Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs. Intel - Chip Cost...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 16, 2002 7:31:45 PM

OK We have all discussed how Intel and AMD have it's advantages. We all know who is better per price per preformance. But what we don't know is how much does it cost to make a chip. AMD claims that it has the smallest die so it has a cost advantage. Intel claims that it's 300mm process gives them more advantage. Who is right? To clear up some of the questions read <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-914985.html?tag=fd_lede" target="_new">this</A>.

From reading the article on C-Net, it looks like they are both even on costs. And it's also true that the cost of making the chip is very small compare to the price that it's being sold.

So if they cost the same then intel Makes more money per chip then AMD does. Intel also have more overhead then AMD does since it has lot more employees. But what do you think the advantage will be when Prescott and Hammer on SOI comes out. Since the SOI wafer costs more wouldn't it be cost AMD to more to make Hammer therfore the Hammer will be expensive then Current Top preformance Athlon XP.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.

More about : amd intel chip cost

May 16, 2002 7:50:14 PM

Quote:
therfore the Hammer will be expensive then Current Top preformance Athlon XP.


I remember saying that a few times and being laughed at :tongue:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2002 8:27:18 PM

300mm and .13u Intel is getting more than 50% better yealds and p4's are still at a premium.

Why are we stil paying $15 - $16 bucks (still cost more than tapes) for music cds when they cost penneys to make .

Intel: <i>"Thoroughbred just a die shrink - will only help with frequency, not performance." <i>
Related resources
May 16, 2002 9:10:15 PM

I don't know who laughed at you but this is how I see it. Current Athlon cost about ~$22 to make on 200mm wafer. Wafer for SOI will cost about 2-3 times more but it will also have a die shrink which will get ~50% more chips per wafer. I don't know if the $22 dollers cost is also including .13u die shrink for Athlon XP. Anyways the 2-3 times more for wafer don't justify the 50% more chips per wafer.

No wonder there are many companies converting to 300mm rather then using SOI.

KG



"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 16, 2002 9:19:57 PM

I remember Matisaro, Eden and AMD_Man all saying that Hammer will be just barely above current Athlons in cost.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2002 9:31:08 PM

I still believe that will be the case. Didn't the Athlon XP 2100+ originally sell for $400 USD for the first couple of weeks?

I'd guess that the ClawHammer will sell for that range as well, maybe a bit higher.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 16, 2002 9:57:16 PM

Quote:
Why are we stil paying $15 - $16 bucks (still cost more than tapes) for music cds when they cost penneys to make.

I don't know, maybe royalties to the musicians have something to do with it?? :) 

Ritesh
May 16, 2002 9:57:54 PM

No, it was a pure lie by Anandtech. When theycame out, Canada had them at 415$, very very nice, nowhere near the 600$ some said.
Of course I could not say it will cost near 400$ CDN, CH will be around 600$ at most, but 900$+ like high end P4s? I don't think so! That'd pretty much destroy AMD's reputation AND if the chip won't have significant boost from the top end P4 then, it won't sell much.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 16, 2002 10:02:10 PM

I don't remember them saying that, but then, I have held to AMD's own statements that Hammer will be competitive price wise to chips of similar performance. So, yes, Hammer will likely be more expensive than AthlonXP. But it will likely have similar pricing to the higher speed grade P4's.

Currently the highest priced Athlons (desktop) seem to be selling around $250 less than the highest priced P4's. P4 currently outperforms Athlon so that is partly why. Hammer will allow AMD to reenter the higher price echelons.. $400-$600 range, where they have been a bit absent of late.

At the same time, Athlon prices can continue to decrease since Athlon is being remarketed as AMD's budget chip ($50-$125 range)

I expect we'll see Hammers ranging from around $175 for the entry grades to $500 or $600 for the top grade Hammers.

Chances are the price will pull into a tighter price range after the first 6 months.

The biggest benefit in this is Hammer should help raise AMD's ASP's much closer to INTC's. Intel currently has ASP's around $150 I believe, compared to AMD's $90 range.

So of course, Hammer will be higher priced than Athlon is currently, but I doubt it will intro as high as the higher speed grade Athlons did in Athlon's 1st year (where the top speed sometimes pulled in $600, $700 and higher prices)

As for actual costs, Hammer is a larger die than Athlon is at the same process and the SOI wafers cost something like $2 more each. So, Hammer will be more expensive to produce at .13 than Athlon is/will be. However, Hammer will be no more expensive to produce, I suspect, than Athlon is at the .18 micron process. Since Hammer will command prices roughly twice those of the Athlon, the higher production costs should be more than offset by the higher prices it will command.



Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2002 10:10:11 PM

I predict that the average price on Pricewatch for the highest Clawhammer two weeks after release will be $500-800 US.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2002 10:22:59 PM

There is also the cost of the IHS on the P4, I am very surprised that AMD declined to use it on the Tbred, what a shame as thousands of gimps will crush the core by years end. Granted it would have added a few cents on the cost of mfg but protecting the customers investment is not priority from AMD, anything to get cheaper is.

Intel boasts spending billions in R&D, this also is factored into the P4 coast.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
May 16, 2002 10:25:59 PM

Two questions....

First of all, if Intel is braging about how cheeply they can make their chips, why aren't they selling them for cheeper?

Secondly, what is SOI? I hear a bunch of talk about how expensive it is, but what is it and what is it suposed to improve?

Fleedip 2002, Microsoft's answer to bugs.
May 16, 2002 10:55:44 PM

1. Last I check AMD was bragging about how small their Die was compare to Intel which makes them cost effictive. But it looks like from Hammer and after Intel and AMD probably spend same to produce their processr eventhough Hammer's die size will be much smaller then AMD's.

2. SOI stands Silicon on Insulator. I don't know that much about if but from what I know if is suppose to reduce Heat and allow higher frequency. It kind of add a layer in between transitors on the processor to obsorb heat. AMD is planning to use this technology on Hammer. This tech was developed by IBM. More and more companies are getting away from this technology because of cost.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 16, 2002 11:00:02 PM

Hammer will also have IHS. Finally AMD is doing something to resolve the heat issue. It will also implement some other heat protection like P4.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 16, 2002 11:03:01 PM

Odd, you should have known SOI being a forum resident since!

Someone should provide you a link anytime, but the thing basically is Silicon On Insulator. Bottom line it reduces heat, allows much higher clock speeds, a bit as a core shrink, but since the transistors flash faster, thus higher MHZ.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 16, 2002 11:04:58 PM

Well I would also see prices around 400-500$. But if they went to 800$, I think nobody would care to buy such chips, it's too expensive, and add the mobo to it, it'd be something weird, more expensive than Intel.
I doubt anybody in Canada would ever opt for a chip around 1300$ CDN, and I just don't want the 1000$+ times to ever come back. 400-600$ CDN is ok, but yeah, go lower for us money savers.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 16, 2002 11:20:29 PM

Hey, it happens, and I'd rather ask people what it is than make some assumption and find out I was way off.

Now that you all mention it, I think I have heard of it, but that was some other news story about it's developement in hopes of reducing heat of CPUs.

Die shrink + SOI should mean for even better thermal properties of the T-bread idealy. We'll see soon enough if that holds.

Thanks for the info everyone.



Fleedip 2002, Microsoft's answer to bugs.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bront on 05/16/02 06:21 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 16, 2002 11:23:25 PM

No prob...
But SOI is mainly going towards Hammer, not Barton just so you know. However yeah it woulda been interesting to see K7 core chips use it.
At least Hammer is jam-packed with heat reducing, MHZ pumping features!

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 16, 2002 11:24:10 PM

Quote:
<i>kemche says:</i>
Hammer will also have IHS. Finally AMD is doing something to resolve the heat issue.

There are two reasons why I think AMD doesn't <i>need</i> an IHS:

1. The Athlon runs cooler than a similar P4.

2. The IHS has been shown to actually increase temps in at least one case (I've linked to it a couple times, people seem to ignore it when I do).

The reasons that it would be nice for AMD to include an IHS are:

1. Because it looks spiffy.

2. It protects the core.

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
it'd be something weird, more expensive than Intel.

More expensive than Intel's current 32-bit processors, you mean.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 05/16/02 04:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 16, 2002 11:28:13 PM

Ah Fatty, you and your right but twisted corrective words...

Also how do you reply to my post, and quote Bront at the same time? You press Back each time so you pack it all?

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 16, 2002 11:37:03 PM

Quote:
Hammer will also have IHS. Finally AMD is doing something to resolve the heat issue. It will also implement some other heat protection like P4.


K6 had an IHS, I believe. The IHS tended to interfere with heat dissipation so AMD opted to remove it for Athlon. Hammer will once again have the IHS.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2002 11:41:56 PM

Quote:
1. Last I check AMD was bragging about how small their Die was compare to Intel which makes them cost effictive. But it looks like from Hammer and after Intel and AMD probably spend same to produce their processr eventhough Hammer's die size will be much smaller then AMD's.


