Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Intel price cuts kick ass

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
May 1, 2001 2:31:14 AM

You know why?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/18603.html


Keep those price cuts coming Intel, cause I'm loving AMDs response!

More about : intel price cuts kick ass

May 1, 2001 8:53:55 AM

Me too!
May 1, 2001 9:31:51 AM

Ya I like them too I can get a Athlon cheaper and still be faster then Intel oh that so funny.
Related resources
May 1, 2001 11:47:51 AM

AMDs response? More price cuts? LoL

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 3:33:28 PM

"AMDs response? More price cuts? LoL"

Actually AMD is the one laughing at you and all the other people that bought into there latest publicity stunt to fool consumers.
AMD's latest price cuts are only paper cuts.. a publicity stunt if you will.

Read Here:
Certainly, it's good publicity when AMD gets those 50 per cent price cut headlines, although in reality it appears they are closer to 15-20 per cent.

The AMD price cuts, at least, are no-where near 48 or 50 per cent, even though the Intel P4 price cuts may be.

http://213.219.40.69/30040113.htm
May 1, 2001 7:59:54 PM

First of all I never gave any numbers, so there is no argument there.

How can you speculate like that? "AMD and Intel are both saying that they will cut prices 50%, but only Intel will." Wait and see my friend, wait and see.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 8:27:06 PM

"How can you speculate like that?"

Sorry but there's no speculation here.. nadda, zip, zero. Did you even go to link i posted? There are statements from retailers stating that the AMD price cuts are no where near 50% (more like 20%). On the other hand Intel actually stuck to there word and cut prices 50% on the P4. So, really, its all true. AMD hyped there price cuts while Intel actually delivered.
May 1, 2001 8:30:41 PM

maybe I am seeing things here, but as far as I can tell on price watch, the cost of the Athlon 1.33 has gone up in the last couple of days?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 8:53:59 PM

Do you really expect me to feel taken advantage of by AMD and their so-called publicity stunt? Give me a freakin break! Who cares if it's only a 20% cut instead of 50%? AMD prices stomp Intels even WITHOUT any cuts, so who's the real fool here? I'd say its the herds of Intel loyalists who are even STILL willing to overpay for a lesser product. Yes, Intel deliverd on their 50% price cuts, but they are still way more than AMD's processors. And let me assure you, it wasn't out of any sense of charity to it's customers. It was in reaction to the extreme downturn in sales of the P4 processors this year. They don't have any choice but to drop prices. They need to protect their marketshare. Finally people are starting to wake up to what Intel has been 'delivering' to them for the past year or so...and it hasn't been through the front door if you know what I mean ;-) So Intel brings their prices a little closer to reality. All I can say is congratulations, it's about time!

btw, if you want to talk about publicity stunts and paper releases, lets not forget Intels contributions to this practice. How many months was it after they "released" the 1ghz PIII when it actually became available to the public?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by honus on 05/01/01 05:00 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 9:04:18 PM

To be fair, this is the first time, im aware of, that AMD has announced price cuts and never fully delevired on it. AMD has never done this before.. and I think the reason why is because if AMD cuts prices any more then they already have they will soon go out of business. If Intel keeps applying the pressure AMD will be hurting badly.
Lets watch and see what happens.
May 1, 2001 9:36:51 PM

To be fair? Excuse me but these price cuts have not yet taken place and you are already saying they will not? What else is in that crystal ball of yours?
May 1, 2001 9:50:14 PM

The announced price cuts were for April 30th, 2001. If you are correct in that they have not yet occurred, wouldn't that be substantiating his claim that AMD did not deliver on their promise? If they have indeed occurred, but at less than 50%, wouldn't that also be substantiating his claim of not delivering on their promise?

If I missed something, let me know.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 9:55:31 PM

That is true. It may take some time though for vendors to off-load their current stock of chips. I'm sure they wouldn't be very happy to sell product at a lower price than what they paid Amd.

Edit: Pricewatch has their current best-priced vendor at $191 for the 1.33ghz. Isn't that about what the price cuts called for?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AeroSnoop on 05/01/01 05:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 1, 2001 9:58:00 PM

Could the same be said of vendors selling the P4? It recently underwent a drastic price cut as well.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 10:00:53 PM

Absolutely. I'm not at all saying that Intel didnt deliver on price cuts because it did. But don't say that AMD won't just because you have not seen the cuts yet on the day they were to be. Give it a little time.

For reference see the edit of my last post.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AeroSnoop on 05/01/01 06:02 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 1, 2001 10:21:40 PM

You know the price cuts do not happen the same day. you gotta wait a couple of days for resellers to reflect the changes.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 1, 2001 10:23:15 PM

The top vendors (price-wise) always anticipate price cuts by lowering prices on their current stock before the cuts are made by AMD. Additionally, these price cuts were to have happened yesterday. T-Bird price are now actually going up.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 10:39:46 PM

I really do not understand your reasoning. Sure the price on the 1.33 for that 1 vendor on price went up $7 but what is your point? Aren't vendors entitled to make a few bucks from a sale? If it went up $7 then that means previously they were selling the chips for 1 dollar more than the exact price they were purchased from Amd - the projected $183.

Projected price for 1.2ghz - $157
Price as seen on pricewatch - $152

So please, what is your point?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AeroSnoop on 05/01/01 06:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 1, 2001 10:47:53 PM

My point is that it is not normal for processor prices to be raised by _any_ vendor 24 hours after prices are cut by the manufacturer. It takes a while for prices to actually drop in line with the new manufacturer price level. Prices should not be going up until this level is reached and an equilibrium sets in. Yet we clearly see 4 vendors actually raising prices 24 hours after AMD supposedly cut prices by around 50%. Something is amiss. Either there was no price cut or the cut fell short of AMD's previous anouncement.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 10:55:22 PM

This is utter nonsense. I only see *ONE* vendor on pricewatch raising their price of the 1.33. How many times do I have to repeat that the posted price for for 1.33 was $183, that vendor is selling it for $191, SO WHAT??

A while back there was a post from AmdMeltDown about selling the p4 1.7 for $350. I see it on pricewatch for $384. Does this mean the price cuts did not place? Absolutely not. Of course they did. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this along the exact same lines as what we are now talking about?
May 1, 2001 10:59:26 PM

There are clearly 4 vendors with raised prices for the 1.33GHz on the first page alone.

What I'm now pointing out is that prices should be going down, not up. The vendors likely lowered their prices too much based on incorrect price cut data with which AMD had supplied them. We will have to wait and see on the official numbers.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 11:26:50 PM

well you can reason all you want but i have never seen the prices go down the day before the cut.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 1, 2001 11:32:45 PM

Actually this is common practice. Vendors always lower prices preemptively by as much as 50% of the actual coming price cut. But this is actually the day after the cut. The cut was announced for April 30, 2001.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 11:37:50 PM

Correct, which is what I said ("a couple days after", implying one or two), then you said "No the day before".

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 1, 2001 11:42:31 PM

Prices might take a couple days to reach equilibrium with the new lowered manufacturer prices, but they all slowly go down until that point is reached. They don't go up. (Unless they find out that, whoops, they lowered prices too much in anticipation of a price cut that turned out not to be as much as expected.)

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a c 117 à CPUs
September 4, 2012 3:26:27 PM

q