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.
- Intel,
- ultrabook ,
- Compal-Electronics ,
- Acer-Taiwan ,
- Ray-Chen ,
- ODM
- LaCie's Little Big Disk Has Thunderbolt Interface
- Deals Sept 21: Logitech G510 Gaming Keyboard $69.99
- Micron Updates RealSSD With Self Encryption
- Battlefield 3 Multiplayer Beta Plans, System Requirements
- Thermaltake Releases Overseer RX-I eSports PC Case
- Next Homefront Game Will Be Developed by Crytek
- Gigabyte Sets Record Straight on PCIe 3.0 Support
- Blizzard Begins Closed Beta Testing for Diablo 3
- Gearbox Asks Why You Hated Duke Nukem Forever
- Minecraft Meets World of Warcraft
- OCZ Shows New Synapse Cache 2.5" SATA 6 GB/s SSDs
- Apple Continues Lead in PC Customer Satisfaction Index
- Gartner Says Current Chip Inventory is Way Too High
- Nvidia: Console Software Sales Flat, PC on the Rise
- D-Link Announces DSN-4000 Series iSCSI SAN Arrays
- Diablo 3 May Eventually Get Gamepad Support
- Leo's Out! Meg Whitman Has Been Appointed HP CEO
- Deals September 22: 24" Dell UltraSharp 1080p $339
I thought Intel set aside a fair amount of fund to support ultrabook. I would assume they're providing some sort of subsidy because I'm not going to lie.. Intel CPUs are very expensive.
Maybe is AMD released anything to challenge intel they would lower their prices.
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.
Competition is a good thing, lets hope it comes, let the margins fall
Intel lost $2B in court for subsidizing its CPU cost's to keep AMD out of certain markets, I don't think they will be doing that again no matter how much the manufacturers complain.
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.
I actually think Llano is priced quite competitively, I've seen them in stores as low as $500-$600 and $300 for netbooks. Which is pretty solid considering the Intel laptops coming close to that price offer terrible graphic performance since they usually don't have a dedicated card. Plus they offer pretty decent performance. Also Llano's TDP gives it a fair advantage in both netbook performance and power consumption.
I thought Intel set aside a fair amount of fund to support ultrabook. I would assume they're providing some sort of subsidy because I'm not going to lie.. Intel CPUs are very expensive.
but the stupid fanboi willing to pay for the expensive cpu that come with crappy gpu inside, just like the crApple fanboi do
Intel lost $2B in court for subsidizing its CPU cost's to keep AMD out of certain markets, I don't think they will be doing that again no matter how much the manufacturers complain. 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.
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
If Intel wants this to succeed so much, then they should be willing to make a few concessions themselves. Otherwise, I hope they meet resistance at every angle.
Wait.... Apple is able to do an "ultrabook" at 1000.00 for their low-end thin & light laptop. With Intel top tier pricing, but that's what other PC manufacturers get too. Am I missing a point? why can't ACER doit?
Use AMD processors.
Intel Needs to Drop CPU Price to Meet Ultrabook Goal? NO!!! Intel need's to discontinue it!!! It is just a expensive MacBook Air copying...
Use AMD processors.
This. I'd totally go for an ultrabook with a good Llano in it.
What makes ultra books ultra is the fact that they are a novelty item that few people have. Make them expensive as hell, and very nice. Over price them, and sell them to a few professionals. Let them pay for the development costs, and then when they figure out the manufacturing process, and as demand kicks in then you get the $1000 Ultrabooks after 2-3 years. It simply cant happen out the gate if you want quality.
The prices will go down when AMD chips will kick in the ultrabook market with Trinity APU's, so why all the Intel hype?
Wait.... Apple is able to do an "ultrabook" at 1000.00 for their low-end thin & light laptop. With Intel top tier pricing, but that's what other PC manufacturers get too. Am I missing a point? why can't ACER doit?
I think that the price listed at least in Europe for acer ultrabook is lower than the macbook air.
Problem with AMD is that adoption in the consumer market (when it comes to the notebook segment) is not exactly stellar.
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 lost $2B in court for subsidizing its CPU cost's to keep AMD out of certain markets, I don't think they will be doing that again no matter how much the manufacturers complain.
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.
I'm having a tough time comprehending this. If Apple, with their markup, can build a MacBook Air for under $1000 then I fail to see how OEMs cannot.
Unless, Intel is placing a double-standard in terms of CPU pricing, with favors going to Apple.
Apple has it's own OS, as stated in the article the OS is the second most costly component of the build.
That is why Apple can compete on the price of the macbook air.
@american
Even then the cost of OS has to be factored in overall price. Perhaps it is more like a case of 'production efficiency' ....
Intel lost $2B in court for subsidizing its CPU cost's to keep AMD out of certain markets, I don't think they will be doing that again .
If Intel charged a sensible price for their CPU in the first place they wouldn't need to subsidise it.
[citation]As it stands now, the biggest cost for ultrabook manufacturers is the CPU and the operating system. [/citation]
as for the OS, give consumers the choice, windows, linux or none, I know what i'd opt for
Intel makes some wonderful and very capable processors, but like it or not they are a little overpriced
Intel thinking about making less money in favor of the people? That defies logic! It's almost unthinkable! /sarcasm
The ultrabook concept is just another way to monopolize a new market, since they no longer can compete in the netbook and cheap notebook arena thanks to the E series and A series from AMD. These vendors are better off asking AMD for chips and let Intel (shareholders, actually) rot in their own greed.
Cheers!
Better just stick with AMD then, PC manufacturers. It's the only way to salvation.
overpriced ? get a intel cpu and a knife... the price over intel processors is a pain in the a$$
Wait.... Apple is able to do an "ultrabook" at 1000.00 for their low-end thin & light laptop. With Intel top tier pricing, but that's what other PC manufacturers get too. Am I missing a point? why can't ACER doit?
Apple is very close to intel's heart
Use 2 Low TDP High Performance Processors From AMD in one ultra book. We have manage to SLI and Cross Fire stuff, why are they not trying to increase performance by using 2 Processors for the usual or common market.
Why are other companies trying it out and making big farms for rent to others.
Hahaha, Acer should totally just say to Intel, okay, we'll make an ultrabook...with Llano inside! That would totally meet the price goal and performance goal, even with gaming.
If they're too greedy to drop prices for everyone, maybe they should do some sort of loyalty card that rewards discounts on future purchases.
Larry Ellison of Oracle said Sun x86 servers will be dropped because all the margins are going to Intel and Microsoft. So why work your tail off to benefit those 2 other guys.