Intel Needs to Drop CPU Price to Meet Ultrabook Goal
PC vendors and manufacturers say that Intel needs to cut CPU prices if it expects them to stay within the sub-$1000 ultrabook price range.
PC vendors and manufacturers are reportedly expressing their concerns about Intel's ultrabook concept and the supposed sub-$1000 price range. The problem, it seems, is that Intel is asking too much for its processors, forcing them to either choose "underpowered" chips or reduce the component specifications to meet the price goal.
According to several reports from DigiTimes, Acer Taiwan president Scott Lin and Compal Electronics president Ray Chen are both asking Intel to provide a subsidy over its CPU prices. If the vendors are forced to choose slower processors or change the system specs, the resulting ultrabook performance will be significantly reduced. Vendors may not be willing to push these sub-par devices thus missing Intel's 40-percent market prediction.
As it stands now, the biggest cost for ultrabook manufacturers is the CPU and the operating system. Next in line are the ultra-thin components like the LCD screen and the solid state drive (SSD). Sources claim that brand vendors are cutting their quotes to notebook ODMs by more than 50-percent to maintain their own profitability because they are unable to reduce component cost.
Unnamed sources have also added that ultrabooks may not catch on despite Intel's push simply because they're 30-percent higher than mainstream notebooks. Students and recent graduates usually grab notebooks priced between $600 and $768 USD, while the working-class citizen typically picks up a notebook for around $830 USD.
Wednesday industry sources pointed out that ultrabooks may still prove to be popular with consumers if they generate good a price/performance ratio and are heavily pushed by both "channel retailers and notebook brand vendors." But if Intel doesn't help manufacturers and vendors by providing subsidies over CPU prices, there might not be much to promote.
As to the AMD Troll bait from Octacon, I'll bite. The below information is from Wikipedia. AMD has five mobile quad core Llano APU's that consume 35-45w of power, priced at $109 and up. Intel has seven mobile quad core CPU's that require require 45-55w of power, the starting price is $378. As a point of reference, the slowest mobile chip Intel makes is 1.2Ghz dual core Celeron, priced at $128.
AMD has quad core laptops for as low as $500, the cheapest Intel quad core laptop is around $800. (google shopping) Your right, AMD needs to make something to compete with Intel.
40%? if they cost more than $500 they most certainly wont get even close to that. With all the money intel makes a year, I think they can afford to make things cheaper for OEMs.
As to the AMD Troll bait from Octacon, I'll bite. The below information is from Wikipedia. AMD has five mobile quad core Llano APU's that consume 35-45w of power, priced at $109 and up. Intel has seven mobile quad core CPU's that require require 45-55w of power, the starting price is $378. As a point of reference, the slowest mobile chip Intel makes is 1.2Ghz dual core Celeron, priced at $128.
AMD has quad core laptops for as low as $500, the cheapest Intel quad core laptop is around $800. (google shopping) Your right, AMD needs to make something to compete with Intel.
but the stupid fanboi willing to pay for the expensive cpu that come with crappy gpu inside, just like the crApple fanboi do
This, most people are thinking of the desktop CPUs that intel has to price for consumers (thus, you get things like the i5 2500k that is amazing price for its performance), its mobile chips have a huge markup because they only bulk sell to laptop manufacturers.
Maybe if we got a standardized laptop framework and motherboard specification we could have a consumer laptop DYI market
This. I'd totally go for an ultrabook with a good Llano in it.
I think that the price listed at least in Europe for acer ultrabook is lower than the macbook air.
Besides, their mobile offerings aren't really that powerful to compete against SB (although to be honest, those who use their laptops for media, internet, office, etc... - general tasks) then Llano is enough for such individuals.
Though I do think that Intel's pricing is extreme as it is.
They overcharge too much money for a small bump in speeds.
I'm sorry but $100 for 0.2 GhZ improvement in speed is way too much.
Heck, even $100 for 0.4GhZ is not what I would call 'value for money'.
Intel can overcharge their items because they are in a position to do so.
If they are meeting resistance, then even better.
I'm not ready to drop insane amounts of money on a cpu that will deliver marginal performance at best while being priced at premium levels because it has certain features I may never even use.
Intel did not pay subsidy, but bribed individuals in companies to NOT sell AMD stuff. as a consequence they sold at big price points the magnificent P4 thing. this was not done in the open but rather in the back alley as it was and still is illegal.
Unless, Intel is placing a double-standard in terms of CPU pricing, with favors going to Apple.
That is why Apple can compete on the price of the macbook air.
Even then the cost of OS has to be factored in overall price. Perhaps it is more like a case of 'production efficiency' ....