Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU Price War's dirty little secret

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 21, 2007 5:34:46 PM

I've heard a lot of people complain that Intel is pricing AMD out of the chip market and how it is an "unfair" practice. They have also stated how it is hurting both companies and talk as if they wish for it to stop.

Well the fact of the matter is that Intel is still making Billions a quarter while running a bloated company. A company with less than 100K employees making Billions a year is not too shabby in my book. So why would anyone want prices to go back up?

This leads me to believe that Intels pricing really hasn't changed all that much, but AMD has just fallen so far behind that they cannot sell in the price/performance range that allows the profit they need to cover the expense they took on when they choose to acquire ATI.

Also, Intel is just now comming out from under the glutton of Netburst chips they put on the market that everyone knew was going to hurt the companies bottom line due to them needing to get those off the market while introducing a new chip line which in effect deflated the prices in the low end cpu market which hurt both AMD and Intel (not really a "price war").

If you look at the chip market right now I think you'll find great deals on Low end chips and can expect to pay the normal amount for mid- upper range CPUs. I just wish people would enjoy getting their low end chips for a good deal and quit blaming AMD's problems on Intel.

Now some random Emoticons for your veiwing enjoyment:

8) :(  :cry:  :lol:  :o  :D  8O
February 21, 2007 5:42:03 PM

So what is the "dirty little secret" lol.
February 21, 2007 5:45:34 PM

My favourite is the third from the right.
Related resources
February 21, 2007 5:56:18 PM

Oh man, here comes the flame war

*goes and hides in a hole*
February 21, 2007 5:58:34 PM

Who should I sue to get my monetary compensation back for the 5 minutes of my life I wasted reading this :?:
February 21, 2007 6:00:32 PM

Quote:
I've heard a lot of people complain that Intel is pricing AMD out of the chip market and how it is an "unfair" practice. They have also stated how it is hurting both companies and talk as if they wish for it to stop.

Well the fact of the matter is that Intel is still making Billions a quarter while running a bloated company. A company with less than 100K employees making Billions a year is not too shabby in my book. So why would anyone want prices to go back up?

This leads me to believe that Intels pricing really hasn't changed all that much, but AMD has just fallen so far behind that they cannot sell in the price/performance range that allows the profit they need to cover the expense they took on when they choose to acquire ATI.

Also, Intel is just now comming out from under the glutton of Netburst chips they put on the market that everyone knew was going to hurt the companies bottom line due to them needing to get those off the market while introducing a new chip line which in effect deflated the prices in the low end cpu market which hurt both AMD and Intel (not really a "price war").

If you look at the chip market right now I think you'll find great deals on Low end chips and can expect to pay the normal amount for mid- upper range CPUs. I just wish people would enjoy getting their low end chips for a good deal and quit blaming AMD's problems on Intel.

Now some random Emoticons for your veiwing enjoyment:

8) :(  :cry:  :lol:  :o  :D  8O



Obviously you're not the sharpest knife n the drawer, but I'm glad someone else posted abotu the STUPIDITY of this price war.

First, Intel is hurting themselves even more because their ASPs are being artificially nflated by NetBurst prices (PD 950 costs more than E6600).

Once NetBurst is gone the Core 2 will carry ASP. Looking at how CPUs are usually bought, 6300 will be 40% or so with the others getting less as the price increases.

Because Intel can't restructure pricng before they are at least 50% 45nm (IF they don't release those at firesale prices) and that won't happen before Q2 08.
That means that AMD is actually pricing to destroy. It's obvious that Barcelona will be 40% faster than Clovertown or AMD is just trying to go out of business.

Kuma should be priced higher than 6000+. I don't mind if there are several $600+ CPUs as ong as there are several $400- CPUs. Would you really think this was good if 10s of1000s of people lose their jobs and it forces prices back up anyway?

This price war is a DUMB IDEA. AMD does have the upper hand tough with cost structure as they will be getting many more chips with 300mm 65nm than with 200mm 90nm.

Intel can't do that. The advantage they HAD was the other businesses that can throw in per capita incme. AMD can now structure deals based on a whol package rather than having to have another chipset company and GPU company to provide the rest of the package.

With that structure they can fluctuate prices an the components while keeping the average price the same.

I mean who wouldn't take a chipset for 20 extra dollars if the chip is $30 less?


DOWN WITH THE PRICE WAR!
February 21, 2007 6:01:58 PM

So what else is new?
February 21, 2007 6:03:05 PM

Quote:
Oh man, here comes the flame war

*goes and hides in a hole*



Quote:
I've heard a lot of people complain that Intel is pricing AMD out of the chip market and how it is an "unfair" practice. They have also stated how it is hurting both companies and talk as if they wish for it to stop.

Well the fact of the matter is that Intel is still making Billions a quarter while running a bloated company. A company with less than 100K employees making Billions a year is not too shabby in my book. So why would anyone want prices to go back up?

This leads me to believe that Intels pricing really hasn't changed all that much, but AMD has just fallen so far behind that they cannot sell in the price/performance range that allows the profit they need to cover the expense they took on when they choose to acquire ATI.

Also, Intel is just now comming out from under the glutton of Netburst chips they put on the market that everyone knew was going to hurt the companies bottom line due to them needing to get those off the market while introducing a new chip line which in effect deflated the prices in the low end cpu market which hurt both AMD and Intel (not really a "price war").

If you look at the chip market right now I think you'll find great deals on Low end chips and can expect to pay the normal amount for mid- upper range CPUs. I just wish people would enjoy getting their low end chips for a good deal and quit blaming AMD's problems on Intel.

Now some random Emoticons for your veiwing enjoyment:

8) :(  :cry:  :lol:  :o  :D  8O



Obviously you're not the sharpest knife n the drawer, but I'm glad someone else posted abotu the STUPIDITY of this price war.

First, Intel is hurting themselves even more because their ASPs are being artificially nflated by NetBurst prices (PD 950 costs more than E6600).

Once NetBurst is gone the Core 2 will carry ASP. Looking at how CPUs are usually bought, 6300 will be 40% or so with the others getting less as the price increases.

Because Intel can't restructure pricng before they are at least 50% 45nm (IF they don't release those at firesale prices) and that won't happen before Q2 08.
That means that AMD is actually pricing to destroy. It's obvious that Barcelona will be 40% faster than Clovertown or AMD is just trying to go out of business.

Kuma should be priced higher than 6000+. I don't mind if there are several $600+ CPUs as ong as there are several $400- CPUs. Would you really think this was good if 10s of1000s of people lose their jobs and it forces prices back up anyway?

This price war is a DUMB IDEA. AMD does have the upper hand tough with cost structure as they will be getting many more chips with 300mm 65nm than with 200mm 90nm.

Intel can't do that. The advantage they HAD was the other businesses that can throw in per capita incme. AMD can now structure deals based on a whol package rather than having to have another chipset company and GPU company to provide the rest of the package.

With that structure they can fluctuate prices an the components while keeping the average price the same.

I mean who wouldn't take a chipset for 20 extra dollars if the chip is $30 less?


DOWN WITH THE PRICE WAR!

Shove over a bit, will you? There's gotta be room in that hole for the both of us.
February 21, 2007 6:19:27 PM

Quote:
Shove over a bit, will you? There's gotta be room in that hole for the both of us.


Hmm, this hole's going to get quite crowded I think :) 
February 21, 2007 7:05:53 PM

I don't see your point in this little flame-war... I do, however, see where capitalism comes in...

Intel is pricing some stuff low and some stuff high... everything they have is quite good for us. BEsides, AMD has more than enough capital to stay in this pricing war for quite a while...

They have something up their sleeves... I can only imagine that Intel has something new that will be announced a day before AMD's new architecture is announced... and no I don't mean a X6900 or QX6800... more like a E8x00 series with Penryn... that would be cool though highly unlikely.
February 21, 2007 7:11:01 PM

Quote:
AMD has more than enough capital to stay in this pricing war for quite a while..


ROFL

Where do you get your information? Ouija boards? :lol: 
February 21, 2007 7:27:42 PM

Umm do you know Intel makes chipsets and integrated graphics as well?
February 21, 2007 7:51:32 PM

your list seems a bit short. ill add some to it.

Like this list here. Telecom, fiber optics, storage, consumer electronics, ethernet, wireless, software, memory...
February 21, 2007 8:36:27 PM

Quote:
Who should I sue to get my monetary compensation back for the 5 minutes of my life I wasted reading this :?:


Whoever taught you to read. If this took you five minutes to read, you got heinously ripped off in the education department.
February 21, 2007 9:06:40 PM

Its ok fellas. I had to bring a shovel to get through the first page anyway, so we can enlarge the hole. Maybe we can charge a DRMHOLE fee. Or at least some kind of ***hole fee.
February 21, 2007 10:28:29 PM

I think Intel's strategy is quiet sound and very predictable - I used play alot WWII board games - panzer blitz etc - its classic divide and conquer -in this case its market segments.

Intel is first seeding the market with new superior chips at low prices- this is the divide part. They are dividing up the market in segments. Then conquering them.

After they have all markets conquered with low prices they will market quad cores to mid lvl markets - this will crush the existing fx buyers. The e6300 e4300, etc, will take over the low end. You see rising profits from intel as vista takes hold and volume increases. They have cut staff the stock will be at 28-33 by the end 2007.

When the new amd quadcore comes out it will be pricey - and good- that's why intel is conquering all the low and mid lvl markets. Even if The question is what will intel do in Q3 07 at the high end- a faster q-chip? They really already said $500 quad cores - you see these in media machines in the fall.


I have changed my name to fanboy

Fanboy!
February 21, 2007 10:51:54 PM

Quote:
I think Intel's strategy is quiet sound and very predictable - I used play alot WWII board games - panzer blitz etc - its classic divide and conquer -in this case its market segments.

Intel is first seeding the market with new superior chips at low prices- this is the divide part. They are dividing up the market in segments. Then conquering them.

After they have all markets conquered with low prices they will market quad cores to mid lvl markets - this will crush the existing fx buyers. The e6300 e4300, etc, will take over the low end. You see rising profits from intel as vista takes hold and volume increases. They have cut staff the stock will be at 28-33 by the end 2007.

When the new amd quadcore comes out it will be pricey - and good- that's why intel is conquering all the low and mid lvl markets. Even if The question is what will intel do in Q3 07 at the high end- a faster q-chip? They really already said $500 quad cores - you see these in media machines in the fall.


I have changed my name to fanboy

Fanboy!


What you seem to be forgetting is that NetBurst is keeping Intel's ASP up along with mobile. Once NetBurst is gone, then Core 2 will be .......

Hell just read my first post.
February 21, 2007 11:00:00 PM

Quote:
Oh man, here comes the flame war

*goes and hides in a hole*


Whereas I don't see much point to the original post, I don't see a flame war coming. Both companies sold processors at a premium a few years ago and are dropping prices now -- Intel because of a glut of Netburst and AMD out of a need to stay viable until K8L. Both are facing regulatory issues, AMD due to ATI's pricing and Intel because of their restrictive payment agreements to OEMs.

As far as AMD goes, they aren't alone, Nvidia's being looked at too. As far as Intel goes, they might have used unfair or even illegal tactics to maintain Netburst on the desktop, that's for the courts to decide, not a message board.

Both companies have enough money to weather the storm of price cuts and I'm happy that I was able to build with the processor that I couldn't afford a year or so ago. I'm even happier that it's 65watt and AM2 instead of socket 939, because I can expect my motherboard to accept K8L quad cores when they arrive. Be sure that I'll buy the cheapest one in their AM2+ lineup too!

Competition is good. The only people who want higher prices are those who own falling stock, or who work for the companies and fear a layoff. Well, even if I owned fallling stock, I know that stock rises and falls and really is a good investment over the long haul, not in the speculative short term. I've had two career changes since I graduated from college in 1980 and I'm transitioning to a private contractor because of IT privatization at my government agency, so I'm in for another positive change at 50.

Change is good when approached positively. Accept the positive impact of price cuts which meet company goals and help the consumer and recognize that when new technology arrives, that we'll pay a premium as early adopters. Me, I didn't adopt the X2 early, but I adopted it when it was affordable.

Quote:
Who should I sue to get my monetary compensation back for the 5 minutes of my life I wasted reading this :?:


I'm not a lawyer, but I once worked for lawyers. The ones I knew would probably attempt an argument that Tom's Hardware is responsible for the intellectual, as well as the ethical, oversight of their boards. It probably wouldn't hold up in court, but they'd give it a try. Sometimes the law is set back by outrageous claims as often as it's moved forward by valid arguments leading to a reasoned decision.

Working for those lawyers made me want to switch to IT.
February 21, 2007 11:24:28 PM

Enlarging now...

Fire in the hole!

February 21, 2007 11:35:18 PM

WarpedSystems continuous to lead by leveling the playing field for you the end user - we offer
system choices, for now the better and less expensive 939 socket until the DDR2 technology
makes sense.
February 21, 2007 11:36:29 PM

LOL

Where did you find that?
February 21, 2007 11:51:22 PM

lol ya thats from june of 06 - overpriced am2 at the time



"DDR2 800 ram you will improve your bandwidth but the cost of the system will also rise by
hundreds of dollars."


The price of ddr2 in june of 2006, and high latencys -- ddr was a better value at the time. So whats your point?


xbit labs: 5/22/06 "Summing up everything we have said about the new AMD Socket AM2 platform we have to admit that the introduction of DDR2 SDRAM support is a small evolutionary step forward. Our tests showed that the transition to DDR2 SDRAM doesn’t bring in any significant performance gain. "

"In conclusions I would like to say that the arrival of the Socket AM2 platform supporting DDR2 SDRAM is still not an ordinary occasion. Even though Socket AM2 systems do not boast any superior advantages over the Socket 939 platform at this time, "

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-socket...


So whats your point again?
February 22, 2007 12:09:37 AM

with your law back ground do have any recourse with " Iam_a_PC "

Since, i see hes posting a quote out of context with out proper credit - or it appears he may be trying to imply something negative.

if its not liable its at least copy right protection violation?

how much could i get?
February 22, 2007 12:29:16 AM

Quote:
This leads me to believe that Intels pricing really hasn't changed all that much, but AMD has just fallen so far behind that they cannot sell in the price/performance range that allows the profit they need to cover the expense they took on when they choose to acquire ATI.


Where did you get this gold nugget of info? Intel's pricing hasn't changed?? At any rate intel is still making money of course. They have professional accountants and financial advisors that crunch all the numbers and make sure they are charging the optimum price under the circumstances.

But what about AMD? I don't know all the inside details. However I can assure you they aren't going bankrupt anytime soon. AMD still sells plenty of processors. Reading TG forums really gives you a narrow view of the market. I get the sense that AMD isn't that far behind as people on here like to believe. And AMD ins't as far behind as Intel was before the power switch.

As far as the ATI aquisition and how it is such a burden for AMD, what do you base your assumption on? Or even a better question do you have numbers and stats to back up what you're post is saying?? If you don't I can classify your comments as pure speculation.

Quote:
Because Intel can't restructure pricng before they are at least 50% 45nm (IF they don't release those at firesale prices) and that won't happen before Q2 08.
That means that AMD is actually pricing to destroy. It's obvious that Barcelona will be 40% faster than Clovertown or AMD is just trying to go out of business.


Come on Baron, spare me with your dull knife. Have you done all the numbers to back up what you're saying about Intel and price restructuring? Are you privy to those numbers? Can you back up what you're saying with proof? :D  :D  Believe me you...the pros that work at Intel and AMD are alot "sharper" than most of us here.
February 22, 2007 12:31:53 AM

Quote:
I've heard a lot of people complain that Intel is pricing AMD out of the chip market and how it is an "unfair" practice. They have also stated how it is hurting both companies and talk as if they wish for it to stop.

Well the fact of the matter is that Intel is still making Billions a quarter while running a bloated company. A company with less than 100K employees making Billions a year is not too shabby in my book. So why would anyone want prices to go back up?

This leads me to believe that Intels pricing really hasn't changed all that much, but AMD has just fallen so far behind that they cannot sell in the price/performance range that allows the profit they need to cover the expense they took on when they choose to acquire ATI.

Also, Intel is just now comming out from under the glutton of Netburst chips they put on the market that everyone knew was going to hurt the companies bottom line due to them needing to get those off the market while introducing a new chip line which in effect deflated the prices in the low end cpu market which hurt both AMD and Intel (not really a "price war").

If you look at the chip market right now I think you'll find great deals on Low end chips and can expect to pay the normal amount for mid- upper range CPUs. I just wish people would enjoy getting their low end chips for a good deal and quit blaming AMD's problems on Intel.

Now some random Emoticons for your veiwing enjoyment:

8) :(  :cry:  :lol:  :o  :D  8O


People are not blaming Intel for pricing out AMD.

People are now blaming Intel for "illegal rebates to OEM to not to use AMD processors".
February 22, 2007 1:36:14 AM

Quote:
[

Come on Baron, spare me with your dull knife. Have you done all the numbers to back up what you're saying about Intel and price restructuring? Are you privy to those numbers? Can you back up what you're saying with proof? :D  :D  Believe me you...the pros that work at Intel and AMD are alot "sharper" than most of us here.



You will have to join me for some classes in baronomics. I don't understand his reasoning one bit either.

Or try getting really drunk and then reading his post again. Sometimes that works for me.
February 22, 2007 5:46:49 AM

Quote:
with your law back ground do have any recourse with " Iam_a_PC "

Since, i see hes posting a quote out of context with out proper credit - or it appears he may be trying to imply something negative.

if its not liable its at least copy right protection violation?

how much could i get?


Maybe he works for whoever did the ad he appears to quote at first (ie the warped systems bit)? Anyways, it's just canned chopped ham. Yes, AM2 and DDR2 800 was expensive at first, so was the socket 939 X2 3800+ when it first came to market.

I got my AM2 board in a barebones with a decent case and average PSU for $89.00 because it's older AM2 tech with an entry level Nvidia 405 chipset. So, what's expensive about that? How can a legacy socket board compete?

It's all personal preferences. I didn't want to take my DDR out of my Northwood for a socket 939, I wanted future proofing of at least one CPU upgrade on this board by mid 2008 and I found budget Kingston Value DDR2 667 that works for me.

If someone else wants to just get a new mobo and CPU, while keeping their old DDR, then I guess socket 939 is viable, if they're planning on switching to AM2+ and quad core down the line. I just can't see it for a totally new build, not even for someone who works at a computer shop that has scads of reconditioned socket 939's they have to unload, which is my impression of his situation.

Heck, Fry's tries to unload a bunch of ECS socket 775 boards with updated bios to support C2D, they bundle them with a low end C2D so the boards are free, but when you look closer, they're AGP and who the heck really wants an E6300 with a legacy AGP card? No one who wants to play DX10 games; or maybe they're hoping for an AGP 8900 down the line?

My law background is minor. I took some graduate classes in library school, like Legal Bibliography. I was a law library assistant paid at the national average for ten years. I wasn't a law clerk or anything and never took any classes in law school. Too darned adversarial for me. I hate to even argue that much on message boards, I'm more of a common ground Seventies hippie, and IT suits me just fine.
February 22, 2007 12:35:01 PM

$ 846.70 - core 2 quad q6600
$ 729.00 - core 2 extreme x6800
$ 997.00 - core 2 extreme qx6700
$ 419.00 - core 2 duo t7400
$ 299.99 - core 2 duo t7200
$ 248.00 - core 2 duo t5600
$ 206.49 - core 2 duo t5500
$ 495.86 - core 2 duo e6700
$ 299.00 - core 2 duo e6600
$ 228.00 - core 2 duo e6400
$ 184.00 - core 2 duo e6300
$ 169.00 - core 2 duo e4300

$ 525.00 - athlon fx-74
$ 425.00 - athlon fx-72
$ 323.00 - athlon fx-70
$ 323.00 - athlon fx-64
$ 389.99 - athlon fx-62
$ 995.00 - athlon fx-60
$ 325.00 - athlon 64 x2 5600 am2
$ 269.00 - athlon 64 x2 5400 am2
$ 218.99 - athlon 64 x2 5200 am2
$ 234.00 - athlon 64 x2 5000 am2
$ 215.99 - athlon 64 x2 4800 am2
$ 187.99 - athlon 64 x2 4600 am2
$ 229.00 - athlon 64 x2 4600 939
$ 165.00 - athlon 64 x2 4400 am2

These are cut and pastes from Pricewatch, while this isn't the greatest Representation of what Intel/AMD is charging it does generally reflect the Market.

I fail to see what the big difference in price strategy is. You pay $1K for the best with about a $150 price diff. stepping down to mid-range processors, then you hit the big "bargin point" at $500 where Price/Performance drops into low range. After that the processors are priced closer together going down to the cheapest.

I fail to see the great change in retail pricing. Maybe there is some huge difference in what Dell is being charged. Perhaps someone has that data to share. lol.

The only difference I see in pricing is that AMD doesn't have any processors to compete at the $500 and up category. Seems to me this is AMD's problem.

Flame on.

Now some very confused Emoticons for the AMD fanboys:
:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?
February 22, 2007 3:08:45 PM

Quote:
The only difference I see in pricing is that AMD doesn't have any processors to compete at the $500 and up category.


Actually IMHO, AMD doesn't have any processors to compete at the $324 and up category. FX-70series are QFX only and that's a whole 'nother market.
February 22, 2007 3:17:35 PM

My post wasn't meant as a flame major_spittle. I'm just tired of seeing posts and claims without something to support it. And the thread title and your first post were not worded very well which leads to confusion.

If your point is that the pricing strategy overall for CPUs hasn't changed, I would agree with you. Now I understand what the "dirty little secret" is. :) 
February 22, 2007 3:47:59 PM

Quote:
The only difference I see in pricing is that AMD doesn't have any processors to compete at the $500 and up category.


Actually IMHO, AMD doesn't have any processors to compete at the $324 and up category. FX-70series are QFX only and that's a whole 'nother market.

I don't think I would go even that far the last Intel chip with any serious competition from AMD is the E6400 at $224 beyond that Intel pretty well rules the roost.
February 22, 2007 4:30:21 PM

Quote:
Obviously you're not the sharpest knife n the drawer, but I'm glad someone else posted abotu the STUPIDITY of this price war.

First, Intel is hurting themselves even more because their ASPs are being artificially nflated by NetBurst prices (PD 950 costs more than E6600).

Once NetBurst is gone the Core 2 will carry ASP. Looking at how CPUs are usually bought, 6300 will be 40% or so with the others getting less as the price increases.

Because Intel can't restructure pricng before they are at least 50% 45nm (IF they don't release those at firesale prices) and that won't happen before Q2 08.
That means that AMD is actually pricing to destroy. It's obvious that Barcelona will be 40% faster than Clovertown or AMD is just trying to go out of business.

Kuma should be priced higher than 6000+. I don't mind if there are several $600+ CPUs as ong as there are several $400- CPUs. Would you really think this was good if 10s of1000s of people lose their jobs and it forces prices back up anyway?

This price war is a DUMB IDEA. AMD does have the upper hand tough with cost structure as they will be getting many more chips with 300mm 65nm than with 200mm 90nm.

Intel can't do that. The advantage they HAD was the other businesses that can throw in per capita incme. AMD can now structure deals based on a whol package rather than having to have another chipset company and GPU company to provide the rest of the package.

With that structure they can fluctuate prices an the components while keeping the average price the same.

I mean who wouldn't take a chipset for 20 extra dollars if the chip is $30 less?

DOWN WITH THE PRICE WAR!

oh man... someone has been a faithful reader of shakiraboombaboom, the person who predicted intel will bankrupt before AMD launches their barcelona.

Quote:
This price war is a DUMB IDEA. AMD does have the upper hand tough with cost structure as they will be getting many more chips with 300mm 65nm than with 200mm 90nm.

yeh, AMD can definitely pump out more chips on 65nm than 90nm. but i don't see why they have the upper hand if the chips they pump out is inferior to Core 2, both in terms of pricing and performance.

i really don't know why ppl actually believe in shakiraboombaboom's BS.. but i guess he wouldn't feel so lonely if there are some ppl who blindly follow him huh..
February 22, 2007 4:40:02 PM

I not sure what came first the Intel announcement of 3 ghz quad core server chip or this post?

xbit: "The world’s largest chipmaker Intel Corp. announced on Wednesday that its server and workstation products made using 45nm process technology will be available already this year. Still, the company has a plenty of headroom with its 65nm chips and has plans to introduce 3.0GHz Intel Xeon “Clovertown” chips going forward."


This would be the final and third leg of the divide and conquer, the new x-chip? - the top end for the fall. A 3ghz "QX6900"

IFB
February 22, 2007 6:40:55 PM

Quote:
I don't think I would go even that far the last Intel chip with any serious competition from AMD is the E6400 at $224 beyond that Intel pretty well rules the roost.


Yup. Can't disagree with that. It seems that AMD has relegated itself into Sempron/Celeron territory!!!

Quote:
This would be the final and third leg of the divide and conquer, the new x-chip? - the top end for the fall. A 3ghz "QX6900"


I'm drooling already! Can you imagine a QX6900 in a dual socket motherboard (I know it's not gonna happen but I can dream can't I?).
February 22, 2007 7:07:16 PM

Quote:
My post wasn't meant as a flame major_spittle. I'm just tired of seeing posts and claims without something to support it. And the thread title and your first post were not worded very well which leads to confusion.

If your point is that the pricing strategy overall for CPUs hasn't changed, I would agree with you. Now I understand what the "dirty little secret" is. :) 


Exactly, I don't see the price war. I just see AMD slowly going the way of Cyrix when it fell too far behind (insert flame here). Cyrix couldn't get shit for its best processors and Intel/AMD still offered $80-$100 CPUs when Cyrix's best could only compete with the processors in this price range (insert flame #2 here). Thusly Cyrix went away, not because they were priced out, but because they sucked ass. Obviously AMD is NOT to this point yet, but is Currently around the $400-$500 range and falling (insert flame #3 here).

I just don't understand why Intel seems to be expected to Prop up low end CPU prices for AMD, and if they don't it is a "Price War". Is Intel expected to gouge the Market now that it is Ahead in the CPU performance War???? Appearently Investment analysts have came to this conclusion.

Here are some gratuitous Emoticons to entertain Verndewd:
8O :p  :oops:  :lol:  :o  :(  :cry:  :twisted:
February 22, 2007 7:30:34 PM

Quote:
Whoever taught you to read. If this took you five minutes to read, you got heinously ripped off in the education department.


Yes, well, American public schools are like that.

Not a political statement.
February 22, 2007 8:01:47 PM

Quote:
:D  :)  :o  8O :? 8) :lol:  :p  :twisted: :wink: :mrgreen: :tongue: :o 
I agree with these points :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 8) :D  :lol:  :wink: :twisted: :p 

Exactly, I don't see the price war. I just see AMD slowly going the way of Cyrix when it fell too far behind (insert flame here). Cyrix couldn't get **** for its best processors and Intel/AMD still offered $80-$100 CPUs when Cyrix's best could only compete with the processors in this price range (insert flame #2 here). Thusly Cyrix went away, not because they were priced out, but because they sucked ass. Obviously AMD is NOT to this point yet, but is Currently around the $400-$500 range and falling (insert flame #3 here).

I just don't understand why Intel seems to be expected to Prop up low end CPU prices for AMD, and if they don't it is a "Price War". Is Intel expected to gouge the Market now that it is Ahead in the CPU performance War???? Appearently Investment analysts have came to this conclusion.


you cannot blame intel for bieng agressive in its competion as a justification to pacify AMD's lack of getting it done in a timely manner.
I just have this suspicion they are attempting to bottom out so daddy IBM can save them with a buyout.I wouldnt attempt to defend that statement,but AMD is lame these days,impotent even in some degree.

The only saving grace is the quality of chips at the bargain builder level;they are pretty decent.I think we should all promote AMD products to keep a buyout from happening and spoil their relief from bieng responsible to their public.Force them to keep it and make better decisions. :twisted:

Vern, I just discovered the "View more Emoticons" link. Here I thought you had some super AMD special forces Emoticon uber hax to make those 13373r Emoticons. :tongue: Sweeeeet.

As for your comment. Please take a vacation and quit focusing all your energy on the whole AMD vs. Intel thing. Really. Your starting to scare me lately with your conspiracy theories. I don't want to hear about you loosing it and making coats out of human skin or something. But please feel free to post random Emoticons in my threads at any time, I find them comforting.

Thanks for having a sense of humor. :wink:
February 22, 2007 8:09:16 PM

February 22, 2007 8:18:11 PM

I thought a white flag ment 1 more lap?

I will never surrender.

Now in a futher attempt to derail my own thread with a gay title:

I like cheese.
February 22, 2007 8:22:43 PM

AMD is not going away. We may not buy from them today, but lots of others will. Tomorrow may be a different story though...
February 22, 2007 8:25:03 PM

Quote:
I thought a white flag ment 1 more lap?

I will never surrender.

Now in a futher attempt to derail my own thread with a gay title:

I like cheese.
CHEEZball. No need to be gay then...
February 22, 2007 10:05:25 PM

Quote:
AMD is not going away. We may not buy from them today, but lots of others will. Tomorrow may be a different story though...

what i fear is absorption into the IBM mainframe,where they become Intel #2.I have smelled that since last year,I dont like it even for all its strength.

with out amd we would not have C2D and we be paying 3-4 times the price! GG amd!

why would you buy sempron (you can get an 805) if you go 775 you can upgrade later to smarter 1 socket company not the 4 socket - who knows what next - we late to ddr2 but we got useless 64 bit chips out there is 2003.

IFB (AMTI is always #2) The answer is C!

note: i buy almost as many amd (including 5 fx-60s from tiger in last 2 weeks) chips as do intel even though i slam them so much!
February 23, 2007 1:21:09 AM

Quote:
I don't think I would go even that far the last Intel chip with any serious competition from AMD is the E6400 at $224 beyond that Intel pretty well rules the roost.


Yup. Can't disagree with that. It seems that AMD has relegated itself into Sempron/Celeron territory!!!

Quote:
This would be the final and third leg of the divide and conquer, the new x-chip? - the top end for the fall. A 3ghz "QX6900"


I'm drooling already! Can you imagine a QX6900 in a dual socket motherboard (I know it's not gonna happen but I can dream can't I?).


If your going to drool step away from the keyboard or we will have some stupid thread about why the keys don't work when you drool on the keyboard.
February 23, 2007 3:46:41 AM

Quote:
If your going to drool step away from the keyboard or we will have some stupid thread about why the keys don't work when you drool on the keyboard.


Nope. No more stupid threads. This is the new and improved Captain here! :wink:

Actually, is there any reason why Asus et al. couldn't manufacture a twin socket 775 that would take a QX6900? It would be so much fun to have a 2xQuad on 775 instead of 771! YUM!
February 23, 2007 2:41:45 PM

Quote:
If your going to drool step away from the keyboard or we will have some stupid thread about why the keys don't work when you drool on the keyboard.


Nope. No more stupid threads. This is the new and improved Captain here! :wink:

Actually, is there any reason why Asus et al. couldn't manufacture a twin socket 775 that would take a QX6900? It would be so much fun to have a 2xQuad on 775 instead of 771! YUM!

Been spanked by the moderators for the girlfriend posts??

I think the only reason you won't see it is the demand wouldn't be there although you could do some serious FEA analysis with that much cpu power under the hood. The other issue would be the current required to run the board leading to large traces on the board expanding the size of the motherboard beyond standard dimensions.
February 23, 2007 2:46:31 PM

Quote:
Been spanked by the moderators for the girlfriend posts??

I think the only reason you won't see it is the demand wouldn't be there although you could do some serious FEA analysis with that much cpu power under the hood. The other issue would be the current required to run the board leading to large traces on the board expanding the size of the motherboard beyond standard dimensions.


I wouldn't say spanked. I'd say have a new a$$hole cut. :cry: 

I can see what you mean about the traces, etc. but if QFX can do it (albeit not optimally) you'd figure that some motherboard manufacturer would come up with some way of placing a competing Intel-based product out! But then again, I guess that QFX demand has been a little short of overwhelming! :lol: 
February 23, 2007 6:11:41 PM

Quote:
Been spanked by the moderators for the girlfriend posts??

I think the only reason you won't see it is the demand wouldn't be there although you could do some serious FEA analysis with that much cpu power under the hood. The other issue would be the current required to run the board leading to large traces on the board expanding the size of the motherboard beyond standard dimensions.


I wouldn't say spanked. I'd say have a new a$$hole cut. :cry: 

I can see what you mean about the traces, etc. but if QFX can do it (albeit not optimally) you'd figure that some motherboard manufacturer would come up with some way of placing a competing Intel-based product out! But then again, I guess that QFX demand has been a little short of overwhelming! :lol: 

OWWWWWWWWWWW

If your going to do it you want to do it as "optimally" as possible and 8 cores is going to require a lot of current with current technology. However , if we get some high K gates that bring down the leakage and thus current requirements it could become attractive for some high end workstations but probably won't see it in a home PC there wouldn't be any applications that could use enough mutiple threads to use 8 cores. Of course in three more releases of Windows it may use half those cores all by itself too.

Remember the line "If you build it they will come" well the other part they forgot to tell you was "If they aren't going to come why build it".
!