Print 90 comment(s) - last by rika13.. on Mar 20 at 9:09 AM

Intel turns up the heat against AMD's next-generation architecture even before it launches

AMD is expected to ship its native quad-core desktop CPUs, now dubbed K10, in Q3 2007.  Intel guidance already states the company will accelerate the ongoing price war through Q3 2007 -- a price war that has already taken its toll on AMD and Intel profits

The AMD-Intel price war peaked just after Intel launched its Core 2 Duo architecture; AMD aggressively cut prices on its Athlon 64 products the day after the Intel Core 2 Duo desktop launch. Intel will return the favor just in time for AMD's next-generation processors.

Intel Core 2 Quad
L2 Cache
FSB Q3'07
QX6800 2.93 GHz 8MB 1066 MHz
Q6700 2.66 GHz 8MB 1066 MHz
Q6600 2.40 GHz 8MB 1066 MHz

Intel has scrapped plans for the quad-core 2.13 GHz Core 2 Quad Q6400, but instead added plans for a quad-core 2.66 GHz Q6700.  However, Intel's guidance will cut the price of the Q6600 and the Q6700 dramatically -- Intel will cut the price of the Q6600 to a more discounted price than the Q6400 was ever expected to launch at.

The Q6600, launched last month, sells in quantities of 1000 for $851.  By mid-April Intel guidance suggests this processor will already price down to $530.  The next price cuts, labeled "Q3 2007" will coincide with any launch events for the AMD quad-core products.

In addition, Intel has added a 2.93 GHz quad-core Extreme processor, scheduled for a $999 launch.  The 2.66 GHz quad-core Extreme processor, QX6700, will phase out before Q3 2007, as it is effectively replaced by the Q6700 processor.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Intel pricing
By Oregonian2 on 3/14/2007 11:25:25 AM , Rating: 3
If the Q6600 is only $266, imagine the price of the E6600 dual core!

RE: Intel pricing
By Spivonious on 3/14/2007 11:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Holy crap! Intel must be selling a boatload of these to support that much of a paycut. That, or they must be getting close to 100% yield.

RE: Intel pricing
By retrospooty on 3/14/2007 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 3

The E6540 and E6550 both clock in at 2.33GHz, and the E6750 runs at a slightly higher 2.6GHz.

Pricing for the E6550 is set at $163 and respectively, and the E6750 will come in at $183. Pricing for the lower-end E6540 is yet to be announced.

At the top of the list is the E6850, which keeps to a 65W TDP, but runs at 3GHz, and is priced at a massively competitive $266.

RE: Intel pricing
By retrospooty on 3/14/2007 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 3
I meant to add that these are 1333 mhz bus C2D's as opposed to tdays 1066mhz C2D's.

The E6750 will run at 8x333=2.66ghz for #183. Wholly crap thats cheap. Of course these prices are not confirmed, but if the Q6600 is going to be $266, it cant be too far from truth. Its definitely a good year to upgrade.

RE: Intel pricing
By Crank the Planet on 3/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Intel pricing
By Nightmare225 on 3/14/2007 4:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Scared, or just looking to kick AMD's butt in every way possible? I haven't seen anything from Barcelona yet that will reveal its performance versus the Core architecture. When AMD offers a powerful quad core for less than $300, then I'll consider AMD as trying to take the fight back to Intel. ;)

RE: Intel pricing
By ElJefe69 on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Intel pricing
By zsdersw on 3/14/2007 5:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
no one drops prices when they have the best bang for buck processor and most desired processor in general unless they know how good their competitors chip is going to be.

Not necessarily.

RE: Intel pricing
By ElJefe69 on 3/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Intel pricing
By Xenoterranos on 3/15/2007 1:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
I''m putting that in my sig.

"Also, intel = m$ and its customers = whores"


RE: Intel pricing
By Flunk on 3/15/2007 6:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if he's running Windows, or an Intel Mac? I'll bet you he just called himself a whore without realizeing it.

RE: Intel pricing
By vitul on 3/14/2007 5:19:33 PM , Rating: 3
you sounds more like a AMD nuthugger then a realist. intel fanboys can admit during the p4 stage AMD was better at this point in time AMD is going to be screwed for the next 4-5 years as intel was.

RE: Intel pricing
By zsdersw on 3/14/2007 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 3
Intel is so scared they're wetting their pants. My cousin works for Intel as a high level manager. She tells me what's going on in the company and it's not good. She said it's a no no even to mention AMD's name. That sums it up in one word " FEAR "

The BS-meter is off the scale on that one..

