Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Gets Start of Antitrust Backlash from OEMs

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 12, 2010 9:45:57 AM

Intel Gets Start of Antitrust Backlash from OEMs

By Erik Sherman | Jan 4, 2010

A recent announcement that Lenovo would use CPUs from AMD (AMD) in a couple of its ThinkPads rather than chips from Intel (INTC) is the beginning of the price the chip giant could end up paying for its alleged anticompetitive activities: OEM customers shifting their orders.

In two separate statements, Lenovo said that it would use AMD chips in the ThinkPad X1003e ultraportable as well as the 13-inch ThinkPad Edge series, which is aimed at small- to medium-sized businesses. This is the first time that the ThinkPad brand, originally owned by IBM, will have used non-Intel chips:

An ultraportable PC positioned between a notebook and a netbook, the ThinkPad X100e can be equipped with AMD’s Athlon Neo single-core and dual-core, as well as the Turion dual-core processors. The ThinkPad Edge model, the smallest of three offerings in this product family and targeted at small and midsize businesses, may be paired with dual-core AMD Turion and Athlon Neo processors. The 14-inch and 15-inch ThinkPad Edge versions will still be powered by Intel’s Core 2 Duo chips.

Before you say, “But those are the small systems,” remember that the smallest systems, like netbooks, are the ones whose sales are really growing. To put it differently, AMD may not be in the prestige machines, but they’re going into the ones that may get the greater volume sales.

Starting in mid-November, I began noting that the upshot of all the antitrust activity focused on Intel would be customer defections:

PC vendors get completely wary of being sucked into the investigatory void and start shifting a significant portion of their purchasing to AMD. Forget fines and forget legal fees. That’s going to be the real price tag for years of allegedly using money and influence to keep a competitor constrained, and it will be a number with a whole lot of zeros.

I think the Lenovo switch is the first sign of that real price tag. Who knows how large a card it will need to be to record all the potential long-term loss for short-term gain?

Image via stock.xchng user MeHere, site standard license.

http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10004584/intel-gets...
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 12, 2010 10:08:51 AM

If this is the "start" of oem backlash, we should see a notable increase of AMD's marketshare in six months.

Will we?
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 10:47:24 AM

Depends on what you mean by notable.

AMD are basically now selling every cpu they make but then again more cpu's are being bought.

You won't see a really 'notable' increase (if by notable you mean intel losing up to 10% share or so) until the new fabs are finished and AMD can really flood the market with cheap bulldozer parts.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 12, 2010 1:23:09 PM

If they make it into the Lenovo T series, that is quite a statement.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 1:25:16 PM

Errrrrrrrrr

IBM and AMD are kinda linked at the hips (IBM Roadrunner, that initiative they started a few years back, etc), when DELL and HP starts sell them en-masse and not only as the "budget" only segment but in their mainstream/high end stuff (think gaming machines that would utilize one GPU + PII would sit below a I7-1366 with two+ GPU) then it would be a giant leap.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 2:23:31 PM

Try AMD was linked to IBM's left small toe ... that might be more reflective of the actual relationship.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 2:26:50 PM

well amd was linked with IBM, and thats the foot in the door and i would imagine it would be harder for them to becomes something mainstream/high end with the other venders this quick
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:04:42 PM

Quote:
Depends on what you mean by notable.

AMD are basically now selling every cpu they make but then again more cpu's are being bought.

You won't see a really 'notable' increase (if by notable you mean intel losing up to 10% share or so) until the new fabs are finished and AMD can really flood the market with cheap bulldozer parts.


Probably will see even more share loss for Amd, especially in the low to midrange with i3/i5 taking the midrange and Core 2 taking the lowrange. Oh and I'm not buying the part about them selling every cpu they make and here's why. A year ago their top deksktop cpu was selling for $300, 6 months $250 and today the top bin cpu is $200. Now I'm not a business expert but it seems to me that if the demand was so high for my product that I could sell everything I made then why would I be discounting the price for my product?
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:11:22 PM

I seriously doubt it.

What you and most people don't understand is that Intel is guaranteed to lose market share next year, and probably a big chunk of it.

It doesn't even matter how good Bulldozer and Bobcat are, all that matters is AMD can flood the market with around 5 times the number of cpu's they are currently able to make.

