Skip to main content

Intel Needs to Drop CPU Price to Meet Ultrabook Goal

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.

  • wintermint
    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.
    Reply
  • bustapr
    Vendors may not be willing to push these sub-par devices thus missing Intel's 40-percent market prediction.

    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.
    Reply
  • JAYDEEJOHN
    Competition is a good thing, lets hope it comes, let the margins fall
    Reply
  • dalethepcman
    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.
    Reply
  • aznshinobi
    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.
    Reply
  • sonofliberty08
    wintermintI 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
    Reply
  • zanny
    dalethepcmanIntel 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 :P
    Reply
  • Darkerson
    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.
    Reply
  • mikeasaurus
    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?
    Reply
  • digiex
    Use AMD processors.
    Reply