RE: Intel pricing
By kmiller1700 on 3/14/2007 9:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
lol @ BS-meter

RE: Intel pricing
By harleyman1974 on 3/16/2007 2:08:36 AM , Rating: 2

I have a cousin who has and uncle who has a son who knows someone who bought an Intel processor because they are KICKING AMD's butt.

When you have the best product it is very common for a company to fear the weaker. NOT!

AMD ~= 2 generations behind on the 45 NM process + plus they cannot competewith the core architecture. AMD is in the hurt locker. When they file for bankrupt in 3 years maybe I can hang on to some AMD product and sell it on ebay in 15 years as a collector item.

RE: Intel pricing
By TheDoc9 on 3/14/2007 11:38:47 AM , Rating: 1
Or they've got the money to sell for a lower profit margin. Sell prices are in no way related to yield, ect. Intel and AMD seem to be literally at war lately and they have no choice but to cut prices to compete. They must be scared because talking about these types of numbers this early is only meant to draw people away from Barcelona. If they wern't worried about it, they could care less and keep the prices higher for longer.

RE: Intel pricing
By Janooo on 3/14/2007 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 3
They must be scared because talking about these types of numbers this early is only meant to draw people away from Barcelona. If they wern't worried about it, they could care less and keep the prices higher for longer.

You could be right. Maybe Barcelona scares them.

RE: Intel pricing
By TwistyKat on 3/14/2007 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
IMNSHO, Intel is on a mission to pound AMD back to the level of selling knock-offs. They have the resources to do it, and to me it looks like that is what they are trying to do.

RE: Intel pricing
By Xenoterranos on 3/15/2007 1:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding. They're determined come hell of high water. You have to give them this, their stock holders are NOT happy with the price war, but they're doing it anyway. Kinda reminds me of 300 when Xerces (sp?) sends his personal guard agains the Spartans. Everyone's looking right at the Giant (Intel) and looking back at AMD (Spartans) wondering "Will it blend?".
Intel has the resources to crush AMD, question is how long they're willing to drag it out and how far they're willing to go.

RE: Intel pricing
By Thorburn on 3/14/2007 12:03:37 PM , Rating: 3
Sell prices are in no way related to yield

Actually in a way they are, a wafer costs more or less the same to produce regardless of how many IC's you are going to break it down into at the end of the day, and regardless of how many end up being functional.

If yields are poor then you aren't going to be able to pull down the selling price unless you want to sell the chips at a loss.

Ok that would be extreme, but the better your yields the lower the selling price can be pushed while still maintaining a reasonable markup.

RE: Intel pricing
By TomZ on 3/14/2007 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
If yields are poor then you aren't going to be able to pull down the selling price unless you want to sell the chips at a loss.

That would be true for products that sell for small margins. x86 processors have high margins, so we can be sure there is a large gap between cost and sell price. I don't think that Intel will be selling anything at a loss.

RE: Intel pricing
By oTAL on 3/14/2007 2:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
In semiconductor manufacturing the fixed costs (those that do not change whether you produce or not, like facilities, personnel and R&D) ENORMOUSLY outweigh the variable costs (electricity, raw material, shipping).
That results in a situation where a factory should always be producing as close as possible to capacity even if you are selling at a loss (that happens sometimes on commodities like memory). If you would stop producing, your losses would just increase because you would stop amortization on fixed costs and investments.
The cost of actual production of the chips (raw materials and energy costs) are VERY low compared to their final value.

RE: Intel pricing
By MonkeyPaw on 3/14/2007 12:58:06 PM , Rating: 3
It strongly suggests that K10 will be quite powerful. There have to be K10 samples out there, and I don't doubt Intel has one or two of them. In the past few months, Intel has been rumored to move up 45nm, is moving to 1333fsb rapidly, and is now planning a drastic cut on 4C models while scrapping the slower speed bins. Intel knows something--why else would they talk of huge price cuts this early? From the looks of things, I wouldn't buy anything until 3Q07. Such talk can only slow current 4C sales for Intel. Rather puzzling, really, since K10's performance is still largely speculation. We know of the enhancements, but nothing of performance increases, speed grades, pricing, or availability yet.

RE: Intel pricing
By JackPack on 3/14/2007 1:40:25 PM , Rating: 4
Why do people automatically assume it has something to do with K10?