And they will sell them at prices that intel shareholders will shudder at.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:31:05 PM

Quote:
I seriously doubt it.

What you and most people don't understand is that Intel is guaranteed to lose market share next year, and probably a big chunk of it.

It doesn't even matter how good Bulldozer and Bobcat are, all that matters is AMD can flood the market with around 5 times the number of cpu's they are currently able to make.

And they will sell them at prices that intel shareholders will shudder at.


No I guess I don't understand. How exactly are they going to flood the market 5X next year and how do you know the prices for these chips?
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:33:10 PM

how is Intel guaranteed to lose market share? did something happen that i missed?
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:38:52 PM

Yes I too am very curious. An individual which such insight into the future of semis is quite remarkable. I'm half tempted into buying 10k shares of Amd stock now;)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:39:53 PM

qurious69ss said:
Probably will see even more share loss for Amd, especially in the low to midrange with i3/i5 taking the midrange and Core 2 taking the lowrange. Oh and I'm not buying the part about them selling every cpu they make and here's why. A year ago their top deksktop cpu was selling for $300, 6 months $250 and today the top bin cpu is $200. Now I'm not a business expert but it seems to me that if the demand was so high for my product that I could sell everything I made then why would I be discounting the price for my product?



the low end strat seems to be empty atm, since as pointed out by you, their top bin i 200, while intel's top end is still 1000, and i would imagine that OEMs are going to notice value in the lower / mid end where the prices for i3/i5s are way to high for what they can put out.

the major issue with this is the IGP they now have on die, where intel is basically giving away a "free" component in their CPUs, thus locking in vendors and if they are gona build no upgrade grey boxes, those parts with IGP are going to attract attension.

that is, unless amd can come up with HD 43/45xx level performance in an IGP and just nuke the performance of intel's on-die IGP then I can see how that is possible, but as it sits now, intel's budget/mid range segment consists of riding on the success of their top end brand and people's misconception of the i3 brand.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:43:57 PM

Last article I read, Intel increased its mobile marketshare during the last quarter, but of course much of that was Atom netbooks.

And there are laws against 'dumping' or selling product below cost in order to make up marketshare. I'm sure the FTC would be very interested to hear how a foreign-owned company like GF is colluding with AMD to dump below cost.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:47:11 PM

qurious69ss said:
Yes I too am very curious. An individual which such insight into the future of semis is quite remarkable. I'm half tempted into buying 10k shares of Amd stock now;)


You should have done it last year when I told everybody what was going to happen to AMD shares. :D 
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:49:08 PM

i dont believe they will dump product below cost but i also dont believe their marketshare rises 5x this year. i say they make significant inroads with OEMs and providing they deliver parts on time and in proper quantity they will continue to grow.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:50:52 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Last article I read, Intel increased its mobile marketshare during the last quarter, but of course much of that was Atom netbooks.

And there are laws against 'dumping' or selling product below cost in order to make up marketshare. I'm sure the FTC would be very interested to hear how a foreign-owned company like GF is colluding with AMD to dump below cost.


Who said anything about selling below cost?

You know fine well that intel are selling cpu's to idiots at WAY above cost. AMD can sell chips at much less and make a profit.

With a smaller process, a new fab coming online within 2 years and global buying up everybody else, AMD will basically never need to worry about meeting demand.

Think about what they did to Nvidia. They couldn't win on perception, they couldn't charge the same prices. So they priced Nvidia out of the market instead. You cannot deny it was an absolute masterstroke and perfectly engineered.

Intel is next, and AMD is going to do the same thing again. Of course intel are huge and they can see it out, but they will lose a large chunk of marketshare and probably a lot of profit in the process.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:51:36 PM

theholylancer said:
the low end strat seems to be empty atm, since as pointed out by you, their top bin i 200, while intel's top end is still 1000, and i would imagine that OEMs are going to notice value in the lower / mid end where the prices for i3/i5s are way to high for what they can put out.

the major issue with this is the IGP they now have on die, where intel is basically giving away a "free" component in their CPUs, thus locking in vendors and if they are gona build no upgrade grey boxes, those parts with IGP are going to attract attension.

that is, unless amd can come up with HD 43/45xx level performance in an IGP and just nuke the performance of intel's on-die IGP then I can see how that is possible, but as it sits now, intel's budget/mid range segment consists of riding on the success of their top end brand and people's misconception of the i3 brand.


I see no issue with IGP when it's targeted for business PCs as a matter of fact its pretty much standard already (for business pc) except that it is now on a single package as is the northbridge. These i3/i5 are perfect for that market and don't forget about Core 2. Remember >90% of cpus are not sold alone but as a system by the OEMs to people who are as likely to change their cpu as they are to change their car's engine. For these people Core 2 is still very viable product.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:54:51 PM

roofus said:
i dont believe they will dump product below cost but i also dont believe their marketshare rises 5x this year. i say they make significant inroads with OEMs and providing they deliver parts on time and in proper quantity they will continue to grow.


That's not what I said, I said AMD will basically be in the position to make 5x the number of cpu's they currently can. Fab 2 will be ready around the end of 2011, thats another whole fab for AMD.

I'm making an assumption here too, that assumption is AMD will pull back from creating large cpu's with a lot of inefficient cache, and instead go smaller and smaller with each new process (32nm and 22nm etc).

It all ends up with a lot of cheap cpu's. Much more than they can currently make, and much cheaper too. You should read up on their sweet spot strategy, it makes a lot of sense.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 4:56:11 PM

Quote:
You should have done it last year when I told everybody what was going to happen to AMD shares. :D 


Yes I did miss out, but this time with your insight I hope not to make the same mistake. So, please tell us how Amd will be able to produce 5X more chips and at really low prices.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:57:27 PM

I just did.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:01:55 PM

qurious69ss said:
I see no issue with IGP when it's targeted for business PCs as a matter of fact its pretty much standard already (for business pc) except that it is now on a single package as is the northbridge. These i3/i5 are perfect for that market and don't forget about Core 2. Remember >90% of cpus are not sold alone but as a system by the OEMs to people who are as likely to change their cpu as they are to change their car's engine. For these people Core 2 is still very viable product.



and there is the vendor lock in i was talking about, it was possible for c2 to have ati or nvidia IGP that was more powerful than what intel offered, now it is still possible, but vendors are wasting a resource that is handed to them when they do choose to build something like that.

remember the majority of pcs sold are home use pcs, and those guys won't have a clue about what the heck is going on, and chances are this is going back to the days where PCIE slots will disappear, and you can't upgrade unless you buy new. be it a new cpu with a better IGP or a new computer period. they are making things "simpler" to understand, that is throw money at intel or the OEM whom throws it at intel and you get better performance.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:04:11 PM

I don't see it being a huge issue right now holylancer, not with the ludicrous prices of the Clarkdales.

If the prices had to drop substantially then it might become an issue.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:08:15 PM

Quote:
That's not what I said, I said AMD will basically be in the position to make 5x the number of cpu's they currently can. Fab 2 will be ready around the end of 2011, thats another whole fab for AMD.

I'm making an assumption here too, that assumption is AMD will pull back from creating large cpu's with a lot of inefficient cache, and instead go smaller and smaller with each new process (32nm and 22nm etc).

It all ends up with a lot of cheap cpu's. Much more than they can currently make, and much cheaper too. You should read up on their sweet spot strategy, it makes a lot of sense.


Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that you are referring to GF's Malta fab that is suppose to come online in 2012 and won't have any chips till 2H of 2012? This is a foundryright, so they probably will be making chips for a bunch of other companies as well unless your sources say that they will be starting 50k wafer starts a week then it's going to be tough pushing out all those cheap chips. I guess I'll wait a bit longer before I invest especially since you are also assuming that they will be making smaller chips because they are going to smaller node just because it's smaller. :??: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:09:41 PM

well to OEMs it is an issue, i'm sure they can now sell every chip set at a cost previously un-though of or at a lvl that is like the subsidized illegal prices because the heavy cost hitters are on the CPU it self, which you buy in whole.

the ludicrous prices of the clarkdales to retailers could mean a lot less cost in a OEM situation when every other component is marked down across the board since the CPU does so much.

The only people paying double are those going low end and with a low/mid range discreet card, or manuf whom wants ati/nvidia next-gen IGP, and intel would still win because they sold one more CPU

AMD needs to act fast and push out some good IGPs or else intel can now make money no matter where it goes because many of these vendors are intel locked, and they just gave them a more compelling reason to stay intel locked.

m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:14:49 PM

well 133 a piece in 1k trays isn't significantly more than they paid for some of the core2 parts is it? i haven't kept up on tray pricing in years.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:16:15 PM

qurious69ss said:
Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that you are referring to GF's Malta fab that is suppose to come online in 2012 and won't have any chips till 2H of 2012? This is a foundryright, so they probably will be making chips for a bunch of other companies as well unless your sources say that they will be starting 50k wafer starts a week then it's going to be tough pushing out all those cheap chips. I guess I'll wait a bit longer before I invest especially since you are also assuming that they will be making smaller chips because they are going to smaller node just because it's smaller. :??: 



well I think what they mean is, good enough performance vs top of the edge performance, a PII X4 honestly dosen't FEEL slower than a I7 to the normal man, and even an OCed I7 may just feel somewhat faster (even if it can provide benchies that just owns when OCed) Because look at it this way, if you are a average home user, then the improved multi-media encoding process that i7 excell at won't be needed since it's a once in a blue moon thing, if you are a gamer, then we know that the i7 and what nots are on par or somewhat better, but when everything is running at friggin 100 vs 130 fps, who the hell cares??

So, AMD is going to stay at the current processing power, while going to smaller nodes, and I guess optimize their manufacturing methods to produce CPUs that work just enough (that are not going to compete in the high end) and be extremely cheap, think a sub 150 or less PII X4 and a budget 70 dollar Athlon II X4!!

All this needs one thing tho, public awareness, where Intel kinda have everything locked down with the performance crown and is not playing up the need for a discreet card / far more power IGP.

O and also things like crysis 2 and other heavy demanding games, if they simply can't run on amd (which I HIGHLY doubt) without OCing with the same vid card will cause a panic, but otherwise, AMD's just right thing makes sense, but not enjoyable as someone whom likes high speed.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:16:42 PM

That's a BINGO! holy dude. Now as far as PCIE going away well that is up to the OEMs and MB manufacturers and not up to Intel or Amd per se.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:20:56 PM

well with the marking moniker

get a better GPU by buying a better CPU, well you know where this is headed right?


and also, with the GPU bound by the heat from the CPU, I would strongly think that if AMD were to produce a nice 45xx/43xx IGP then it would have to be off die, and that any fusion parts are going to be on par with what intel's got at best or at least not as good as an off die, independent IGP be.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:23:34 PM

theholylancer said:
well I think what they mean is, good enough performance vs top of the edge performance, a PII X4 honestly dosen't FEEL slower than a I7 to the normal man, and even an OCed I7 may just feel somewhat faster (even if it can provide benchies that just owns when OCed) Because look at it this way, if you are a average home user, then the improved multi-media encoding process that i7 excell at won't be needed since it's a once in a blue moon thing, if you are a gamer, then we know that the i7 and what nots are on par or somewhat better, but when everything is running at friggin 100 vs 130 fps, who the hell cares??

So, AMD is going to stay at the current processing power, while going to smaller nodes, and I guess optimize their manufacturing methods to produce CPUs that work just enough (that are not going to compete in the high end) and be extremely cheap, think a sub 150 or less PII X4 and a budget 70 dollar Athlon II X4!!

All this needs one thing tho, public awareness, where Intel kinda have everything locked down with the performance crown and is not playing up the need for a discreet card / far more power IGP.

O and also things like crysis 2 and other heavy demanding games, if they simply can't run on amd (which I HIGHLY doubt) without OCing with the same vid card will cause a panic, but otherwise, AMD's just right thing makes sense, but not enjoyable as someone whom likes high speed.


So you believe that they are abandoning Moore's Law? That would definitely change everything.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:25:13 PM

I would imagine this would apply until software demands more power, either because of bloat or actual need, but I don't see that in the near future with CPUs, more with GPU for games and of course, the professionals that does massive amount of encoding will drive this space, but hey intel got deep r and d pockets and they will most likely put out these parts rather than AMD


and ofc i don't mean that they simply sit EXACTLY still with performance, just that most of the energy is shifted from increasing processing power to increasing ease of production and etc.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:31:29 PM

theholylancer said:
well with the marking moniker

get a better GPU by buying a better CPU, well you know where this is headed right?


and also, with the GPU bound by the heat from the CPU, I would strongly think that if AMD were to produce a nice 45xx/43xx IGP then it would have to be off die, and that any fusion parts are going to be on par with what intel's got at best or at least not as good as an off die, independent IGP be.


I think we are still quite a few years from giving up discreet gfx. IGP serves its purpose too for business pc and HTPC but I just can't see it in its current form being able to play intense video games. For that market you will have to use discreet for the foreseeable future and if there's a market for this then there will be companies who will cater to that market.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:34:01 PM

not replacing discreet gfx, replacing the option to have discreet gfx for OEMs and better IGP for OEMs

discreet cards are far far off of being replaced, but OEMs would have no issue with making people buy whole new computers or limit them to a CPU upgrade to get better performance.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:39:46 PM

theholylancer said:
I would imagine this would apply until software demands more power, either because of bloat or actual need, but I don't see that in the near future with CPUs, more with GPU for games and of course, the professionals that does massive amount of encoding will drive this space, but hey intel got deep r and d pockets and they will most likely put out these parts rather than AMD


and ofc i don't mean that they simply sit EXACTLY still with performance, just that most of the energy is shifted from increasing processing power to increasing ease of production and etc.



This reminds me of something Bill Gates said in the 80's.

Bill Gates...“640K of memory should be enough for anybody.”

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:43:33 PM

Yap, which is why they gota balance everything out, and keep up with the minimum of lets say 50fps in a fast game and 30 fps in a slow game and allow for sub 20 minute processing of a full movie in w/e format and res of the day to allow for good enough performance. Right now, the top end and hyper top end/OCed top end is the difference between 100 or 130 fps, and thats on CPU bound games, and not GPU bound games where everyone sits at exactly the same spot with the same GPU, so yeah right now it does look like Gate's comment lol.


Now imagine if Gate's came out every year and simply updated that comment, and hey maybe that wouldn't be as much of a joke as it is now.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:46:13 PM

theholylancer said:
not replacing discreet gfx, replacing the option to have discreet gfx for OEMs and better IGP for OEMs

discreet cards are far far off of being replaced, but OEMs would have no issue with making people buy whole new computers or limit them to a CPU upgrade to get better performance.


Well call me a pragmatist but if you are able to replace a gfx card then you should have no issue building a rig and have not business buying from an OEM.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:49:56 PM

Well, I know many people whom was running IGP and went out and brought a dedicated lower end card, plugged it in and installed the drivers on the CD (or was using vista driver for some time before they asked me) and left it as that and actually gamed, and since the cards they got were from staples and were cards that didn't need a new power plug (no need for new PSU since everything is at least to the spec of PCIE power req).

these guys are obviously guys that games, yet don't spend all that though on high end machine, and just follows some advice piece meal from online or else where that would now other wise be begging other people to build, or save up and sink massive money on "high-end" OEM rigs
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 5:55:11 PM

Quote:
With a smaller process, a new fab coming online within 2 years and global buying up everybody else, AMD will basically never need to worry about meeting demand.

There's one flaw in your argument - GF isn't going to be sitting around with tons of extra capacity waiting for orders from AMD to show up. They're going to be busy making chips for other customers too. The capacity they have to dedicate to AMD will be limited. That capacity may (and probably will) exceed today's, but there will always be limits.
Quote:
Intel is next, and AMD is going to do the same thing again. Of course intel are huge and they can see it out, but they will lose a large chunk of marketshare and probably a lot of profit in the process.

You mean Intel does not have the power to control pricing in the x86 CPU market?
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:00:22 PM

theholylancer said:
not replacing discreet gfx, replacing the option to have discreet gfx for OEMs and better IGP for OEMs

discreet cards are far far off of being replaced, but OEMs would have no issue with making people buy whole new computers or limit them to a CPU upgrade to get better performance.



we have a winner! OEM's will go this route is they can save 50 cents per unit. want a better pc? they will gladly sell you another one.

m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:01:09 PM

So people like this really exist. I thought it was just a myth. j/k I know what you mean, but I guess I come from a different train of thought. I'm the type of person who if my car breaks down I will fix it or at least know what the problem is before I take it to the shop.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:06:44 PM

Theres been hints of non IGP chips from AMD down the road, and lessor ones as well.

