I wonder if the nVidia fanboys will now cry that nVidia is childish.

If a 3 piece set with an Atom processor, IGP, and motherboard only costs 25 dollars... why do piece of shit netbooks cost so much money?

What is that over there? Is that a bandwagon? Well I think it is. Hey! I have a great idea. Let's all go jump on it!

Et tu, Bruté?

nvidia is really being stupid on making these bad comments about intel. Chances are that some people will think about what nvidia said and will go running at AMD for help, making it a bigger company and also reinforcing ATI. Why would intel be worrying about lower-end graphics on netbooks? They should be worrying about PC graphics cards and the evergrowing ATI and should make better, heaper cards just as ATI has been doing.

There is this funny little thing some of us like to do and you might benefit from it as well. It's called reading. Turns out it's a fun way of finding and understanding information that's floating all around us today.

I'm quite certain the story says, and I quote, "Intel prices its Atom processor $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away". I think this means they sell to an OEM 3 chips for $25 even though a single chip only costs $45.

Wasn't that fun boys and girls?

Nice Nvidia... fair pricing??? what the heck?
You build two boards. One is faster than the other by your own engineering.
Probably costs 95% the price of the "fast" board and you charge twice as much for the "fast" board...even though it doesn't cost twice as much.

I know..I know..supply/demand. But, is that really fair?
Police yourself first..not to mention your graphics card (high-end) costs as much as an entire computer.

ATI and Nvidia agree on something. So that's 6 seals broken, now for the 7th......

So other companies should not talk about how Intel has hurt their business buy offering anti-competitive oem pricing?

Why don't you read before commenting? In the above article a "three-chip set" clearly refers to Atom with motherboard and IGP.

"Nvidia graphics is because Intel’s atom by itself is more expensive than purchasing a three-chip set (Atom with motherboard and IGP). According to Reuters, Huang says Intel prices its Atom processor $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away."

It wasn't suggested that they sell 3 OEM chips for $25. It was suggested that Intel sells a 3 piece set with the processor, IGP, and motherboard for $25.

You're the one with fucked up reading proficiency, doofus.

Thank you for being the one to say it... I didn't want to have to point it out. I hate flamers.

This has been known for awhile. And we see apologists claiming that this isnt needed on Netbooks anyways, tho Id point out Acers recent editions, which do HD video, and whatll be the next excuse?
Intel needs to quit slowing down potential, tho, nVidia should also do the same, and not hold back DX releases either. Tho in Intels case, its market manipulation, which is more anti-competitive, than what nVidia did.
I hope they sue as well, and this sort of thing stops now

lol, lets give a guy negative votes for thinking systems including a 25 dollar mobo + IGP + processor combos shouldn't cost 300-400 dollars. I was waay off base, amiright?

Back on subject though, if Intel is selling such combos for $25, while selling Atom processors individually for $45, they're obviously abusing their monopolistic position to hurt Nvidia. Which, seems to just be the trend with Intel over the years.

Wow, that HAS to be illegal, I can see getting good savings, i.e Atom for $45 by itself, combo for $50, but selling the combo for LESS than an individual CPU...

Intel's outrageously cheap bundle price of $25 explains why nobody could build a netbook with Atom/Ion and still price it as competitive.

From my understanding and reading a few of these across a few other sites. Intel sells the atom itself for $45, but when bundled with the 2 other supporting chips the atom itself costs $25. So $25+cost of the other 2 chips. Not $25 for all 3 chips. So

Atom $45
Atom$ $25+cost of 2 other chips.

Every time I brought this up, I was shot down, and told no one needs decent IGPs in a netbook. A way of diffusing the real problem, Intels market manipulation.
Now Acer and others are bringing out somewhat decent video playback in their new Netbooks, this no longer works.
Im just wondering, what the excuse will be? Because its Intels chips, they dont have the right to seel them as they may, not when it comes to anti competition, so, all you Intel fans, get over it

Naw i'd expect this from nvidia the company that gets a better card out then ati first that cost 400$ but then when ati comes out with their performer that is similar in performance for 200$ Nvidia follows suit and drops the price down. But they dont seem to loose money so makes me wonder how much of that is profit. But not like i care i just like nvidia more then ATI green is just a better color

I still want an nvidia ion netbook i want to rip it apart in the good curious way.

Maybe nVidia should try this thing called competative pricing instead of complaining. As I recall nVidia has this tendency to have very high initial prices accociated with their products. Remember the days when the gtx280 ran for $650 USD? Had ATI(AMD)'s 4000 series been garbage then the prices no doubt would still be lingering around there.
In this situation I'm not saying Intel is totally innocent but I fail to see how Intel offering a [very] nice offer to oem is a bad thing. Substancially lower oem prices translates to slightly lower prices for the consumer.
If other companies like AMD and nVidia want to sell more then they should produce better products for a lower cost then the competator.