"There's clearly more capacity to build microprocessors than there is demand in 2007, and probably in 2008." - Otellini

Are people aware of AMD's upcoming Fab 38? Or Intel's four 45nm fabs? Or that a fab costs $2 million per day (if not more) in depreciation costs? No matter what, those fabs had better not be underutilized. So, guess what you do when there's excess capacity predicted for 2007/2008?

RE: Intel pricing
By zsdersw on 3/14/2007 5:27:49 PM , Rating: 1
It strongly suggests that K10 will be quite powerful.

To you and whoever else shares that perspective.. but not necessarily because of reality, but more probably because that's what you want it to suggest.

RE: Intel pricing
By MonkeyPaw on 3/14/2007 6:53:24 PM , Rating: 4
Gee, I didn't know it was so obsurd to look at the facts and then speculate. The article doesn't disprove my idea:


The next price cuts, labeled "Q3 2007" will coincide with any launch events for the AMD quad-core products.

My guess is that Intel is readying its Core2 pricing to compete with K10's probable speed grades. Why else would they drop a lower bin? The Q6400 would be a stellar CPU, even in 3-4 months.

RE: Intel pricing
By zsdersw on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Intel pricing
By atomicacid55 on 3/14/2007 12:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Bleh. I spent what.. $350 on my Opteron 170? To think that you can get double of what I got for even less... ughhh.. my computer is totally a piece of sh!t.

But that said, it's funny how a chunk of the world still uses single core. I hate having delays while using other computers and seeing the inability to open firefox while doing AIM or a few other things without a significant slowdown.

RE: Intel pricing
By noxipoo on 3/14/2007 12:48:33 PM , Rating: 5
funny how i open firefox on a celeron while doing AIM or a few other things fine with no significant slowdowns. i guess my single core must have a secret second core, oh how will i live on knowing i only have 1 core. must get more power so outlook runs while AIM is running.

RE: Intel pricing
By TomZ on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Intel pricing
By logan77 on 3/14/2007 6:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Signle core does not suck, repeat after me: DOES NOT SUCK with multitasking. Windows does :) Duron1600+1GB of "slooooow" (what??) memory (DDR) filled up with goodies (2/3 used by apps, the rest by cache). No hiccups whatsoever.

You were saying ? ...

RE: Intel pricing
By ComatoseDelirium on 3/14/2007 1:02:07 PM , Rating: 5
Multitasking fine here on a P4 at 3.6GHZ, its funny how people bought into the marketing of dual core processors to the degree that they think single core processors are designed to run one application at a time.

BTW, maybe the fact that your computer operates like sh*t reflects on you , not the opteron.

RE: Intel pricing
By therealnickdanger on 3/14/2007 3:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
In my defense (as one who "bought into the marketing" of dual-core CPUs) my Conroe beats the living piss out of my 3.0GHz PresHOT when it comes to both fps in games and VC-1 encoding while at a slower clock speed and lower temp! I'm glad I believed all the "hype".

My work PC is a 3.6GHz P4, but we're being upgraded to Clovertown worstations pretty soon. I expect dramatic improvements in rendering speed there too.

RE: Intel pricing
By AstroCreep on 3/14/2007 3:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have an Opty 170 and I spent a decent amount of time tuning it on my LanParty NF4 Ultra.
But once I did it, she's running stable at 3GHz.

RE: Intel pricing
By fenderkb76 on 3/14/2007 5:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ha Ha, that's worth a chuckle, you made my day. I multitask the crap out of my Athlon 64 3200+ Clawhammer with no problem at all. In fact, I'm running Folding at Home in the background at full utilization in addition to Outlook Express, NOD32, and Whisper 32. I couldn't believe believe my eyes when I clicked on Firefox and it magically opened with no delay.....rolls eyes. You hit the nail on the head, most people don't need more than one core for everyday tasks. It does reflect poorly on them. Try stopping all the non-essential Windows services and get back to me.

RE: Intel pricing
By bob661 on 3/14/2007 5:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, maybe the fact that your computer operates like sh*t reflects on you , not the opteron.
Ah, man after my own heart. :)

RE: Intel pricing
By coldpower27 on 3/19/2007 9:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
Single Core with HyperThreading are an intermediate step and can run a decent level of multitasking.

Dual Core will run better because you have 2 cores each running 1 thread so the load is split up.

