backtop

Hardware Intel Cuts Prices, Introduces New Models
Jansen Ng (Blog) - January 19, 2009 8:15 AM
Print 75 comment(s) - last by Vidmar.. on Jan 26 at 2:51 PM
New lower power models are pricey

Intel has announced price cuts for some of its Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo, Pentium Dual Core, Celeron, and Xeon products. It has also announced several new Core 2 Quad CPUs with a 65W TDP.

We have listed only the models that are new or have dropped in price. New products are noted. All pricing is based on OEM purchasing of 1000 units in a non-retail tray format.
  

 Intel Core 2 Quad

Model

Clock Speed

L2 Cache

FSB

TDP

Price   

     Change

Q9650

3.00 GHz

12MB

1333 MHz

95W

$316

-40%

Q9550s

2.83 GHz

12MB

1333 MHz

65W

$369

NEW

Q9550

2.83 GHz

12MB

1333 MHz

95W

$266

-16%

Q9400s

2.66 GHz

6MB

1333 MHz

65W

$320

NEW

Q9400

2.66 GHz

6MB

1333 MHz

95W

$213

-20%

Q8300

2.50 GHz

4MB

1333 MHz

95W

$183

-18%

Q8200s

2.33 GHz

4MB

1333 MHz

65W

$245

NEW

Q8200

2.33 GHz

4MB

1333 MHz

95W

$163

-16%

Intel has launched three new Core 2 Quad processors with a TDP of  65W. All other Core 2 Quads have a 95W TDP. The price premium for the Q8200s, Q9400s, and Q9550s is an incredible $82, $107, and $103 respectively over the 95W models.

 

 Intel Core 2 Duo

Model

Clock Speed

L2 Cache

FSB

Price

Change

E7500

2.93 GHz

3MB

1066 MHz

$133

NEW

E7400

2.80 GHz

3MB

1066 MHz

$113

-15%

  One new model Core 2 Duo is introduced, while the E7400 drops slightly lower.

 

 Intel Pentium Dual Core

Model

Clock Speed

L2 Cache

FSB

Price

Change

E5400

2.80 GHz

2MB

800 MHz

$84

NEW

E5300

2.60 GHz

2MB

800 MHz

$74

-14%

E5200

2.50 GHz

2MB

800 MHz

$64

-24%

E2200

2.40 GHz

1MB

800 MHz

$64

-14%

Intel introduced a new Pentium Dual Core, the new E5400 at $84. The rest of this budget series drops even lower.

  

 Intel Xeon Server (LGA775)

Model

Clock Speed

L2 Cache

FSB

Price

Change

X3370

3.00 GHz

12MB

1333 MHz

$316

-40%

X3360

2.83 GHz

12MB

1333 MHz

$266

-16%

X3350

2.66 GHz

12MB

1333 MHz

$266

-16%

X3330

2.66 GHz

6MB

1333 MHz

$224

-16%

  No new Xeon products, just price drops.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Aimed at AMD PH2
By Slappi on 1/19/2009 8:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is gonna hurt a little.




RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By cochy on 1/19/2009 9:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
You realize they released their next gen CPU, Core i7 a couple months ago already?

How are they "holding up CPU progression"?

Actually, that's a rhetorical question. They aren't.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By TomZ on 1/19/2009 3:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Charging a bit more for a better performing part is the norm for this industry, not the exception. Your conspiracy theory has no merit IMO.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By BSMonitor on 1/19/2009 5:20:08 PM , Rating: 5
So what is your point about playing to the competition? What world do you live in? You walk into your car dealership 8 months ago and get $2000 rebate on a 2009 Truck. The next day GM announces sales are down and annouces an $8000 rebate on the same model. 2010's aren't even in the picture. This happens all the time as companies try to move stock.

As for the competition, yeah what GM does, so does Ford, Toyota, etc... But do you think for a second that if Toyota thought that it could sell its comparible model for a $0 rebate, that it would just offer an $8000 rebate to you to be nice?? Or because the other guy did? Think again genius.

They price these things to sell. Clearly people were buying enough $550 Q9650's to keep the price at that level. Not to mention it allows Intel to build up stock on a higher clocked part in order to meet demand if the competition did release a comparible part.