Yep. This is just a side affect of what you were talking about 2 months ago in the forums. All I can say is people be careful what you ask for. I am all for a business decimating their competition on the up and up but Intel sure seems to exist in the "gray" alot of the time.

This pricing structure is just too perfectly done to target and discourage adoption of the ion platform by OEMs. I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't anticompettitive. even if it is just a discount on the chip for the chip, IGP, and motherboard combo, i'm sure the nvidia offering would be higher priced anyway but that discount is nearly 50% and thats pretty big when dealing with large orders from the factory.

I like Intel products but what they are doing is pretty lame...

Heres the problem. Since it 25$, using only Intel, and 45$ if you want to use an nVidia igp, chipset etc, then how are you to compete?

Im tired of companies , especially well established monopoies, that want to hold a segment hostage by making it impossible to compete in that segement. It does nothing for us the consumer. Intel is trying to own a segment, not by offering superior quality, but by limiting the segment itself, and how does that benefit the consumer?

The point is, the Atom was always meant as an integrated platform. The next version of the Atom will have the GPU on-die anyway. There's still a market for hybrid netbooks with both integrated and discrete graphics, but that will be a niche market better served by regular Celeron and Core CPUs.

I think that's wrong. It sounds like just the Atom: $45. Atom + Intel NB + Intel SB = $25.

Question: Is the 3-chip set pre-soldered onto a motherboard, or are they individual? Why not just throw-out the chips you don't want, and basically use just the Atom with a ION? I'd do that just to cost Intel money if for no other reason. Get the chip cheaper, and make Intel waste resources on the two chips you aren't using.

Now we hear that its always meant to be an integrated system, and tho that sounds good, it limits that integration solely to Intel parts thru pricing, which is extremely anti competitive. TRhats the point. Its the point of this article, and its a point I made months ago.
Some people are happy with monopolies, and monopolistic behavior, but it appears many consumers, many countries, and many businesses arent, unless of course, youre the said monopoly

Actually, I like both companies, but I certainly think that if the truth is that you cannot buy an atom processor by itself for less than you can buy the package, they are correct that they are utilizing an UNFAIR business practice in order to shut out competition. There can be absolutely no reason that a single chip should cost more than that same chip packaged with an IGP and north/south bridge. What this does, is hurt the consumer in two ways. It prevents inovation, because of lack of compitition in the chip set/IGP market (cost 9/5 makes it economically unviable). It artificially supports a fixed price that is not set through market/compitition, but by monoplistic practices. I really am looking forward to the Nvidia version of the atom motherboard, because it will improve the atom's performance tremendously. Intel simply cannot defend this pricing structure as anything other than a monopolistic manuever. While Intel is not a monopoly, in this case, it is acting as if it were.

I think this is being misinterpreted. Intel is offering the Atom chipset (NB, SB, IGP) for ~$25, not including the Atom. Actually the chipset ranges from ~$20 for the 945GC and GZ, to ~$40 for the 945GT.

Intel is not reducing the price on the Atom and throwing in a free chipset. Intel can't keep up with demand as it is (they're even contracting TSMC to help meet the demand). Intel has no need to reduce the price. If they did reduce the price of the Atom+chipset to $25, they would make far more money just letting nVidia make the chipsets while they just sold the CPU.

For the $650 price tag for the GTX 280 and if the 4000 series sucked... They then deserve the premium, because they brought the best to the table and can command a higher price. It is supply and demand. If there is only one point of supply, and people demand that supply, the supplier can charge what ever the market will bare. That is business, and that is how it works. It is not anti competitive, it is not monopolistic, and it is not illegal. While it may piss you off and make you feel ripped off, you are free to buy a cheaper model with less performance, get over it baby.
As far as the not seeing a bad side to Intel pricing the Atom + IGP + motherboard at a lower price than the Atom alone, I have to wonder what size your shoes are (in US units), because I think they are larger than your IQ. The first problem is that if they can price it at $25 and obviously make money, that means they are seriously ripping people off who just want the processor, I would say bad for the consumer. If they price the whole chip, IGP and motherboard set for less than the chip alone, this means that other companies which may have better chipsets cannot possibly do what you are asking, for them to produce a low cost alternative, because the Chip already costs more than Intel's entire package, and they still have to provide the IGP and motherboard on top of that higher price. Others have pointed out that the $25 may just be price of the chip, but only if it is bundled, and if this is the case, then that still means they have to produce an IGP and motherboard for $20 less than Intel to be in the same price range. Considering the over all price, that $20 could be 25% to 50% or maybe more of the actual price of the Intel IGP/Motherboard. This makes it basically impossible for the ION platform to get to price parity. Thus your entire argument is completely flawed and I happily tag you as the single least informed person in this threadline.