Well, the cost per wafer of candidates (8 inch wafer) will be similar. Where AMD may have an advantage is in the higher percentage of salable candidates. Since AMD has on very modern FAB rather than many fabs scattered around the world for CPU production, they can tweak the process much more, I suspect, and thus attain higher overall yields per wafer and thus slightly lower costs. Even a couple percentages of higher yield of candidates can make a nice difference on the bottom line.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2002 11:44:59 PM

Quote:
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bront says:
Hammer will also have IHS. Finally AMD is doing something to resolve the heat issue.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

I said that?

Quote:
2. The IHS has been shown to actually increase temps in at least one case (I've linked to it a couple times, people seem to ignore it when I do).

I'd love to see that case, feel free to provide linkage. I'm not denying it's real, I've just never seen it before and don't feel like searching through all your old posts :wink:

Fleedip 2002, Microsoft's answer to bugs.
May 16, 2002 11:46:08 PM

Quote:
Also how do you reply to my post, and quote Bront at the same time? You press Back each time so you pack it all

Probably multiple browser windows and/or notepad.

Fleedip 2002, Microsoft's answer to bugs.
May 16, 2002 11:46:25 PM

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
Ah Fatty, you and your right but twisted corrective words...

I'm not sure what you mean...?

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
Also how do you reply to my post, and quote Bront at the same time? You press Back each time so you pack it all?

Yes, I like that method better than having separate replies for each post. Helps keep the thread smaller and more concise.

Quote:
<i>Bront says:</i>
I said that?

Oops :redface:

Quote:
<i>Bront says:</i>
I'd love to see that case, feel free to provide linkage.

Let me find it, I'll edit this post once I do.

Quote:
<i>Bront also says:</i>
Probably multiple browser windows and/or notepad.

I've used notepad a couple of times when I replied to a dozen or so people at once, but I don't normally. Just copy/paste into the next reply window.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 05/16/02 04:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 16, 2002 11:52:53 PM

Quote:
1. The Athlon runs cooler than a similar P4.

Do you have a link to support this, using the *thermal diode* on the AXP? Most Athlon temperatures are not measured using the thermal diode, so they're pretty meaningless and not to be trusted when compared against temperatures recorded on P4 systems. They have to be apples to apples. I could be wrong, but you'll probably find that the Northwood runs cooler than the AXP on this correct basis.

Ritesh
May 17, 2002 12:03:49 AM

I'm talking about .13 P4 vs. .13 Athlon, or .18 P4 vs. .18 Athlon. That's what I meant by "similar" (as well as similar conditions). Sorry if that wasn't clear.


Bront, couldn't find that link again. I'll try looking again tomorrow morning.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 17, 2002 12:25:48 AM

Oh, thought you meant similar clock speed. :o )
May 17, 2002 2:14:32 AM

I thought that was the point? I mean if we took a Willy 1.8GHZ and an AXP 2200.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 17, 2002 2:15:16 AM

I had meant the way you just used word tricks with your "pay higher for something that isn't just 32-bit"... anyway forget it.

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 17, 2002 3:50:16 AM

I partly agree with you. Ya it will be much higher but i'll say between 300 - 500 bucks for the first 2 chip speeds respectivly that comes out. AMD still has to compete with Intel and AMD needs people to purchase the chips and gain reputation. So i think AMD will double the price of the current Athlon. That should double there profits and at the same time gain respect hopefully.

of course thats just my opinion.



<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 17, 2002 5:34:02 AM

While I'm thinking about it, I should mention that I'm only talking about Clawhammer specifically with these prices, not Sledgehammer in any way.
I think Sledgehammer will be a decent amount more expensive.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 17, 2002 8:58:34 AM

Quote:
I remember saying that a few times and being laughed at

Hes not taking into account the fact that the only additional cost for soi is the wafer cost, and that makes up a small fraction of the final cost to produce, therefore while the hammer will cost amd more to make, it wont be tons more and the prices will be able to remain the same as the athlon without any losses.


Amd has stated the hammer will fill athlons current pricerange, why the hell is everyone having such a hard time believing it, has amd EVER sold things for an unfair price??

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 17, 2002 8:59:57 AM

Quote:
Wafer for SOI will cost about 2-3 times more but it will also have a die shrink which will get ~50% more chips per wafer. I don't know if the $22 dollers cost is also including .13u die shrink for Athlon XP. Anyways the 2-3 times more for wafer don't justify the 50% more chips per wafer.

SOi athlons will NOT COST 2-3X TIMES MORE TO MAKE!!!

Also they will have die shrunk athlons on no soi wafers, a die shrink and soi are two seperate things!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 17, 2002 9:01:33 AM

Quote:
No wonder there are many companies converting to 300mm rather then using SOI.



Soi increases PERFORMANCE, 300mm increases die per wafer, they are two TOTALLY seperate upgrade paths, and companies dont choose one over the other.

