00:21 PM

Quote:
People were buying just as many processors BEFORE the price war.


Just a point: no they weren't. Sale volumes are up Q4 '06. I believe both AMD and Intel set records for the number of CPUs they sold. Profits are a different story.

I think Intel will have a much better profit margin once they've cleared their stock of Netburst parts. The C2D prices seem to be very reasonable.

Sales volumes are up for several reasons, one of which is regular market growth, second is the cycle of business upgrades, which can come in different Qs. Upgrades should increase this year as Vista starts to proliferate.

How many Netburst chips were selling for $183? How many were selling for $213? $319? $516? $173? What do you think is the % of X6800? How can 955EE and 965EE ever go away at the prices they are at (still above ALL Core 2), not to mention the other 9xx/8xx chips that are still higher than Core 2?

AMD is partly to blame also as people have heard me say they should stop dropping prices, NO MATTER WHAT. Their mainstream sales will not suffer. They do have a chip for basically every price point when you include single core.
January 23, 2007 7:05:10 PM

Quote:
nVidia is the perfect example. G80 came out at $650 for GTX. By summer there will be G80s that cost $150-$200 that will be faster than the current $150-200 units.

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't pay $300 for E6300? How about $250? How about $600 for an E6700? Maybe $575?


It's funny you mention nVidia Baron, because you seem to forget they are 'undercutting themselves' Intel Netburst vs C2D style by pricing the 8800GTS cheaper than the 7950GX2.

I personally wouldn't pay $300 for an E6300. If it was, I'd wait for a pricedrop before buying. It's also why I never spent $400 on an X2 3800+ back in the day, even when X2 was clearly the better performer. AMD priced me out of the equation on this one, luckily Intel didn't.

Call me cheap, call me whatever, but I've always bought cheap and highly overclockable CPUs. I guess I caught the Celeron 300A bug. 8)


Then you're either overexaggerating or (heaven forbid) cheaper than I am since I paid more for a 4400+ a little more than a year ago. I had a Celeron 366 clocked at at 550 but after that never really OC'd again.

CPUs are worth what they WERE charging and are faster now so they definitely still would be. Rather than be bent on fire sale prices I use places like Tom's to see if the chip in my price range will actually do what I need.

It always does.
January 23, 2007 7:07:39 PM

Quote:
People were buying just as many processors BEFORE the price war.


Just a point: no they weren't. Sale volumes are up Q4 '06. I believe both AMD and Intel set records for the number of CPUs they sold. Profits are a different story.

I think Intel will have a much better profit margin once they've cleared their stock of Netburst parts. The C2D prices seem to be very reasonable.

Sales volumes are up for several reasons, one of which is regular market growth, second is the cycle of business upgrades, which can come in different Qs. Upgrades should increase this year as Vista starts to proliferate.

How many Netburst chips were selling for $183? How many were selling for $213? $319? $516? $173? What do you think is the % of X6800? How can 955EE and 965EE ever go away at the prices they are at (still above ALL Core 2), not to mention the other 9xx/8xx chips that are still higher than Core 2?

AMD is partly to blame also as people have heard me say they should stop dropping prices, NO MATTER WHAT. Their mainstream sales will not suffer. They do have a chip for basically every price point when you include single core.

WHY DO YOU CARE?

Are you trying to dump some stock or something?

The price war is helping everyone who is interested in BUYING computers. Not making CPUs.

Plus, who the hell determines what is fair market value? YOU? Show me a person who is charge of determining it. Cause you spout out fair market value like it's going out of style, yet there is nothing showing what fair market value should be for anything.

Quote:
fair market value
Definition

The price that an interested but not desperate buyer would be willing to pay and an interested but not desperate seller would be willing to accept on the open market assuming a reasonable period of time for an agreement to arise.

Fair Market Value definition

This whole poll/thread makes no sense. You quote a CEO of VoodooPC, who makes a living in gouging people with "nice, albeit" expensive systems, and how he's not making much money. Why would we care? Really? Why? That's like saying Michael Dell didn't make enough in his bonus for a new car, because of the price war. Whoopie doo.
January 23, 2007 7:07:52 PM

Why does it matter to you whether or not AMD is hurting? Can't you ever think of yourself? :roll:
January 23, 2007 7:08:14 PM

Quote:
AMD is partly to blame also as people have heard me say they should stop dropping prices, NO MATTER WHAT. Their mainstream sales will not suffer. They do have a chip for basically every price point when you include single core.


As a point of interest, AMD is lowering prices even more.
Quote:
Most of the chipmaker's price cuts–which involved all of its various processor permutations, including its latest 65 nanometer versions and its energy efficient models–were relatively small and dropped the chips' prices by between $11 and $27 each. However, AMD lowered the list price of its Athlon 64 X2 5200+ by a substantial $108. That chip's price moved $403 to $295.
January 23, 2007 7:13:28 PM

Quote:

Prices need to return to 05 levels. Hopefully AMD will raise the prices on Barcelona duals and quads while phasing out K8.


Are you filthy rich and like to spend money? Or are you just stupid? :?
January 23, 2007 7:36:21 PM

Quote:

Prices need to return to 05 levels. Hopefully AMD will raise the prices on Barcelona duals and quads while phasing out K8.


Are you filthy rich and like to spend money? Or are you just stupid? :?

Yes. He's such a fanboy he wants to see everyone get overcharged on processors so that AMD can return to profitability.
January 23, 2007 7:37:39 PM

I would like to interject a few actual facts into this "debate"

Firstly, Intel had net profits, after all expenses, of 1.5 Billion dollars on 9.7 billion in sales in Q4 - a profit margin of about 16% or so is still considered very high by the standards of other industries.

For all of 2006, intel made $5 billion.

Intel's gross margins, ROSE to 49.6% versus 49.1 for the previous quarter.

Intel's average selling price per chip sold also ROSE.

Intel expects to spend $2.6 Billion in Q1 of 2007 alone on R&D

Conclusion?

The entire premise of Barons "poll" is flawed.

Intel is RAISING the average selling price of it's chips by virtue of now having a better produce (core2duo) to sell. - The 2006 Honda Civic was a vastly better car than the 2005 Civic.. guess what.. dealers charged more for the 2006s, and offered heavy incentives on the 2005s..

Intel is clearing out Netburst, and ramping Core2due... same idea.

R&D? - 2.6 billion per quarter => $10 billion a year or so - 25% of revenues and a HUGE percentage compared to almost any other industry except maybe pharmacuticals.

Bottom line?

Intel is doing just fine, and as the swich over to Core2 finishes and Netburst dies a well deserved death, Intel will do even better.

Seriously, $5 billion in profits on $35 billion in sales is hardly the danger zone...

This is a %^$%shit poll
January 23, 2007 7:55:58 PM

Quote:

Prices need to return to 05 levels. Hopefully AMD will raise the prices on Barcelona duals and quads while phasing out K8.


Are you filthy rich and like to spend money? Or are you just stupid? :?

What a contribution. I spent $2300 for a professional level PC in Oct05. Two years before that you could pay the same thing and not get a dual core. Now you can pay that and get even faster parts.

Sure a $335 Opteron 185 is a serious deal but I agree with Rahul.

That's all I have to say.
January 23, 2007 7:57:38 PM

Quote:
I would like to interject a few actual facts into this "debate"

Firstly, Intel had net profits, after all expenses, of 1.5 Billion dollars on 9.7 billion in sales in Q4 - a profit margin of about 16% or so is still considered very high by the standards of other industries.

For all of 2006, intel made $5 billion.

Intel's gross margins, ROSE to 49.6% versus 49.1 for the previous quarter.

Intel's average selling price per chip sold also ROSE.

Intel expects to spend $2.6 Billion in Q1 of 2007 alone on R&D

Conclusion?

The entire premise of Barons "poll" is flawed.

Intel is RAISING the average selling price of it's chips by virtue of now having a better produce (core2duo) to sell. - The 2006 Honda Civic was a vastly better car than the 2005 Civic.. guess what.. dealers charged more for the 2006s, and offered heavy incentives on the 2005s..

Intel is clearing out Netburst, and ramping Core2due... same idea.

R&D? - 2.6 billion per quarter => $10 billion a year or so - 25% of revenues and a HUGE percentage compared to almost any other industry except maybe pharmacuticals.

Bottom line?

Intel is doing just fine, and as the swich over to Core2 finishes and Netburst dies a well deserved death, Intel will do even better.

Seriously, $5 billion in profits on $35 billion in sales is hardly the danger zone...

This is a %^$%**** poll


So I guess you voted that they should waste more billions on this price war?
January 23, 2007 8:25:44 PM

Hmm, give Intel more $$$ or myself.. Tough choice.
January 23, 2007 8:28:13 PM

AMD and Intel wage their market war.
Frankly, I don't care who will win or loose or even if it will be a tie.

I just see my interest : prices drop and perfs increase.

What our white collared chaps in the marketing division plan is not my concern, and I don't understand why it should be ours as long as they are not skyrocketing their prices.
January 23, 2007 8:30:43 PM

Quote:
Competition is good for consumers, but not for Intel and AMD. Problem is now the price of memory seemed to went up since the last couple of years and we need some competition there.


You my friend, hit the nail on the head.Very well said :wink:
!