Single Core can do multiple tasks to a certain degree, but an actual Dual Core can do it better, as can Quad Core over Dual Core.

RE: Intel pricing
By kyleb2112 on 3/14/2007 6:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Do a msconfig on 95% of windows systems and you'll see where their multitasking capacity is going--to service a crapload of unnecessary startups and mallware. It's more a system optimization issue that's crippling the average system than a lack of processor capacity. When people have 32 cores, they'll still be calling us geeks to muck out their systems which have slowed to a crawl.

RE: Intel pricing
By mlambert890 on 3/14/2007 10:01:20 PM , Rating: 4
I honestly do understand all of the people that are disgruntled b/c they are invested in a single core proc and do not yet have the resources to upgrade, but please try to keep emotion out of technology debates.

Its just ridiculous to imply that there is "no need" for more processing power. It seems amazing to even have to debate this. If anything you do is multi-threaded, and complex, you will benefit from a multi processor configuration. None of this is new and to anyone who actually understands computer science and has some years under their belt, these "debates" ring as particularly inane.

So you run AIM, FireFox and "fold" fine. Thats great. That means your configuration works for you. Try video editing, or MPEG encoding, or calculating MASSIVE spreadsheets, or compiling large visual studio projects... Basically try *anything* multi-threaded and then tell me how valuable your time is. Because a multi-proc system simply offers more raw CPU power and will complete threaded tasks faster. Everyone seems to think that this is "new" and software hasnt "caught up". That is only true for game code. Windows and most apps that would need it have been multi-threaded since the original release of the NT kernel.

If you're running great on your current gear, then thats awesome. Never upgrade. But if you find you are ready to upgrade, multi-core processors are now "free" so you'd have to go out of your way to avoid them. Therefore this whole debate is pointless.

RE: Intel pricing
By ComatoseDelirium on 3/15/2007 1:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, well I understand you were replying to the post by "kyleb2112" but to understand the context in which everyone made their points read the post by "atomicacid55" if you did im sure you'd understand that we were trying to make a point about how your computer operates, in relation to your hardware, and your knowledge.

Now on to your post, first off I fully support multicore processors, its the future, and my next upgrade will be to a core duo or a quad. And it makes sense to go with dual core over single core processors with the prices of the CPU market currently. Im not sure where your getting the idea that people are against progress.

Furthermore, your post was rather emotional for trying to keep emotion out of technology debates

And the debate isn't pointless, since their are attitudes and ignorance still prevalent on this site, and in the industry. The debate you called pointless was simply about the fact that a single core processor can multitask and can do it well, and that people shouldn't discount their relatively new and powerful single core processors because something new and shiney comes along, and if it isn't operating up to your standards, maybe thats your fault, not its .

In closing you said this whole debate is pointless, I say your whole post was pointless.

I am an Intel fan...
By Rainman on 3/14/2007 11:52:33 AM , Rating: 5
And 11 out of the last 12 CPUs I have owned are Intel, but I am not so thrilled to see these prices. Intel is clearly trying to put a major hurting on AMD or even put them out of business by taking a hit in profits in the short term for bigger profits in the long term by shutting out AMD.

An Intel monopoly would be a terrible thing for reasons I hope are obvious.

RE: I am an Intel fan...
By hubajube on 3/14/2007 5:47:56 PM , Rating: 1
An Intel monopoly would be a terrible thing for reasons I hope are obvious
AMD and Intel are required to share technology so this won't happen.

RE: I am an Intel fan...
By ElJefe69 on 3/14/2007 7:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
are you like blind or numb or maybe you were catatonic for about 4 years straight? they sold expensive processors that were slower, went on more expensive boards and like, were about 40% more heat wasting.

why be loyal to a company that tries to be a monopoly and pawn off rebadged netburst and leaky crap to people at inflated prices?

RE: I am an Intel fan...
By SquidianLoveGod on 3/14/2007 10:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Because for some people they went with brand recognition, And for some people a Pentium 4/D or Celeron D was all that they required.

RE: I am an Intel fan...
By Thorburn on 3/15/2007 6:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
I ran a Pentium D 805 system overclocked to 4GHz because for what it cost me it offered VERY good value for money, at the time it was by far the cheapest dual core around.
For my university work (3D rendering and subsequently video encoding) dual core gave big performance boosts and Netbursts performance was reasonable, especially once overclocked.

Power usage was high but it ticked all the right boxes for me otherwise.