If theres a mix, for certain things, whether its gaming, average Joe, and business, in that order, per IGP perf, this too could be done.
The IGPs seen in fusion are said to be decent, not earthshaking comapred to discrete, but compared to current IGPs, earth shaking.
Possibly 300-400%, which puts it in that "good enough" category.
If they can get current games to run as fast as they do now, but with higher settings, same fps, people will buy these. It could actually increase the discrete sales down the road.
Rumors are coming ijn, GFs 28nm is close, full production 2H this year, meaning 32 is most likely closer than we think as well, which means these solutions arent far off
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:10:28 PM

qurious69ss said:
So people like this really exist. I thought it was just a myth. j/k I know what you mean, but I guess I come from a different train of thought. I'm the type of person who if my car breaks down I will fix it or at least know what the problem is before I take it to the shop.



I think you will find most everyone here in this forum knows a decent amount about computers and of course some have passionate likes/dislikes but none fall into the category of know the problem, research the solution cost, etc. much like yourself. Just have to realize that we are not the target mainstream market. They know their market well and know what drives a purchase. Name recognition, marketing and low cost. Average Joe doesn't know the right questions to ask and suffers later for it.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:11:18 PM

Id also point out, GF is already alot larger than it was, so having a larger capacity is already there
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:12:36 PM

when did you get mod jdj lol??

what i wanted to know is 300-500% enough to drive modern games at 1280*1024 / 1024*768, which seems to be the common resolution is for someone that don't seek out the high end yet still game, and it is a very acceptable res for a IGP to be able to push out 60+ fps on relatively modern games and 40+ fps on modern games.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:13:06 PM

Oh and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone when AMD does GPU on the CPU package that it will utterly embarrass the Clarksdale. Being first isn't always the best thing.
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:17:37 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Id also point out, GF is already alot larger than it was, so having a larger capacity is already there


Last I read Fab 36 or Fab 1 is the only one they have up and running. Fab38 is still in conversion to 300mm.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:19:03 PM

Quote:
Who said anything about selling below cost?

You know fine well that intel are selling cpu's to idiots at WAY above cost. AMD can sell chips at much less and make a profit.

With a smaller process, a new fab coming online within 2 years and global buying up everybody else, AMD will basically never need to worry about meeting demand.

Think about what they did to Nvidia. They couldn't win on perception, they couldn't charge the same prices. So they priced Nvidia out of the market instead. You cannot deny it was an absolute masterstroke and perfectly engineered.

Intel is next, and AMD is going to do the same thing again. Of course intel are huge and they can see it out, but they will lose a large chunk of marketshare and probably a lot of profit in the process.


And AMD and nVidia both relied upon TSMC to fab their GPUs, so they were on a level playing field (unless there were some volume or other deals TSMC made with one party to the exclusion of the other). At the moment, Intel and GF are not at the same level - Intel has at least a year's lead over GF, familiarity with HKMG, and is basically leading the industry (e.g., their push to 450mm wafers).

AMD has already tried cutting prices, and I don't see any significant increase in marketshare.

And let's keep the discussion civil, by not referring to 80% of the CPU customers as "idiots", please. :p  After all, Intel needs to fund their market-leading R&D efforts so that AMD can tag along while denying that they are doing so :sol:  .
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:22:52 PM

roofus said:
Oh and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone when AMD does GPU on the CPU package that it will utterly embarrass the Clarksdale. Being first isn't always the best thing.


No it wouldn't surprise me that it will perform better at graphics but what about cpu tasks? BTW, wasn't fusion suppose to of been out last year? When are they releasing it now?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:23:17 PM

qurious69ss said:
This reminds me of something Bill Gates said in the 80's.

Bill Gates...“640K of memory should be enough for anybody.”


And he was right - for 1980s people! :D 
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:24:40 PM

So, GF hasnt bought any other fabs?
m
0
l
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!