Your post sounds like you threw a bunch of industry buzzwords together and tried to make a point, im sorry but your misinformed on what those advancements do and their competitive value in relation to eachother.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 17, 2002 9:06:24 AM

Fatburger, the p4 northwood @2.2ghz was selling for like 1000+ on pricewatch in its first week, come on man, pricewatch the first week is a cutthroat buisness.

The hammer will OBVIOUSLY cost more for the top end, it will be

Less than the equavalent p4
and the lower grade hammers will fit in with athlon pricing.

AMD has NEVER overcharged on their processors and ALWAYS have been priced under intel, EVEN when they were winning the performance race. Hammer will not change that and thats what I mean when I say amd will maintain athlon type pricing on its chips.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 17, 2002 9:07:34 AM

Don't worry bront, it happens the same to me. A lot of SOI heard but nothing clear. Until one day, reading a treat, I found this link:

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/articles/soi/

It's everything you need to know, easy to understand. Just tell you this link was given by Mr_gobbledegook in a previous treat (thanks to you!)

Hope I help you.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
May 17, 2002 12:04:17 PM

Yes, that was the link I was mostly expecting to come up. gobbledook had found a very detailed and neat article, and if this one won't get you knowing SOI, nothing will!

--
Luke, I am your father...but due to a bacon-slicing accident, your mother... :lol: 
May 17, 2002 4:19:39 PM

Yes I know the difference between SOI and 300mm wafers. The reason I said the more companies will be using 300mm wafers then SOI wafers is because of cost. Most likely both wafers cost the same. But only thing about the SOI wafer is they only come in 200mm. So if they move to 300mm wafer the cost can be justified by getting more chips out of the wafer. But with the SOI wafer you will still get the same number of chips so there is no way you can recover the cost of more expensive wafer other then raising the price of your product.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 17, 2002 4:23:41 PM

Quote:
AMD has NEVER overcharged on their processors and ALWAYS have been priced under intel, EVEN when they were winning the performance race.


I don't want to start a flame or anything but the only thing I can say about it is that they have to charge less or otherwise they wouldn't sell as many. if you give a choice to a normal customer between Intel and AMD with same price and preformance. The normal customer will choose Intel. And that's why they HAVE to sell it cheap.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 17, 2002 4:24:21 PM

Quote:
pricewatch the first week is a cutthroat buisness


Which is exactly why I specified two weeks after release.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 17, 2002 5:51:27 PM

Quote:
Which is exactly why I specified two weeks after release.

Even 2 weeks after release is pretty steep. I'd make that a month. Heh heh. :) 

<pre><font color=blue>SYNTAX ERROR
<font color=red>SYS 64738</font color=red>
...
<font color=red>No error now!</font color=red>
</font color=blue></pre><p>
May 17, 2002 6:15:26 PM

yeah anyone will tell you price cut completion between companies are no-good-business
May 17, 2002 6:21:05 PM

Two weeks after release is what most people used when Northwood was first released. I figured I'd keep it the same.

And BTW, I don't mean two weeks after the announcement, but two weeks after the first one shows up in stock on PriceWatch.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 17, 2002 7:01:41 PM

Quote:
And BTW, I don't mean two weeks after the announcement, but two weeks after the first one shows up in stock on PriceWatch.

Heh heh. Which will be like four to six weeks after it shows up on PriceWatch as 'expected to ship in...' ;) 

I wonder how much they'll go for on eBay. Damn. I should set up an account to start selling off pictures of it around then. It's amazing how many people don't actually read the product descriptions...


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
May 17, 2002 7:32:17 PM

No kidding. Maybe you can get an actual hammer and woodburn "AMD" in the handle and sell it off. Sell two at a time and call it a dually system.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 17, 2002 8:16:37 PM

Actualy, if the product is more resistant to heat and damage you may get fewer RMAs out of it, leading to ultimately a better profit margin. Also, the % Yield may be better on SOI, but who knows.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
May 17, 2002 8:49:44 PM

Actually the % Yield is lower on SOI then just regular COMS wafer. I don't know where I read it but I will try to find the link.

KG

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
May 17, 2002 9:29:49 PM

Quote:
Most likely both wafers cost the same. But only thing about the SOI wafer is they only come in 200mm.



not true


Quote:
if they move to 300mm wafer the cost can be justified by getting more chips out of the wafer. But with the SOI wafer you will still get the same number of chips so there is no way you can recover the cost of more expensive wafer other then raising the price of your product.


the chips off soi run faster thus have a higher yield thus can be sold for more, your logic is basically flawwed, soi OR 300 mm is not a choice companies have to make, its not one or the other, and they both affect the bottom line and chip function differently.




:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
!