AMD Plans to Slash Pricing of Dual-Core Chips Shortly

Price slashing is good...It may put some heat on the Intel boys to do the same.

Same as old netburst story. Only this time we will be having 2-3-4 core choice for the new technology when it will reach us.

There are some tech addicted people around who cannot afford all the new tech they want, and hate it when they cannot upgrade gaining 10 to 20% because of the price (you know the type, "my rig is better than yours" ). This will drive them crazy. And the war to overclocking as Phenoms and Cores are comparable clock for clock... it will be awesome.

I got a $40 CPU last time (my 3700, second hand ), and a $100 mobo. The mobo is not worth $10.

I always compare price/performance ratios, and bracket the price range of the customer. That way he gets the best bang/buck and I look like Scotty on Star Trek. <smile>

Come to think of it, he never looked very good. Maybe I shoud have said, I appear to have the same engineering prowess.

Don't bag the E21xx they are good budget chips and (except the E2140 it seems) overclock very well. I've seen the E2180 get to 3.8 I believe, and it will probably go higher.

Hard to beat a e2160 w/a $80-$100 p35 mobo right now, due to the OC'ability of them. AMD's can be cheaper, but don't OC nearly as much, which makes them a good decent STOCK build right now.

AMD should have dropped the prices before. But anyways, given that the prices are already pretty low, as the article states, there shouldn't be a large price drop. Maybe $10-$20? Well I'm glad AMD is finally acting again, I just wished they would have dropped the prices long before.

AMD now has more bang for your buck, without overclocking.

If stock is high, and upgrades to Phenom worth a hoot, then it just makes sense that AMD would make this step. Generating operating capital is a great move in my book.

True...but still, they're going to lose more and more now. =/

so long as phenom is good it won't matter much, BUT....

Well they don't really "lose" the money. The only way they can lose money is if they don't sell it. As long as they sell it, they regain their money back. Think it of this way: they lose money every time they make a cpu and when they sell it, they make it back plus a little more.

Those same economists could be trying to minimize the losses!

Maybe AMD wants to clear a way to introduce Phenoms. With their price cuts though, AMD might bleed more money, if Phenom is late again.

AMD loses money. They aren't profiting. They are losing a half billion dollars a quarter.


Oh, and for those of you that want to call me an Intel fanboy, look here: http://finance.google.com/finance? [...] q=NYSE:AMD

13 weeks Ending 2007-06-30
Operating Income -457.00 (in MILLIONS)

13 weeks Ending 2007-03-31
Operating Income -504.00 (in MILLIONS)

13 weeks Ending 2006-12-31
Operating Income -526.88 (in MILLIONS)

Hint: the minus in front of the figures means NEGATIVE, or a LOSS.

Losing a billion and a half in your last three quarters isn't a good thing... Wallstreet agrees, AMD stock has gone from $40 a share to $12.

So AMD is giving their chips away for free now?

LIES!!!! ALL LIES!!!!

Once K10 is introduced, Intel will soon see 50% reduction in revenue. Intel BK 2Q08, and Pat Otellini will soon find himself jobless, on the street.

ROFL

Would you like to supersize that? Or perhaps for a quarter more you'd like an Athlon X2 dual core processor?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processor [...] dir=CPT301

Now let's just wait for the retail to catch up

The problem for AMD is than an E6550 is +/- $ 169.00 (according to pricewatch.com)

At stock speeds an x2-6000 and an E6550 are very close, but if you over clock them both the Intel will run away so far and fast you can't even see the x2-6000 in the rear view mirror anymore.

An x2-6000 also takes about 120 watts whiile an E6550 takes 65 watts.

AMD can't price slash it's way to profitability - I simply needs a faster product.

Unless and untill AMD cranks out a chip that go toe to toe with Intel on the performance front, the rest is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I don't intend to get into an debate and am just sharing some thoughts.

The functional phrase is, "if you overclock them". You've got to remember Joe Average doesn't overclock and outside of the enthusiast community if you say the words overclocking you'll get blank stares. When discussing these things, we should remember that most of the world operates at stock speeds. The only reason Joe Average and the everyday average office worker recognizes their desktop has "Intel Inside" is because Dell still gives you little choice in the matter and the countless hours of TV commercials.

The joke about heat and cpu wattage is that during the Prescott days and (mostly) up until the Athlon64 how much wattage and heat a proc produced was a non-issue. It was, IMO, the Prescott compared to the Athlon 64's that brought wattage and heat into the mainstream enthusiast mindset. Up until then it was accepted that you'd buy an aftermarket heatsink and add more fans to your case. So, while wattage and heat is a legit concern, the fact that the 6000 is a 120w part compared to the 65w E6550, the issue of wattage and heat as a whole has become a new rally cry for certain fans to claim their brand of proc is better.

"Slashing away profitability" is interesting in that it ignores the fact that AMD is less than 18 months into the ATI buy-out. Rule of thumb for a reasonable ROI is 3-5 years. So, given that they borrowed $2.5B to complete the deal and are still able to cut prices to stay competitive speaks largely to their long term plans/roadmap and the partnerships they've established and created to ensure a level of revenue. And, given the recent reports that AMD has gained market share over the past 2 quarters, I'm not so sure they're slashing away anything.

At this stage, AMD does not need to "beat" Intel with a "chip that can go toe-to-toe...on the performance front". AMD just needs to produce chips to keep them competitive in the market. At stock speeds and at similiar price points, the current line-up between AMD and Intel is pretty stinking competitive. All jokes aside, Barcelona is a good example because all existing datacenters and IT Managers need to do maintain the infrastructure they invested heavily in 2-3 years ago is a simple BIOS update to effectively double their processing power. As opposed to a new mobo and proc, or in the case of some data centers a new server altogether.

Ask yourself this, hypothetically speaking, what happens when the EU, Korea, and other countries begin enumerating fines against Intel as a result of the anti-trust lawsuits? What happens when Intel is forced to pay AMD damages and lost revenue from those suits? Don't kid yourself, it will happen, it's just a matter of time and how much.

You have issues.

Intel lost big time when they released the Core 2 Duo Extreme. Their Pentium 4's didn't sell much after its release. You saw this reflected in all the top ten CPU lists throughout the web. Intel shot themselves in the foot.

Intel chips are more expensive because they cost more to produce. A vast majority of people do not care about over clocking. They care mostly about PRICE.

"AMD captured a 52 percent share of the U.S. retail desktop market in September, topping Intel's 46 percent share, according to market research firm Current Analysis, which is based in San Diego, California."

http://www.infoworld.com/article/0 [...] tel_1.html

AMD isn't losing anything... they're gaining more market share from Intel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The extremists will crow, the fanboys will fan, but the average AMD consumer wins.

Speculation is like balogna, it is cheap to make and spoils very quickly.