Things aren't always black and white.

yay price wars!
By mm2587 on 3/14/2007 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
anyone else get a warm fuzzy feeling inside at the thought of a quad core for under $300?

RE: yay price wars!
By Tsuwamono on 3/14/2007 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
i know i do, hopefully barcelona will come out with a lower price then AMD originally wanted to do so that they can compete with Intels pricing. Would be nice to pick up a K10 for 300$ US lol

RE: yay price wars!
By GoatMonkey on 3/14/2007 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds great to me. I've been buying at the low end recently. If that Q6600 is anywhere near as good of an overclocker as the Allendale e4300, it will definitely get my money.

Nice and 45nm coming right after
By hstewarth on 3/14/2007 12:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is nice news to here, because I am planning to build a quad core Intel monster. Very nice pricing and its no wonder that AMD stocks have been tumbing so much - more that 50% in last couple months.

But Intel is ot done with this - its only a begining. 45nm chips are also suppose to be here this year with large cache.

So glad that days of Netburst are over.

RE: Nice and 45nm coming right after
By AllexxisF1 on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Nice and 45nm coming right after
By hstewarth on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
By Thorburn on 3/14/2007 2:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
Do you mean its giving you a PR (performance rating) of 5140MHz?

If so, I believe this is a comparison of the performance of your CPU to a theoretical infinitely clockable and perfectly scaling Pentium.

Its in no way an indication of what speed your processors could run at, 5GHz is what you see from LN2 cooled chips....

RE: Nice and 45nm coming right after
By Ratwar on 3/14/2007 4:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
If AMD is the architecture leader, why are their chips slightly worse clock for clock than Intel's? Now they may retake the lead with Barcelona, but right now, Intel is the leader. I think AMD's approach of better communication is the best idea fundamentally, but at the moment, Intel's huge caches are winning the war.

Anyways, I think Intel still has a few cards left to play before we declare Barcelona to be the best thing since sliced bread. For one thing, Intel has a ton of headroom clock wise. I don't think it is a stretch to say that they could produce 3.2 Ghz stock models if they felt the need, maybe even 3.4 Ghz. Also, Penryn is still out there on the horizon, much like Barcelona was around Conroe's launch, except Penryn will come out around 6 months later rather than a year later.

All that being said, I hope Barcelona is at least competitive with Conroe, so I can pick up a Core 2 Duo cheap. I ain't running a server or encoding video, so I really don't need a Quad core.

RE: Nice and 45nm coming right after
By Ard on 3/14/2007 7:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
So let me get this straight. Having an on-die memory controller is synonymous with a better architecture? But C2D's micro-ops fusion, macro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, etc., etc., etc. mean nothing, right? Good to know I'm surrounded by such knowledgeable ppl.

Ask yourself why Intel would be scared of Barcelona. Barcelona is essentially K8 plus all the improvements Intel incorporated into C2D, minus fusion. All things equal, Barcelona will establish parity with C2D, with the improved memory controller allowing for them to take the lead. Why should that worry Intel when Penryn is right around the corner and Nehalem, which is a completely new architecture, is shortly after that?

By SquidianLoveGod on 3/14/2007 10:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
And the K8 has some "bits" of the K7.
Just like the Pentium Pro to the Pentium 2, Pentium 3, Pentium M, Core 2 etc. IMHO it probably costs less to improve upon an old design than start from scratch.
I agree at the moment the whole On Die memory controller vs Intels large caches and FSB does mean nothing to some people.

What's the strategic value?
By boss coffee on 3/14/2007 11:45:07 AM , Rating: 3
Intel has signaled to investment analysts that the price war will end in 1H2008. Knowing that this current pressure won't drive AMD into bankruptcy, and knowing that the price war is actually hurting Intel's valuation, where is the strategic value? I don't think they're gaining that much ground on the sales side as AMD, while bleeding, is matching prices step for step.

I'm speculating that Intel figured there would be massive corporate contracts to be had this year due to Vista upgrades, but any other thoughts?

