Intel VS AMD - Don't expect falling prices on higher end processors

[ImajorI]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080114/intel_earnings_preview.html?.v=1

ANALYST TAKE: Wachovia Capital Markets analyst David Wong said in a note to investors that Intel CEO Paul Otellini sees no sign of a global recession. Wong concluded from this that Intel has seen no major slowing of its business.

He said Intel is doing particularly well in the microprocessor market as AMD struggles to fix design problems.

He expects "essentially no competition" for Intel in the higher end of the microprocessor market, and said it is unlikely to see price pressure in this segment.

 

[zenmaster]

I sure hope AMD gets its act together.
But I don't see much hope for 9-12months at the earliest.

Maybe when they get 45nm out.
Maybe when they get their 8core processors out.

 

[sailer]

If Intel CEO Paul Otelline see no sign of global recession, then he's been playing ostrich and has had his head buried in the sand. There are economic troubles all over the world; Europe, Japan, China and on down the line. Intel has fallen from a high or 27.99 to 21.99 in one month. That's a 22% drop in market price and a bit hard to ignore. He is correct that AMD poses "essentially no competition" at the moment, but that could very well change 6 months from now. Intel's biggest market is in busiess computers, and AMD currently has little to nothing to challenge Intel at the moment in that area.

 

[chunkymonster]

I would think that there would be no competition in the higher end market solely due to that only someone with WAY too much money and/or someone with seriously mixed up priorities would actually buy a QX9650 @ $1200.

 

[Grimmy]

Oh.. where is thunderboy.. err.. man when ya need him to give us hope!!

. o O (sorry)

 

[sailer]

Oh.. where is thunderboy.. err.. man when ya need him to give us hope!!

. o O (sorry)

Perhaps Thunderman went away, just as Baron did. But Baron was way better than Thunderman. Who Knows?

 

[stemnin]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080112155207_AMD_Says_Customers_Demand_Low_End_Power_Efficient_AMD_Phenom_Chips.html

Advanced Micro Devices said on Friday that customers demanded the company to release lower-end lower-power AMD Phenom microprocessors instead of higher performance AMD Phenom 9700 and 9900 central processing units. The world’s largest x86 chip manufacturer did not unveil whether its customers did not want to get higher-speed Phenom chips, or the company had to delay the release of its higher-speed chips, or it could not get the new steppings of chips in time.

I'm not really surprised as I read this earlier.

 

[Grimmy]

AMD could not identify its customers demanding lower-end versions of AMD Phenom during a brief interview and also did not reveal whether it had issues with B3 stepping wafer starts in Q1 2007.

I just wish they had something to keep the price war going to benefit us all..

 

[sailer]

Somehow the article from xbitlabs was almost too funny to read. Who are the customers AMD says are demanding the low end Phenoms? AMD's answer, we cannot identify them. AMD says "we are shipping hundreds of thousands of AMD Phenoms". To whom is AMD shipping those hundreds of thousands of AMD Phenom processors? Same implied answer as before, AMD cannot identify them. Does this sound like a broken record from some propaganda machine?

Sorry, I'm just a bit underwhelmed by AMD's answers.

 

[grieve]

This is just my opinion…

Ever since AMD failed to produce a competitive processor they have changed their marketing to things like this crap:

**AMD - More power efficient
**Targeting lower end/price efficient market

Well …. Last time I bought a PC, TV, DVD Player, Microwave, Fridge … I really never looked into the power consumption, to be honest I could care less, I for one will pay an extra 1$ a day to have a kick as* stuff.

The only reason there targeting lower end processors is because they don’t have a top end one to market… They can NOT tell me that if they could produce a 4GHZ eight core processor they wouldn’t do it because ‘’it takes to much energy’’ or ‘’its not low end’’

Come on ! Lets get serious for a minute…. There hooped @ AMD and are saying these things to make sure the 15 ignorant people who still think AMD is better will still buy AMD.


With that said… I really do wish AMD could step up to the plate, Intel needs competition…..

 

[epsilon84]

I would think that there would be no competition in the higher end market solely due to that only someone with WAY too much money and/or someone with seriously mixed up priorities would actually buy a QX9650 @ $1200.

Oh, so AMD is deliberately avoiding the high end because only the rich buy it?

 

[caamsa]

I would think that there would be no competition in the higher end market solely due to that only someone with WAY too much money and/or someone with seriously mixed up priorities would actually buy a QX9650 @ $1200.

Word!

Anyway how much lower can prices go? Look at the prices a year ago and you will probably flip out of your chair. I doubt we will see the prices drop much more. Now I can see us getting more for our money due to dual and quad chips but as far as price I doubt it will drop.

What you used to pay for a single core you now pay for a dual core. Eventually the quad cores will probably drop down to the price of the dual cores....etc. etc. etc.

 

[chunkymonster]

Oh, so AMD is deliberately avoiding the high end because only the rich buy it?

Doesn't matter who buys it, whether they be pecunious or financially challenged. It doesn't take wads of green to build a kick-a$s machine; especially, when you can buy a Q6600 for $240! An extra $950 for an unlocked multiplier and bragging rights?! Meh...

Let the price gouging begin!

 

[turpit]

Let the price gouging begin!

Sad, but true. But what is one going to do about it? Is it your fault AMD has nothing competative in the top end? Mine? Does assigning blame change the fact? Should people buy AMD just to save them?

 

[chunkymonster]

Sad, but true. But what is one going to do about it? Is it your fault AMD has nothing competative in the top end? Mine? Does assigning blame change the fact? Should people buy AMD just to save them?

We're on the same page here. Assessing blame is pointless. Blame who for what?

What can one do about it? Be an educated consumer.

Whether it's choosing between Intel and AMD or whether to vote Democrat or Republican, it's still seems like deciding between the lesser of two evils.

I've been wanting to build a NAS box, maybe I'll go with an embedded VIA mini ITX combo...just too bad there are no viable Libertarian candidates.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Advanced Micro Devices said on Friday that customers demanded the company to release lower-end lower-power AMD Phenom microprocessors instead of higher performance AMD Phenom 9700 and 9900 central processing units. The world’s largest x86 chip manufacturer did not unveil whether its customers did not want to get higher-speed Phenom chips, or the company had to delay the release of its higher-speed chips, or it could not get the new steppings of chips in time.

When did AMD start to out manufaturer Intel and become the largest x86 chip producer in the world? Thats what I would like to know.

Also a Q6600@ $240 or even the Q9350 at roughly the same price is a bargain. I remember when the first 3.2GHz Pentium 4's hit the market they cost roughly $500+ with only one core and HT. Don't get me wrong HT put a lot of better performance in those chips. And I can tell you that even at only 2.4GHz the Q6600 gives huge performance jump in a lot of tings. I really do wish I tested XP first but I wanted to get Vista broken in.

I for one see no real reason for Intel to drop prices at the high end since AMD has nothing to compete with it and its only for those insane OC'ers with gobs of money. But I do see Intel trying to keep the mainstream market at a nice price level. If not the new C2Q's would go for more than what they are set for. But don't forget that AMD barely dropped prices on their X2s or even their FX chips until the C2D came out and was a better performer. So I think Intel will keep their chips in a certain area until there is considerably more competition from AMD and thats not soon.

I think AMD might hit the competative level within the next year but I still don't see them leaping over Intel for at least 2 years. I wounder if having a un-competative chip qualifies as anti-trust since it keeps the market stale....