The name of the game is make money. Not kiss Sandman's butt.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By Reclaimer77 on 1/20/2009 8:39:15 AM , Rating: 5
You know Sand, one thing is clear from reading all your rants on this.

You have NO idea how CPU's are made. ALL CPU's are "binned" from the wafer because manufacturing processes are not accurate enough to result in all chips having the same quality, speed, and power consumption across the board.

Where do you think the Extreme Editions come from, moron ? Do you think they set out to make an entire wafer of Extreme Editions ? No. Extreme Editions come from the bin just like every other CPU. They just happen to be the ones that test out the very best.

If your argument is that this price drop is a bad thing because people might buy CPU's that don't overclock as well.. then uhh, duh ? You ALWAYS have a chance of getting a CPU that might not overclock as good as someone else with the same exact model. Because of said manufacturing factors.

Besides, when has Intel, or AMD for that matter, came out and said you have a right or guarantee of good OC'ing ? All they are responsible for is that the chip will run at its rated speed and voltages. They are NOT responsible for your overclocking experience.

quote:
The name of the game should be kiss the consumers butt or else. Otherwise there are other options on the table.


Classy. real classy.

They are dropping prices on YEAR OLD CPU's that still beat their competitors NEWEST CPU. If that's not catering to the customer then I don't know what more you want.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By Reclaimer77 on 1/20/2009 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Who said they were ?

It was an example meant to educate you. But as usual, you have missed mine and everyone else's point.

Are you being ignorant purposely ? Or do you really hate Intel that much ? Either way, it would be nice if you would get a clue.

quote:
The OC'er got screwed and you are too stupid to realize it.


Assuming you are right, by the way do you have any reviews on the chips to confirm they OC poorly ? Assuming they do, again, where is it Intel or AMD's responsibility to make sure their chips OC well ?

If your argument was they couldn't run at rated speeds and volts, then you would have something. But they do and will.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By Reclaimer77 on 1/20/2009 3:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
You know what, here you freaking idiot. Since you are too stubborn to see how stupid your argument sounds. Read this.

http://www.sudhian.com/index.php?/articles/show/Pr...

But because I know you won't, I'll paste whats relevant to this discussion.

quote:
Wafers that pass as a whole are then cut up into the individual processors. From the initial testing, ones that are known to be dead are tossed aside. Then each die is attached to it's packaging, which allows it to seat and interact with the motherboard. As well, most recent processors from both Intel and AMD are then covered with an integrated heat spreader. Each processor is tested again at this stage for complete functionality. This is where some "binning" occurs. Some wafers work out to produce processors that run at a higher speed than others, and are binned initially there. Even from less "perfect" wafers though, you do get some that are capable of running at a higher speed grade. Considering the disparity in yields and price, binning can make more efficient use of turning processors into revenue. Finally, certain parts of a processor may not function properly. If this area is in the cache (which takes half or more of a CPUs die area), some times it can be routed around and masked off. This means you can still sell the CPU for a profit, just as a Celeron or Sempron with less enabled cache onboard.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By icanhascpu on 1/22/2009 10:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
"wow idiot alert."

Seeing as you replied from your own dumbass post, I find this one of the rare correct things youve written.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/23/2009 9:33:36 AM , Rating: 1
actually idiot. the lines stop expanding at some point. a bit noobish of you.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By lagitup on 1/23/2009 12:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
Watch out!

He's a rabid fanboy, they're known to bitch and moan if provoked...


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By Ringold on 1/19/2009 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Just pushes me more to invest in another company instead of a fat pig that is waiting for market capitalization when they have billions in the bank.


Oh please, that's the most silly thing I've seen and I've read several FaceMaster posts so far today. Companies do not exist to make you feel better. On the other side of the coin, if Intel rushed ahead and released the best product they could at the lowest possible price they could offer and still exist, they would utterly annihilate AMD -- which would lead people to claim Intel was "dumping" or engaging in anti-competitive abusive behavior. Even if people didn't complain about that, many would then complain that Intel would then have total market dominance of a sort Microsoft could only dream about, assuming AMD was completely ran in to the ground.

As if your comment wasnt absurd just from a business and political perspective, it was even worse from an investment perspective. If you haven't figured out that "pig" companies with "billions in the bank" are superior right now compared to companies who do not share any of Intel's attributes, you should probably not be managing your own investments -- unless you consider your retirement money to be charity money.

Hadn't been by DT much in the past couple weeks, I'd forgot how prevalent stupid socialism -- not even informed socialism, but just plain stupid socialism -- is in the world.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By SandmanWN on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By BaronMatrix on 1/19/2009 9:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Not really since perf wise Ph2 sits right between 9550 and 9650. The 65W chips are $100 more.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By maroon1 on 1/19/2009 9:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not really since perf wise Ph2 sits right between 9550 and 9650. The 65W chips are $100 more.


What ?!

My friend, the fastest Phenom II performs worse than Q9550

Check the reviews

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-ii-940,review...

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-pheno...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_2_9...


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2009 11:23:58 AM , Rating: 1
Yes but its how much worse. In a down economy. Price is king. And AMDs prices were much lower.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By Reclaimer77 on 1/19/2009 6:02:36 PM , Rating: 3
In a "down economy" we wouldn't be arguing about CPU's that were mostly going to hobbyist to overclock and play Crisis :)

I believe with CPU's price vs performance is king, not just price.

Lower prices are nice, but it's not a solid long term strategy. AMD needs to show that they can stand toe to toe with the best Intel can throw at them. And they haven't been able to do that for years.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 1:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
In a down economy, even hobbyists will be buying lower down the food chain and less often. Regular joe users will keep what they have for longer and more quickly consider repairing something that breaks.

In either case, besides the gamers we are also coming close and closer to a point where people simply don't need addt'l performance, instead they want cheaper and cheaper. This trend has gone on for over a decade now and shows no signs of stopping, note the sub $500 notebooks and netbook sales in numbers much higher than those who factor price vs performance as most important, or to put it another way, paying $200 more doesn't make their email and browsing performance any better than it already was.


RE: Aimed at AMD PH2
By Quiescent on 1/20/2009 10:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed on a long term strategy. If I were a person who wanted to build a computer that will last me, I want to go with the latest and greatest at this time. And that means I would be paying that pretty penny on that i7, because it's performance is amazing. Versus buying a processor that won't last me awhile and I'll have to think about upgrading soon in the future.

This was something I seem to have not gotten into my aunt's head. She ended up spending $400 on a computer that only lasted her a year, where she could have paid $100 more for a computer that would last her 3 years, even more, because it could have been upgraded.

But of course people will buy what appears to be the cheapest. And their cheapest parts will not last as long. And they will not be able to do anything about it for a very long time because they did not spend their money smart. Whereas what I am doing, I will have a computer, whilst pushing it, will last me 10 years before I finally need an upgrade!


E5200
By V3ctorPT on 1/19/2009 8:57:20 AM , Rating: 3
E5200 is 2.5ghz not 2.6Ghz :)




RE: E5200
By MikeMurphy on 1/19/2009 2:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
That e5200 is amazing value at $64 even at stock clock speeds.

Bump the voltage to intel max recommended 1.35v and you can cruise easily past 3.5ghz on most of these chips. I love AMD but they will have a hard time providing better value for the CPU alone.


RE: E5200
By icanhascpu on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: E5200
By MikeMurphy on 1/19/2009 8:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Pictures and email? The e5200 is a Penryn core with 2mb of cache that overclocks like a champ with a 12.5 multi, all for $64.

Sure the E8xxx series is a monster, but at more than double the price which typically only nets 15-30% improvements on those intensive applications where cache shines.

See you at 4ghz :)


RE: E5200
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 2:00:42 AM , Rating: 3
Someone is either forgetting, or too young to remember that people also upgraded their CPUs to do more than pictures and email back when CPUs were hundreds of MHz or less... and wonder of wonders, they did do more than pictures and email with their sub-1GHz processors.

The really amazing part is when people can't decide how much to spend on a CPU for their fileserver as if a Celeron 400MHz that's idle most of the time doing it would be too slow.


RE: E5200
By icanhascpu on 1/20/2009 6:53:00 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you should look at what you get with the CPU in discussion.

Also, 100s of MHZ ran Warcraft II and such ilk. People need to look at more than Mhz, and usualy, the people in the know, dont buy a 64$ chip, when the 100$ variant is MUCH more futureproof and a better investment in things more than email and image manip.

Pumping the speed up via OC is not going to magically change the chips architecture.


RE: E5200
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 7:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. The typical person, AND you, could not tell the difference in use between a $64 and $100 processor.

That is, unless the $64 one was overclocked, at which point it would be significantly faster than the $100 one at stock speed.

Paying a little bit more for possibly 10% higher performance makes it much more future-proof? That's insane. They'll both seem relatively equal in performance 18 months later.


RE: E5200
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 1:56:11 AM , Rating: 3
You're out of your mind. The average enthusiast does not have a processor that will perform as well as that will @ 3.5GHz.

It wouldn't at all defeat the purpose, that's exactly what overclockers want, more than they paid for.

Hint- it's not a race or bragging contest, you win no prize by spending more to have "X" level of performance 9 months before someone else does. People are doing "more intensive" work everyday with (gasp!) single core systems still.


RE: E5200
By icanhascpu on 1/20/2009 6:55:12 PM , Rating: 1
Really?

Gee, i wonder why anyone would buy anything but this 64$ cpu then?

You're obviously missing something.


RE: E5200
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 6:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
Oh? Most people are buying towards the low end, in both desktops and laptops. That is, people who are buying, most are continuing to use their systems which have slower CPUs in them.

Just because a product is up for sale at a certain price, doesn't mean many people are buying it. I've got a ball of string I'll sell for $40 and it's 30% longer than the $5 balls of string, are you interesting in buying?


RE: E5200
By icanhascpu on 1/20/2009 10:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that people tend to buy tword the low end. The issue here is that 64$ buys you a Pentium, not a Core Duo.

Yes there is a difference. $40 more in this case buys you a CPU that will be much more futureproof and more overclockable.

As I pointed out before. the 64$ CPU is the very lowest end of todays CPU. Sure you can get a A64, but why? The prices of DDR2 make up for the price differance between A64 and the 64$ chip by itself. Thus it is the new grandma chip, reguardless of how well it overclocks or how good a bargain it looks like becuse OHHH 3.Ghz for 64$ sounds great, but you get what you pay for.

Its a lowend CPU. Id rather take a stock lowend Duo than this at 3.ghz.


RE: E5200
By Vidmar on 1/26/2009 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, get a grip. These ARE Core 2 CPUs. Don't go around spouting misinformation like this.

I own a Q6600 over clocked to 3.2GHz and I own an E5200 over clocked to 3.2Ghz as well. Guess what? These CPUs perform almost exactly the same. Prime95, Super pi mod, etc, very little difference. The only thing that makes the Q6600 slightly faster than the E5200 is the extra L2 cache per processor. Even then that depends on how much prefetching the application is doing. The more prefetching the application does the better the processor with a larger L2 cache will do.

As a real world example with the latest version of Prime95 v25.9.2b3 (which is now doing more prefetching) allowed the Q6600 to become 3% faster in its built in benchmark. The E5200 only was 2% faster in the benchmark. 1% difference between them.

I suggest you read a bit more before you post inaccurate information.


Ads by Google
By wordsworm on 1/19/2009 10:21:20 AM , Rating: 4
Maybe it's just me, but that "Ads by Google" is blocking the top right quarter of the first graph. Any chance of moving it?




RE: Ads by Google
By Aloonatic on 1/19/2009 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a Fire Fox (and possibly other browsers) thing.

In IE7 The table starts bellow the add where are Fire Fox overlays the table on top of the add.

It's a similar thing to how the Anandtech site used to render in Fire Fox I guess. The adds on the side would get in the way of the text. In the end I just made it so that it opened in an IE tab I think. Have not noticed the the problem in Fire Fox recently though as that was back in the Fire Fox 2 days.


RE: Ads by Google
By Zandros on 1/19/2009 12:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
In Safari 4, yes.


RE: Ads by Google
By soloman02 on 1/20/2009 7:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Since I use Adblock plus for FF, I don't have any issues. You should try it. Makes browsing the web a whole lot better.


Benefits of the Q9XX0 's'
By KingstonU on 1/19/2009 8:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
What have they done to reduce the power consumption? And more importantly, will these overclock higher than their non 's' counterparts?




RE: Benefits of the Q9XX0 's'
By fayainz on 1/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Benefits of the Q9XX0 's'
By ChuckDriver on 1/19/2009 9:10:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What have they done to reduce the power consumption?


Chip binning is my guess. The 's' models are chips that tested successfully at a lower voltage. AMD did the same thing with their lower TDP 90nm Athlons.

I doubt many people will want to pay the premium Intel is charging for the 's' models. If the difference were $15, then I would buy one.


By Anonymous Freak on 1/19/2009 11:21:48 AM , Rating: 4
There are certain motherboards (mini ITX-based G45 boards, for example,) that only officially support up to 65W processors. Now those boards can have quad-core.

Yes, it costs extra; but if you want quad-core, and your system has a power limit, it's probably worth it.


Nice move by Intel...
By kilkennycat on 1/19/2009 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
Those quad "s" low-power versions should go very nicely in a high-performance (and low-noise) HTPC/video workstation, or a gaming lap-top, when coupled with the nVidia 9400 or 9400M single-chip core-logic-plus-IGP. (The 9400M has been already adopted by Apple for all their Core2-based laptops, in preference to the Intel offerings )




RE: Nice move by Intel...
By Penti on 1/20/2009 9:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
A laptop with 9400M isn't a gaming laptop.

And there already is 45W Mobile Core 2 Quad's like the Q2Q 9100, Q2Q 9000 and Q2E QX9300.

But those only make sense in desktops any way above 35 W in a laptop is just a waste.


I can't read the table with the prices and CPU list
By niva on 1/19/2009 3:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Because there is an Intel add spreading out on top of it... I really despise advertisements which spill over their designated area.




By protosv on 1/19/2009 7:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe, when I opened the page in FF, it was an AMD ad that was covering the table! That gave me a good laugh. Well played AMD, well played......


By Doormat on 1/19/2009 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 3
Thats what I want to know. Given that the P55 launch has been pushed back (September, possibly even later), and the likelyhood of a sub-$200 X58 slim to none, I'm stuck in the C2Q world for a while longer. Maybe by May DDR3 gets a little bit cheaper.




By Sivar on 1/19/2009 5:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
How long will it take for the lower-powered CPUs to save $82-$107?
Assuming worst case power usage, a 30 watt savings is 0.72kWh/day.
Using Hawaii's power prices (most expensive in the country, which is around $0.25/kWh) that's $0.18/day. Making back $100 would take 555 days, or about a year and a half, and that is worst-case scenario. In Idaho it'd take three times that long.

-----

In other news, DT has a ridiculously irritating ad that needs to be fixed. It's this sort of thing that makes be close Chrome and open FireFox with the adBlock plugin:
See screenshot:
http://i40.tinypic.com/244dvt5.png




Bolding
By energy1man on 1/19/2009 8:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
The items that are bold or not needs fixing.




Bolding in HTML
By Jansen (blog) on 1/19/2009 9:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry folks, the HTML must've gotten messed up when I pasted it over from Word. I'll get Brandon to fix it.

Yeah, the E5200 is 2.5Ghz, I had to type the whole thing last night.




Intel price cuts
By gevorg on 1/19/2009 4:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you AMD!




Are the new 65W Quads really new ?
By tpi2009 on 1/20/2009 10:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
I bought an E8400 back in September, revision E0, and the processor comes with a revised heatsink. When I say "revised", I mean ridiculously small. It's all aluminium, no copper whatsoever and very low profile. And this processor runs at 3 Ghz.

So, why does an E6700 from the previous generation, which also has a 65W TDP have a copper core, high profile heatsink ?

Or why does a Pentium Dual Core E2140, revision M0 at 1.6 Ghz also has a 65W TDP ?

When I was reading several reviews to decide on the best processor to buy, I stumbled upon some power consumption data that showed that the E8400 E0 consumed less than 4w at idle and less than 40w at full speed.

That explains the revised heatsink. If Intel wanted to, they could change the new 45nm parts to different TDP's.

The dual cores could have a max TDP of 45w and the quads a max of 65w. I bet that is what they really consume max. (at stock speeds).