RE: What's the strategic value?
By retrospooty on 3/14/2007 11:55:47 AM , Rating: 3
AMD has firmly set a goal of 30% marketshare and Intel is dead set against letting that happen... I dont know how much it help/hurts either company but I am more than happy to reap the low price benefits. =)

RE: What's the strategic value?
By ElJefe69 on 3/14/2007 5:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
yes, this is so. I have forgotten how this was the goal and is happening. There is no reason for an oem to use core 2duo's when you have cheap 64 bit smooth processors from AMD that use cheap and flexible boards. If barcelona can kill quad core intel in gaming benchmarks, it will be devastation in the marketplace. There is such a huge amount of AMD enthusiasts who have been built around the xp-754-939 years of cool running and inexpensive power. I have been considering to purchase a dual core 6600 system, but now I am certain that it is a temporary wave now that the price war is going on. LIke I said above, price wars occur when one company knows that it will not have enough leverage in terms of quality and function and desire for product than another company has. BMW never does a price war! Toyota and ford do.

Aye for sure
By DeadPooL on 3/14/2007 11:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
Man I can retire my Athlon XP 2000 now.

RE: Aye for sure
By Xenoid on 3/14/2007 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
And my XP 2100! God I hate Palominos.

RE: Aye for sure
By SquidianLoveGod on 3/14/2007 10:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
They were awesome in the day :)
I still have My XP 3000+ Which does everything just fine! It may not have been as fast as the Pentium 4 3.06Ghz or 3.2ghz but it was still a good stable platform!

Penryn, Workfield and Yolfdale
By clairvoyant129 on 3/14/2007 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 3
People are acting like Intel doesn't have anything to counter Barcelona. The 65nm Core 2s will be pushed down to the value segment and the 45nm Core 2s will be the mainstream/high end. With the performance boost from high-k, I expect Penryn to frag Barcelona.

RE: Penryn, Workfield and Yolfdale
By sdsdv10 on 3/14/2007 3:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
Penryn, Workfield? and Yolfdale?

Sorry to post this, but I just had to...
It made me laugh...

By crystal clear on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
By cheetah2k on 3/14/2007 9:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
People dont understand that cost cutting is another way to increase thru-put, which actually balances out the cost reduction losses. eg. you might sell 100 CPU's at $100, but then cut costs to $50, and sell 200 CPU's. Revenue is still the same, altho the output is twice as much - but considering Intel's yields on C2D would be in the very high percentile now after refining manufacturing over the last 12-18 months, i doubt cost cuts will hurt them at all.

My question, is why didnt Intel cut the costs sooner? Market share wise, they would have flooded the market increasing their share value, and certainly causing AMD more headaches...

I think this move by Intel is about 6 months too late - A lot of AMD fanboys, considering the move to C2D now, will be waiting for AMD Quad - and thats a market share Intel will have trouble taking - unless Barcelona ends up a very expensive Quad Core frisbee, or delayed till 2Q, 2008.

By cheetah2k on 3/15/2007 1:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
I also think Intel is dangling a carrot in front of the AMD fanboys (like me) as apart of their foot-hold on the CPU market.

Good luck to them. The only people suffering with these price cuts are the share holders right now.

Anyone wanna buy my Intel shares??

By iollmann on 3/15/2007 3:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
I think this move by Intel is about 6 months too late - A lot of AMD fanboys, considering the move to C2D now, will be waiting for AMD Quad - and thats a market share Intel will have trouble taking - unless Barcelona ends up a very expensive Quad Core frisbee, or delayed till 2Q, 2008.

I am skeptical of the importance of fanboys to the market. Sure, they make a lot of noise, but I think if you took them all from both sides, you could probably stuff the lot in a football stadium with room to spare.

rah. rah. go team.

They can cheer and make noise all they want, but do they really spend all that much in aggregate, compared to say the masses of people just trying to get work done?

Over capacity sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. Companies neither want to anger customers by making them wait for supply to become available or leave a ton of product sitting in inventory (which costs money). They use price to adjust demand to fit supply. Happens all the time.

Possibly, this is just fallout from an underwhelming Vista launch, which was expected to drive vigorous hardware upgrade cycle due to its hefty requirements.

My question, is why didnt Intel cut the costs sooner?

Maybe they were just waiting to see if Vista arrived like a lion or a lamb. The data should be in at this point. Usually the simplest explanation is the right one.

By Mitch101 on 3/14/2007 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
My dual core wont even be a year old and I will look to upgrade it with quad. I know the general software wont be able to utilize it but I do a lot of VM's and quad will help.

What is the cost of the Motherboards required for this chip? Any mention to the pricing of what is it Bearlake?

RE: Wow
By Thorburn on 3/14/2007 12:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
1066FSB chips should all work just fine on existing motherboards that can take the current Core 2 Quads/Extremes.

1333FSB chips will need Bearlake for official support but plenty 965 boards will do this speed without breaking a sweat and so should work too.
NF 680i already has 1333FSB support too I believe.

I don't think Intel is scared by Barcelona
By Roy2001 on 3/14/2007 1:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
It is not clear yet whether Barcelona outperforms C2D clock to clock and apperantly at this time 65nm C2D can be clocked higher than 65nm Barcelona.

Intel just won't give AMD any chance.

By cheetah2k on 3/15/2007 1:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
AMD has already proven with the AMD 64 a long time ago that clock for clock speed comparrisons are a waste of time.

What we will be really interested in, is how much we can O/C a Barcelona once it hits the shelves.

By Jammrock on 3/14/2007 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
The Barcelona core must be something special if Intel is slashing prices this much. Should be interesting to see how AMD 4x4 QuadFX runs with FX-grade Barcelonas.

RE: hmmm..
By zsdersw on 3/14/2007 5:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
The Barcelona core must be something special if Intel is slashing prices this much.

No, not necessarily.

Gotta Love Competition
By Ard on 3/14/2007 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like I'll be doing a drop-in upgrade to a Q6600 in a few months. And if she clocks to 3GHz like my current E6600 all will be right with the world.

Price cuts
By restrada on 3/14/2007 3:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is just going to further hurt AMD. $266 is a pretty good darn price point for that kind of performance.

A reminder...
By INeedCache on 3/14/2007 4:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember that this site attracts mainly the geek crowd, and opinions here do not often represent the majority of computer users. For example, many of my customers would love to have an Opty 170 or equivalent, as it would be a significant upgrade over their current. It is not a POS, and for most would still admirably perform all the tasks asked of it. This isn't meant to crack on anyone or flame, but a reminder to simply keep this sort of thing in perspective as the vast majority of computer users still do just fine with single core chips. This will likely change in the future as software morphs to take advantage of dual core and people increasingly multi-task. But for now, most users aren't lining up to upgrade.

By Visual on 3/15/2007 4:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
April's fools joke two weeks early? Or is this thing for real?
Just wow...

It is a bit unusual to announce such a massive price-cut - this will make people not buy the quad-core cpus now as they know to expect them for 1/4 the price soon... but I figure they weren't selling too well anyway. It will also reduce sales of Core 2 Duo I guess, but most importantly it will reduce sales for AMD. Right now AMD's offerings might be considered competitive, or not too much behind at least... and this won't change for almost the whole year. Yet with the promise of these cheap quadcores, every informed customer will prefer to wait out.

This is groundbreaking. Intel wants to bury AMD in the ground, obviously. I can't imagine AMD competing with this, but I hope they find a way to survive.

By Smooth2o on 3/15/2007 8:11:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is only the beginning. Intel will have 4 45nm fabs and they need to stay full. This 30% price cut will happen again soon when 45nm ramps. They have to supply China and India emerging economies, their middle class is growing fast and they can't do that with present pricing. It has to be much lower. Barcelona is not the problem, neither is AMD. The problem is getting everyone to accept QC. Intel is providing instruction and technology on multi core coding to help establish QC and DC as the standard. Obviously, with the price cuts and being able to maintain 50% margins, their mfg doesn't yield many low end parts, you can see that from the OCing on Conroe. Most focus on Barcelona, but that ain't the problem...

who made this price list?
By rika13 on 3/20/2007 9:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
both amd and intel have gains on releasing this list, remember a source released it, but the source is not known

amd: gets breathing room due to osborne effect

intel: kick amd in the ribs while he's down

By Mitch101 on 3/14/2007 12:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
AMD may take back the performance crown but thats the top end its not where the majority purchase CPU's.

One also has to consider if AMD does beat Intel with thier next gen CPU at Stock are they manufactured good enough that the Intel chips wont overclock better to erase any performance gap between the two or possibly reverse the performance differences.

The issue is AMD cant really compete on a manufacturing level like Intel and this keeps AMD profits real low because of it if they are even able to make a profit after seeing these prices. Even if AMD wins the race Intel is winning the war because they are essentially erasing profits from AMD and without profits AMD cant grow they can only maintain or get deeper in dept.

I can only hope AMD brings this into the court room to decide if this also falls under anti-competitive action which was brought upon by Intel's monopolizing the industry over the years. Intel's anti-compete tactics over the years gave them the growth to pull such a stunt today.

It would be nice if someone with deep pockets bought AMD so they could rise to a level allowing them to compete with Intel before AMD can no longer best Intel at a CPU war.

I fear in 5 years time Intel will have reversed anything AMD is able to pull out of its hat to leapfrog Intel in performance and we will be left with only INTEL. No more price wars and expect PC's to cost a fortune because of the lack of competition.

Remember Intel has another chip (Penryn) coming before the end of the year and the crown might just go back to Intel.

The David and Goliath war is on.

By FITCamaro on 3/14/2007 12:04:23 PM , Rating: 1
While I am a fan of AMD, we don't know that yet. Regardless, a 2.66GHz Quad core for $266 is freaking insane. Even if the AMD does perform better, this forces AMD to not be able to sell them at much of a price premium. AMD was probably relying on higher quad core revenues later this year to help make up for the price wars.

I love you AMD but my current E6600 @ 3GHz outperforms you and I don't know if I can pass up a quad core for $266. Can easily overclock that to 3GHz as well and have twice the computing power. Say hello to truly playing Vanguard and ripping/encoding a DVD at the same time(gotta love multiple hard drives).

Intel isn't pulling any punches now. AMD is definitely in trouble unless its quad cores drastically outperform Intel's and come at a cost low enough to get lots of server and OEM business. One thing I think AMD needs to look at is, now that Macs are x86 based, trying to sweet talk Apple into using its chips. Still won't make me buy a Mac, but would give them some much needed revenue. And with them owning ATI, a better integrated platform with a far better GPU.

By FITCamaro on 3/14/2007 12:05:03 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry 2.4GHz quad core for $266. Typo.

By Mitch101 on 3/14/2007 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. My current top 3 machines are AMD. I probably wouldnt have even considered getting a quad this year until I saw that $266.00 price tag and now I have to wonder how can I pass that up.

Also it has a 1066 FSB. I suspect there is some decent overclock room in there as well.

By FITCamaro on 3/14/2007 1:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
With a good motherboard, solid power supply, and DDR2-667 you can easily up the FSB to 1333MHz on any C2D processor. Don't see why it'd be any different with the quad cores.

By Flunk on 3/15/2007 6:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that it's two dies on one chip is rather immateral if it doesn't effect performance (since we don't have any real-world figures it would be silly to argue this point). I think the option to buy a chip that effectively has 2 processors on one chip is good. This way you can choose what you want to buy. It's not as if Intel won't be releaseing native quad cores later on.

Intel's current strategy involves bringing out a core design and then 6-months later releaseing a chip with two distict processor dies on one chip. All Pentium D chips were two dies bolted together as well.

The reason AMD is not doing the same is because their HT bus architecture/AM2 socket are not designed to service two cores on one chip. This is why we have the Quad-FX lineup of products.

By MonkeyPaw on 3/14/2007 1:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, anytime AMD has had the faster CPUs, they've always priced them well above Intel's pricing. X2s were ~$300 and up until Conroe. Now you can get them for $100. I think AMD does cut deeper for its OEMs, though.

By Ard on 3/14/2007 12:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Or it could be Intel simply pressing their foot on AMD's throat because they know they can. With Intel's manufacturing capabilities, they have the ability to lower prices while simultaneously seeing very little hit to their bottom line. Don't assume, as every AMD fanboy does, that Intel is scared of Barcelona. Barcelona will certainly pack a punch but there are still things that it lacks when compared to C2D. What you can assume is that this is a precautionary measure in the run up to Penryn.

Also, your analysis of Intel/AMD is severely flawed. AMD has opened up one new fab (Fab 36) over the last 5 years or so, whereas Intel has announced at least 2 new fabs (1 fab upgraded to 45nm and 1 90nm fab in China) within 2007 alone. They've got 4 45nm fabs in the works as we speak.

AMD's purchase of ATI will arguably be worthwhile in the long run but it cost them billions of dollars and put them further in debt. It's funny you mention that anyone with a clue should be buying AMD but it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Since C2D launched, Intel has easily maintained both the price and the performance advantage. It's only at the extreme low-end that AMD truly becomes competitive thanks to their own price cuts.

But I tell you what, you vote with your wallet and pick up an AMD processor and I'll pick up a Q6600 for $250 in the next 4 months.

By Roy2001 on 3/14/2007 1:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
Those are true before C2D released. Now scene changed.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki