Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Plans to Slash Pricing of Dual-Core Chips Shortly

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Dual Core
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2007 7:15:47 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071003053302...

The new exact new prices for the higher-end AMD dual-core microprocessors are unclear, but given that the fastest chip from the company is currently sold for $251, it is highly likely that the price corrections will not be substantial and will be generally meant to align pricing of AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors with mainboards based on AMD chipsets so that to attract attention of system integrators to AMD’s platforms.

More about : amd plans slash pricing dual core chips shortly

October 5, 2007 7:59:52 PM

Price slashing is good...It may put some heat on the Intel boys to do the same.
October 6, 2007 8:13:35 AM

nah, I think Phenom will need to be good for it to pressure intel
Related resources
October 6, 2007 8:22:09 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2007 8:32:35 AM

Oh.... yes!
October 6, 2007 8:36:54 AM

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.
October 6, 2007 8:40:38 AM

I will be having a lot of fun myself. I generally upgrade with a 300 $ CPU, 200$ GPU, 100$ RAM and 150$ Board when the next hop offers me at least twice the performance. And I don't throw the old system away (or sell it), because they (all the old systems) still offer great experience for other members of my household.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2007 9:16:51 AM

I got a $40 CPU last time (my 3700, second hand :D ), and a $100 mobo. The mobo is not worth $10.
October 6, 2007 9:35:37 AM

i always look forward to these price cuts! just hope the 5200+, which i think AMD released a blank edition with unlock multiplier, gets a decent price drop. might just pick it up!
October 6, 2007 11:37:09 AM

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.
October 6, 2007 12:35:55 PM

I hope intel raises prices then the stock will go up!

I doubt intel will match they have the crap-o-la chips 21xx already
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2007 2:00:20 AM

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.
October 7, 2007 3:11:27 AM

The Pentium Dual Cores we make at work are very cheap and perform pretty damn well. If you want to get good OCes for cheap, Pentium Dual Cores are the way to go.
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2007 3:57:17 AM

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.
October 7, 2007 5:35:12 PM

Yes, I am in agreement, the 2160 dual is quite a barnstormer.
October 7, 2007 6:27:42 PM

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.
October 7, 2007 6:31:18 PM

I think price dropping is a bad idea though. They're already losing money on the chips and have cut prices to outstanding levels. Cutting the 5000+ series and 6000+ series is just crazy. If I was an AM2 owner though that wanted an upgrade before Phenom, which in my opinion is not worth it, just wait, than go for it. But Phenom will be worth the wait I believe.
October 7, 2007 6:51:59 PM

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.
October 7, 2007 7:28:13 PM

If AMD doesn't cut prices they would find themselves sitting on a stock of old processors that definitely won't sell once Phenom ramps up. Better to sell at a loss then to not sell at all.
October 7, 2007 7:29:59 PM

True...but still, they're going to lose more and more now. =/
October 7, 2007 8:37:41 PM

But not having large inventories lying around will help operating costs, and if Phenom does half way decently it should start making up for all the losses they've been having recently. They've probably got some economists on payroll who know a bit more about this stuff than the majority of us do about this kind of thing... and of course they have all the facts.

-mcg
October 7, 2007 8:39:11 PM

so long as phenom is good it won't matter much, BUT....
October 7, 2007 9:19:52 PM

I wonder what ever happened to all that Barcelona hype...it released, and than, poof, no benchies. Kind of left me scratching my head goin' "wtf was with the hype than??"
October 8, 2007 12:12:12 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2007 12:33:59 AM

I think what is being said is that it may take $20 a chip to make and their selling it to the middle man at $18, so this is why they are losing $ on them.
October 8, 2007 12:45:25 AM

MrCommunistGen said:
But not having large inventories lying around will help operating costs, and if Phenom does half way decently it should start making up for all the losses they've been having recently. They've probably got some economists on payroll who know a bit more about this stuff than the majority of us do about this kind of thing... and of course they have all the facts.

-mcg




Those same economists could be trying to minimize the losses!
October 8, 2007 1:32:05 AM

I wish they would stop doing this because I can't resist and then I upgrade and it is this big ordeal.......you see I have several computers and when I upgrade one then some of the stuff gets shifted to the next one...etc. and so I end up taking several of the computers apart in order to transfer parts.............sigh..................(must resist).........resistance is futile........
October 8, 2007 2:23:40 AM

Maziar said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071003053302...

The new exact new prices for the higher-end AMD dual-core microprocessors are unclear, but given that the fastest chip from the company is currently sold for $251, it is highly likely that the price corrections will not be substantial and will be generally meant to align pricing of AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors with mainboards based on AMD chipsets so that to attract attention of system integrators to AMD’s platforms.


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.
October 8, 2007 2:03:51 PM

Perhaps this practice can be thought of as a bandage, so that the bleeding is not so prominant. I see it as a good thing.
October 8, 2007 5:53:48 PM

Evilonigiri said:
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.



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?fstype=ii&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.
October 8, 2007 6:17:04 PM

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


HA! Tell that to AMD's stockholders and their creditors! They're already losing money as-is.
October 8, 2007 6:20:29 PM

So AMD is giving their chips away for free now?
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2007 6:29:11 PM

What would be the real point of putting out benchmarks on the current barcelona chips that are intended for server systems at the mid range level?

The chips we will want the data for is scheduled for 1st quarter of 08 and probably won't be out by then either.

I know the excitement provokes premature actions and I am as guilty as the next... =P
October 8, 2007 7:11:40 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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?fstype=ii&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.


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.
October 8, 2007 7:12:58 PM

Heyyou27 said:
So AMD is giving their chips away for free now?


From our inside source, AMD plans to include a X2 5200+ inside the kids meal in MCD. :lol:  :lol: 
October 8, 2007 7:19:35 PM

yomamafor1 said:
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


yomamafor1 said:
From our inside source, AMD plans to include a X2 5200+ inside the kids meal in MCD. :lol:  :lol: 


Would you like to supersize that? Or perhaps for a quarter more you'd like an Athlon X2 dual core processor?
October 8, 2007 7:47:04 PM

Any word on the price cuts?

-mcg
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2007 8:28:29 PM

Here's the latest from THG regarding the price cuts. A quick search on pricegrabber and pricewatch are reflecting the new prices.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34250/118/

Damned that's some cheap processors! I have to admit, ~$160 for a 6000 is pretty damned tempting!

October 8, 2007 11:01:26 PM

chunkymonster said:
Here's the latest from THG regarding the price cuts. A quick search on pricegrabber and pricewatch are reflecting the new prices.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34250/118/

Damned that's some cheap processors! I have to admit, ~$160 for a 6000 is pretty damned tempting!


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.
October 8, 2007 11:37:56 PM

Maziar said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071003053302...

The new exact new prices for the higher-end AMD dual-core microprocessors are unclear, but given that the fastest chip from the company is currently sold for $251, it is highly likely that the price corrections will not be substantial and will be generally meant to align pricing of AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors with mainboards based on AMD chipsets so that to attract attention of system integrators to AMD’s platforms.




It is barely a price cut. Anand has the new prices.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 12:17:54 AM

the_vorlon said:
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.
October 9, 2007 1:26:56 AM

BaronMatrix said:
It is barely a price cut. Anand has the new prices.



WHAT!? AMD IS CUTTING PRICES!? THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE A MONOPOLY!? ANTI-TRUST!!!



Hey Fudrix, care to come to defense of a 1.5 Billion (yes, with a B) loss over the last three quarters?


I'm sure Fudrix would assure me that Q307 numbers will be profitable, of course. This is because of AMD's high yields and mature 65nm native quad cores, and because of their ability to release new products on time.
October 9, 2007 2:21:51 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
WHAT!? AMD IS CUTTING PRICES!? THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE A MONOPOLY!? ANTI-TRUST!!!



Hey Fudrix, care to come to defense of a 1.5 Billion (yes, with a B) loss over the last three quarters?


I'm sure Fudrix would assure me that Q307 numbers will be profitable, of course. This is because of AMD's high yields and mature 65nm native quad cores, and because of their ability to release new products on time.


You have issues.
October 9, 2007 2:34:26 AM

the_vorlon said:
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.

but you can get better amd MB for less then intel ones and the intel MB need more power to run
October 9, 2007 2:37:27 AM

BaronMatrix said:
You have issues.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
October 9, 2007 3:43:32 AM

May I add that the overclocking population is only 2%? That's like less than 200 million of us overclockers, so AMD has some great cpu especially for their price for people who doesn't overclock. The 6000+ beats the e6550 by a small amount, however it takes more energy than the e6550.

Another thing as to why AMD hasn't changed their "high end" (if you can call it that) to 65nm tech, it's because the 65nm has a "leaking" problem. I forgot much about this but basically it leaks so much at high clock speeds that it is less efficient than the 90nm tech. Their Barcy had a similar problem, which will soon fixed by a new stepping revision B1 I think. Should get it to 3Ghz.

Anyways maybe they are doing another price cut because they have too many in stock? You know, supply and demand. I mean it's better to sell it below the cost it takes to make it than just not selling it at all.
October 9, 2007 8:01:04 AM

justinmcg67 said:
True...but still, they're going to lose more and more now. =/


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/05/10/14/HNamdtopsinte...

AMD isn't losing anything... they're gaining more market share from Intel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 9, 2007 2:20:39 PM

enigma, you might want to recheck your link, because its outdated by 2 years.

BTW, Intel's chip are much much cheaper to produce than AMD ones, because AMD uses SOI, while Intel uses bulk.
October 9, 2007 2:56:35 PM

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.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!