The reason they haven't is probably (my opinion) purely a marketing one. The new Core i7 CPU's are still in an early stage, they had to manage a memory controller inside, a different architecture, no fsb, and the yields are not otpimal at this stage.

So, with a TDP of 130w for the new Core i7, and 95w quads at normal price, the difference is not so shocking to the general public. If you had 130w for the Core i7 and 65w for the Penryn Quads at regular price, wouldn't you, an eco-friendly guy, consider the Penryn Quads for now ?

The general public may not fully understand that the Core i7 is actually more efficient at idle, because it can entirely shut down parts of the CPU (so most of the time, most people would actually save power with Core i7).

This is just my opinion. What do you think ?




The "market situation"
By crystal clear on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: The "market situation"
By crystal clear on 1/19/2009 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 3
Official price list on the link below-Effective Jan 18 09

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/521494...


RE: The "market situation"
By SandmanWN on 1/19/2009 10:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel fears the recession more than anything/anybody else.
AMD is no more/no longer considered a serious competitior.
Intel has huge inventories that have to be cutdown drastically


Yeah ok. It was merely coincidence it only just so happened a day or two after an AMD release for this startling discovery that their inventories were high. lol

This is nothing more than pulling out cpu's that binned better than others and charging a premium to people like us who are system builders. Add in a new model or two to screw with the demand curve and optimize profits.


RE: The "market situation"
By BSMonitor on 1/19/2009 10:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
Hah, you are right. The price drop is in line with Phenom II. But not the reasons you think. The Core i7 was the Phenom II response. Back in Novemeber. But yet again, AMD lagged and Phenom II is only half-here in January. Intel surely was prepared to make this price cut then. But without competition for even the Q6600, why? Never forget, both these companies are in the game to make money. Why sell something for less than you have to?

What's amazing, now I can get a $1000 CPU for $316. (aka 3GHz Penryn) Just without the unlocked multiplier. Guess I'll have to deal.


RE: The "market situation"
By Reclaimer77 on 1/19/2009 5:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Core i7 was the Phenom II response.


Slight correction, but this is not accurate.

AMD is.. well, was beating Intel badly in the server CPU segment. That's what the i7 was the answer for.

The i7 isn't a desktop CPU, although it certainly performs admirably as one, that's not it's target.


RE: The "market situation"
By SandmanWN on 1/20/2009 11:10:59 AM , Rating: 2
i7 is both just as Phenom is both.

If its in the segment then it is what it is. You can't change that because you feel like it.


RE: The "market situation"
By crystal clear on 1/19/2009 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
You say-

Yeah ok. It was merely coincidence it only just so happened a day or two after an AMD release for this startling discovery that their inventories were high.

If there is a Tick Tock stratergy in Intel, they at Intel have also come up with the Ding Dong stratergy for AMD.

Its all about timing....an AMD release/launch is always greeted with a Intel price cut.

Intel knows how to manage its inventories & keeps a good track on their movements.

Intel is not RECESSION PROOF ...


RE: The "market situation"
By SandmanWN on 1/19/2009 10:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
They just released their new CPU. The old models should have already come down in price. They waited not because of some pressing concerns of recession but rather for the competition to force the move.

This isn't a tick, its a flinch at the competition. It the rest of the tock that should have happened months ago.


RE: The "market situation"
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2009 11:22:24 AM , Rating: 5
Face it. This was fueled by Phenom IIs strong performance vs. Core 2 and its cheaper price. Businesses don't cut their prices just to be nice.


RE: The "market situation"
By melgross on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: The "market situation"
By Belard on 1/19/2009 4:57:14 PM , Rating: 4
I'd consider myself an "AMD guy" - even thou my main computer is now a C2D Quad. After many years of only building AMD systems... since they were cheaper and faster than P4/P-D chips, Core2 is easily the more powerful CPU.

But, AMD CPUs are not slow, they are simply not as fast in the top markets. A $60 AMD X2 CPU is easily the better choice of a "Pentium Duo" Chip.

Also, there are other factors that are important. I read reviews / blogs of others having issues with P45 chipsets and the P35 isn't perfect either. And when going by price, an AMD chipset gives more value for the money over an Intel chipset.

An AMD 780 board by Gigabyte may cost $80. It has eSata, Firewire, PCIe 2.0, DVI output, 3D abilitie that smokes any onboard intel video. The recently phased out P35 Gigabyte was $80~100 and didn't have those features. The current P45 model still doesn't have any of those features other than the PCIe 2.0... and its $100. And if we talk about Crossfire, thats a $85~140 usually for an AMD... on an Intel setup, usually $250. (yeah I know about the P45s with 8x 8x dual PCIe slots for about $150)

Working with and owning an intel chipset board now for many many months, its generally a good product from Gigabyte, super stable... but some areas of performance with IO has a lot to be desired. I've not seen a Core2 intel chipset board or notebook that didn't have such poor IO.

And when compared to the current i7 system, AMD is a lot cheaper but of course noticably slower.

A good quality AMD core parts (CPU / 4GB RAM / Mobo) is about $160~180. An Intel with a G43 chipset and good Core2Duo CPU is about $220~250. And while us gamers, FPS is important, to the average user - there is no noticable differences. Benchmark all day, Intel wins in most areas.
But if both types boot up at the same time, apps open within 1-2 seconds of each others, the end user won't notice or care... but a $100~200 price difference is.

Phenom II... yeah, AMD needs to do better. But they also don't have intel's deep pockets for R&D and manufacturing.


RE: The "market situation"
By icanhascpu on 1/19/2009 5:01:08 PM , Rating: 1
As an oldtime AMD fan...

I agree mostly.

The people defending AMD right now are doing the most to hurt AMD as a company. AMD doesn't need BS with people trying their best to compair them against i7, they need to focus on where their market is, and thats against the Core2 crowd, and inexpensive well preforming sector.

Some of you need to face it, AMD does not have a high-end solution right now, and pretending it does is delusional and doesnt help them.

If AMD wants to catch up, they need honesty, not fluff that just gets in the way of the vision of how much they need to catch up.


RE: The "market situation"
By Targon on 1/19/2009 5:54:57 PM , Rating: 3
And with that said, a Phenom 2 940 is still a decent chip for the $275 it costs. If you already have a motherboard with support for the new processor, it's probably worth the money to upgrade.

I am currently running an Athlon 64 X2 5600+ at 2.8GHz, so the upgrade to quad core with the updated design isn't a bad thing for the money. It also depends on what you play of course.


RE: The "market situation"
By Jansen (blog) on 1/19/2009 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/Upcoming+Budget+Mainstrea...

Brandon reported this two months ago, Intel plans its cuts three to six months in advance.


RE: The "market situation"
By rudy on 1/19/2009 4:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
This is true, so maybe it was AMD who timed the release to just beat the intel price cuts which it knew were coming.


RE: The "market situation"
By Amiga500 on 1/19/2009 12:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
Its all about timing....an AMD release/launch is always greeted with a Intel price cut.

You said it yourself...

Maybe you jumped the gun with your initial post?


RE: The "market situation"
By melgross on 1/19/2009 1:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
These cuts were expected. They are in line with what Intel does around this time of the year, every year. You might say that, AMD decided to announce their "new" line just before Intel announced their expected price cuts.

So what?

These Intel products have been out for a while, and are getting stale, so Intel cuts their already paid for product prices.
Even here, in more than one article, it was mentioned that Intel would be cutting prices and announcing new products.

I would imagine that the recession has much more to do with this than anything AMD is doing, though like every competitor, Intel looks at what the copetition is doing. So no doubt some of the structured cuts are adjusted to better compete with a few of AMDs products.

You aren't saying that AMD didn't structure their new products and pricing to attempt to cut into Intel's market, are you?


RE: The "market situation"
By SandmanWN on 1/19/2009 3:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Whats new here? Specially binned processors from the exact same product line... You are paying 80-100 more for the same cpu and getting a discount on the crap that doesn't overclock well.

2 months stale? yeah ok. The only reason these cuts came today in the middle of their tick-tock schedule where nothing usually happens is nothing more than a direct fire at the competition.

Intel - "We can announce that at some point in the future we will reduce the price on something... Just give us a reason to do it."


RE: The "market situation"
By crystal clear on 1/19/2009 9:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add this to the origial post-

AMD launches 760G platform today.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki