Print 91 comment(s) - last by crystal clear.. on Apr 23 at 5:21 PM

  (Source: Intel)
Intel cuts prices and introduces four new CPUs

Intel is currently enjoying great success in the marketplace with its line of Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad and Celeron processors. AMD at the same time is seeing huge drops in its profitability and is making workforce cuts to help profits.

Just last week AMD posted a Q1 2008 loss of $385 million and announced plans to restructure its business. Yesterday, Intel announced price cuts on some of its quad-core processors of up to 50%. The new pricing by Intel will not help AMD in the marketplace with price becoming less of a factor. reports that Intel slashed the price of its Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz processor from $530 to $266 and the similar quad-core Xeon received the same exact price cut. Intel also cut prices of some of its older technology processors as well. The Celeron 430 dropped from $44 to $34 while the dual-core Celeron E1200 dropped from $53 to $43.

Pentium Dual Core processors also saw prices cut with the E2200 going for $74 after cuts and the E2180 going for $64. Along with the price cuts Intel also introduced a pair of new Celeron processors. The dual-core Celeron E1400 runs at 2GHz and will retail for $53 and a Celeron 570 running at 2.66GHz will sell for $134.

A pair of new Core 2 Duo processors was also introduced with the 2.83 GHz E8300 retailing for $163 and the E7200 running at 2.53GHz costing $133.

Comments     Threshold

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

By SiliconJon on 4/21/2008 1:54:23 PM , Rating: 5
Now if LCD's would just follow suit I could finally finish my build without cringing at the last out-of-pocket expenses for the CPU, mobo, and display.

RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 2:18:06 PM , Rating: 5
No kidding. LCD's have been the biggest rip-off to the customer in recent history. A few years back i could find a 27" tv at any wal-mart for about $200-$250 bucks. Now if I want a decent sized TV for a kids room it costs a fortune. Why? cause CRTs are out and there are little if any of them on the shelves anymore. How am I as a consumer better off spending $600+ on a 32" 16:9 than I was spending $250 for a 27" 4:3. If you ask me the LCD monopoly has hurt us all.

Don't get me wrong my room and game room have big flat panel HDTV's, but gone are the days when I can just pick up a cheapo TV for a kid's room. Makes me wish I'd have kept the 3 27" TV's I gave away to friends/relatives.

Guess I'll just pray the 1080p premium keeps up so the older 720's will plummet (let's face it at <32" 1080p is overkill).

RE: Woohoo!
By Denigrate on 4/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 4:05:18 PM , Rating: 3
Don't be a moron and read.

Yes you can get CRT's, but that was not my point.

The last CRT I bought was a 27" RCA for $198 at wally world. Now the cheapest you can find is $230-$250 and is some crap knock off brand. The point is LCD's have killed the gold old cheap TV days.

RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 4:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
no edit

Should be good old not gold

RE: Woohoo!
By JoshuaBuss on 4/21/2008 5:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
you can get cheap LCD tvs if you keep your eyes open...

we got a simple 19" HDTV for $150 not long ago and it's very nice.

RE: Woohoo!
By erikejw on 4/21/2008 6:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
They have decided to release a new batch of processors but we cannot buy the first one yet. In Europe not a single store have the E8400 for sale unless they have imported a few from the US and sell them for huge premium prices.

Paper launch anyone.

RE: Woohoo!
By paydirt on 4/22/2008 8:26:33 AM , Rating: 3
OK, first comment about Intel... Anyways, just because a product is in high demand doesn't make it a paper launch, otherwise you could call the Wii a paper launch because it is very difficult to find in stores. The problem with the E8400 is that it sells out as soon as it is available.

I think Intel is doing a good job. There is no better way to protect your ass as a business than to control costs and control inventory.

RE: Woohoo!
By Pauli on 4/21/2008 4:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
If you can't find anyone GIVING away CRTs of any size, then you don't have any friends. I went to an electronics recycling site a few weeks ago, and there were stacks and stacks of CRT TVs of all sizes that people were basically throwing away. When I finally get an LCD this summer, I'll be giving away a nice 35" Samsung to anyone that wants it or to the junkpile.

RE: Woohoo!
By Alpha4 on 4/21/2008 5:15:39 PM , Rating: 3
In his first post Bhieb stated he was the one giving CRTs away to friends.

In any case I share his belief that LCDs and Plasma's are definitely overpriced considering their time on the market. Unfortunately I can't provide any numbers pertaining to costs of development, manufacturing, distribution or marketing as yet to back it up.

RE: Woohoo!
By Belard on 4/22/2008 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take that TV...

You in Texas?

RE: Woohoo!
By 16nm on 4/21/2008 4:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, check your facts. The 27" RCA at Wallyworld is $250 but when you factor in how much better the TV is, like having a digital tuner built-in and latest in tube technologies, then this TV is cheaper than your $200 RCA.

RE: Woohoo!
By Basilisk on 4/21/2008 4:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
The last CRT I bought was a 27" RCA for $198 at wally world. Now the cheapest you can find is $230-$250 and is some crap knock off brand. The point is LCD's have killed the gold old cheap TV days.

It's hard to take you very seriously when you ignore that (a) today's TVs are required to have the ATSC tuners (which, for reasons that elude me, seem to add $50-$75 to anything they touch) and (b) under the benevolent and omniscient guidance of Our Leaders the almighty Dollah has dropped quite considerably in international value. You do know these TVs aren't made in this country, right?

As far as the unfamiliar product names: Big Name makers have fled less profitable markets. Duh. And unknown foreign companies -- sometimes the same ones that have long made the products relabeled by the Big Names -- have filled the empty niche. It's called capitalism, I guess. I'm impressed that you know so certainly the crapulence of these knock-offs.

You might reflect on your presence in the WallyWorld: that's what made the competition too hot for those Big Name companies to stay in the market.

RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 5:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give you that and I missed that RCA in my store. Nice find tho. Im not saying paying $250 is necessarily a bad deal, but paying $600 for an equivilent LCD is. Just seems that the falling prices have settled or slowed extremely now that there is so little crt competition.

RE: Woohoo!
By jconan on 4/22/2008 2:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
You should check out Costco they have some decent priced monitors though
You're right in that respect prices wise for a similar size LCD will cost 41% more.

RE: Woohoo!
By treehugger87 on 4/21/2008 6:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
No,the lower value of the dollar has very little influence on the US's purchasing power in China, since their currency is essentially fixed to the USD.

RE: Woohoo!
By xsilver on 4/21/2008 11:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
I think it can influence however if for example the USA is willing to pay $500/each but people in europe are willing to pay $400euro. As a manufacturer, who are you going to prioritize first and what gives you the incentive to reduce the price further?

RE: Woohoo!
By rudy on 4/22/2008 1:35:40 AM , Rating: 1
Plus their is still high demand for LCDs and this keeps the price somewhat high with every 2 years or so the standard for HD moving up even people with good ones are upgrading. Also dead pixels and back lights or plasma seem to end in shorter life of flat panels over CRTs which would kick it out of decades.

RE: Woohoo!
By daftrok on 4/21/2008 5:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Also you have to consider several important factors:

1) Weight. Now suppose you have a kid and God forbid the kid knocks the TV over and hurts him/herself. Not only do you have an injured or dead kid you have a broken TV. If an LCD gets pushed, you have a broken TV and a mildly injured kid. On top of that, you can mount your LCD TV and avoid falls from ever happening.

2) Materials. CRT TVs have a gob of lead and shoot waves of electrons in your face. CRT monitors are much harder to recycle when compared to LCD TVs. Some recycling facilities charge you more for recycling CRT TVs than an LCD TV and discourage people from recycling.

3) Energy and heat. LCD TVs take a LOT less power (about 1/2 to 2/3) and generate roughly 1/3 of the heat. This is insane power savings and the hundreds more you spend on the TV will be back in your pocket (and then some) in the lifespan of the TV. Yes its a hefty investment but in the end you get that money back.

4) Quality. Seriously dude a 27" CRT TV has a 640x480 resolution. A 32" widescreen LCD has 1366x768. Granted there are widescreen HD CRT TVs, but those go for 450 to 500 dollars at 30".

5) Lifespan. The major downfall of CRT monitors is not only the fact that LCDs last longer but when it rains for CRT it pours. What happens to LCDs is that they lose brightness and eventually the fluorescent bulb dies out. When CRTs approach the end of their life, you really notice. Hue anomalies on parts of the screen, skews and stretches, dimming and flickering, ugh.

Now if you were buying an awesome LED backlit rear projection TV:

Then go for it, if you are going rear projection TV you HAVE to go LED. The LED bulbs last 4 times longer than traditional bulbs, its brighter, it has better contrast ratio and its more efficient than its LCD counterparts (unless you're comparing to an LED LCD TV).

RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 5:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Mostly I agree, and I guess im just rambling. What I really want is LCD's to keep the downward spiral, but they haven't. They seem to went stagnant, could be the weak USD tho. Last year I replace a bunch of monitors at work for $160 for 19" widescreens, this year they are still $158. Could be the market has just bottomed out, and you really can't make one cheaper.

1. Falling TV's are not really a problem they have security straps for a few bucks that I've always used.

2. Absolutely true, but I don't usually plan my purchases on when I plan on throwing something out.

3. Good point, but like you mentioned the ROI is pretty long.

4. Absolutely better picture, but ScoobyDoo in HD is not that important to my kids (plus they spend too much time watching tv as it is no need to give them anything too good).

5. Only one I have to disagree on. I have seen several CRT's that are still going strong, and WAY more problems with things such as dead pixels and backlights on LCD's.

RE: Woohoo!
By masher2 on 4/22/2008 11:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
> "LCD TVs take a LOT less power (about 1/2 to 2/3) and generate roughly 1/3 of the heat"

Eh? By the laws of pyhsics, the ratios of heat and power are intrinsically tied. If it takes 1/2 the power, it generates 1/2 the heat. It all winds up as heat eventually, even the minor amount of radiation that's emitted as light.

> " LED bulbs last 4 times longer than traditional bulbs, its brighter, it has better contrast ratio "

Last time I looked, LED backlighting struggled on the brightness arena. It's main advantages are efficiency, lifetime, and increased color gamut and contrast...but not brightness.

RE: Woohoo!
By masher2 on 4/22/2008 11:33:41 AM , Rating: 3
> "Quality. Seriously dude a 27" CRT TV has a 640x480 resolution"

Resolution on a CRT has to do with the circuitry; one can make CRTs with resolutions well above LCDs. In fact, the highest-resolution displays in the world are still they don't suffer from the scaling issues LCDs do, when presented with images in alternate resolutions or aspect ratios.

The best video quality is still on CRTs - contrast, smoothness, color gamut and rendition, update speed, etc.

LCDs do a bit better on static display of text, due to the lack of flicker and hard pixel boundaries...but CRTs are still king for video.

RE: Woohoo!
By AlphaVirus on 4/22/2008 12:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
3) Energy and heat. LCD TVs take a LOT less power (about 1/2 to 2/3) and generate roughly 1/3 of the heat. This is insane power savings and the hundreds more you spend on the TV will be back in your pocket (and then some) in the lifespan of the TV. Yes its a hefty investment but in the end you get that money back.

I am not sure where you got that from but I recently had a 28" (CRT)Sony WEGA and then purchased a 32" (LCD)Westinghouse.

28" CRT - 190watts
32" LCD - 190watts

So there is a bit of a saving, but not the 1/3 and 2/3 you are claiming.

RE: Woohoo!
By masher2 on 4/22/2008 1:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's normally about a 33% savings, assuming equal-sized screens. Remember that a 32" LCD (which really is 32 inches) is 1/3 larger than a 28" CRT (which is more like 26.5 inches).

RE: Woohoo!
By phusg on 4/23/2008 11:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yes don't believe the marketing hype. Not much is left over of the up to 50% reduction in power/heat/electricity usage if the LCD screen you buy has a 50% larger surface area.

This may sound obvious to many on this site, but as not many people actually measure the power their new (and old) TV's actually use at the wall socket or realise that power/heat/electricity usage is proportional to screen surface area and not the diagonal (i.e. doubling the height and width of a TV quadruples it's surface area and so quadruples it's power/heat/electricity usage), many proud owners of new flatscreens think they are doing their pocket and the planet a favour.

Not to mention the manufacturing costs of the new device. Hopefully they hurry up with OLED screens, until then my CRT is fine...

RE: Woohoo!
By dgingeri on 4/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Woohoo!
By psychobriggsy on 4/21/2008 2:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
I've found that LCD prices have crashed way below equivalent CRT prices just a few years ago. Then again I'm in the UK, and our currency has crashed quite as much as the dollar, especially in relation to the far eastern currencies which is where the products are coming from.

For example, 5 years ago a brand-name 24" widescreen SD CRT TV cost £425 (Philips) and that was good. Now you can get brand-name 32" LCDs for that. And before you say "but the CRT was a widescreen", no-one in the UK has bought a 4:3 retro TV in like 8 years.

RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 4:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
That is probably true in the UK as you guys shed the 4:3 thing long ago.

My main point is that used to i could go in with less than $200 and probably come out with at least a 27" TV. I just don't see that happening with LCD's.

I relate it to the SDRAM fiasco. The prices on LCD's keep falling until the competition (in memories case RDRAM) ceases to exist, then suddenly the price flattens and/or climbs a little.

RE: Woohoo!
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 4:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Let me put on my tin foil hat and point out that I find it odd that the same companies in the SDRAM fiasco are also major players in the LCD panel biz *cough* samsung *cough*

RE: Woohoo!
By smilingcrow on 4/21/2008 4:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
People in the UK were buying widescreen TVs before it made sense. i.e before they had a TV source for widescreen content (I’m ignoring DVDs as most people watch much more TV than DVDs).

I had a friend that bought a big widescreen TV just before the Champions league Final which Man Utd won; back in 1999 I think. Watching SD footage stretched to widescreen which a lot of people seem to do just looks awful to me. Oh well.

RE: Woohoo!
By artemicion on 4/21/2008 5:10:24 PM , Rating: 3
A "product" cannot have a "monopoly". A "product" is not an entity - you can't drag "LCD Monitors" into court and sue them for anti-competitive practices. Complaining about the "LCD Monitor Monopoly" would be like complaining that "cars" have a monopoly on everyday transportation, or that "toothbrushes" have a monopoly on oral hygiene products.

Now you could argue that everyday consumers are not picky enough to notice the difference between a low-quality LCD and a high-quality LCD thus forcing high-quality LCD makers to increase prices to compensate for the increasingly smaller market for high-quality LCD monitors. But I certainly don't have any evidence to support this theory (more because I don't care enough to find it than because it doesn't exist.)

RE: Woohoo!
By sprockkets on 4/21/2008 9:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I paid $480 for my Samsung 17" LCD at Newegg back in June of 2004. I paid more just to have the DVI input for better quality. But you are complaining now?

For about $170 you can get the same thing now. It also cringes me looking at how I bought a $150 1.8ghz Venice AMD processor as well back in Aug of 2005.

Of course, some of my components back then said "Made in Japan" or in Taiwan, now they all say China, such as my HP LaserJet printer or Pioneer drives.

Holy crap
By FITCamaro on 4/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Holy crap
By adam92682 on 4/21/2008 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
you mean Q6600 and Q6700

QX would mean they were extreme editions

RE: Holy crap
By darkpaw on 4/21/2008 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Considering you could find the Q6600s retail for $180 already for last month, they'd have to drop the tray price a lot to even match where the market was already selling them.

RE: Holy crap
By rdeegvainl on 4/21/2008 1:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
I just got a q6600 earlier this month. The new prices on the 6700's make me wish I had waited a little, but I already OC'd to 3 G so i don't feel so bad. But yeah, hard for AMD to compete with these processors at these prices.

RE: Holy crap
By Pirks on 4/21/2008 4:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
hard for AMD to compete with these processors at these prices
I don't think so - just compare prices for Phenom and Q6600 at newegg - AMD competes perfectly, Phenom is the cheapest quad for a buck, price/performance is on par with Intel if you don't overclock a lot (which is true for majority of PC users). I don't see reasons to worry. In fact, Intel hastily slashing its prices in half showes that AMD is applying fair amount of blowtorch heat to blue fat otellini ass, and you know what? I love the smell!

RE: Holy crap
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Holy crap
By Pirks on 4/21/2008 6:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
Do overclockers always call all the other people "living under the rock"?

RE: Holy crap
By ImSpartacus on 4/21/2008 9:11:49 PM , Rating: 3
Go get out from under your rock. Stay up with the times. AMD may not be groundbreaking, but the 235$ 2.5GHz 9850Black and 2.5GHz 215$ 9750 compete directly with the Q6600.

I would actually say, before the price drop, they probably were the better buy. Now it's a toss up, but AMD is certainly competitive on the low end.

RE: Holy crap
By Pirks on 4/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Holy crap
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2008 7:34:48 AM , Rating: 1
Go get out from under your rock. Stay up with the times.

Anyone who went AMD instead of getting a Core2Duo isn't " up with the times ". Not by a longshot.

RE: Holy crap
By rdeegvainl on 4/22/2008 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not saying they aren't competing, but it is definitely hurting them. With Intel prices so close to AMD, they can't recoup the R&D costs very well. Yeah AMD is applying pressure with their new CPU's, but Intel responding with that big of a price cut just plain hurts. I am a huge AMD and ATI fanboy, and hope they do great, but all I really care about at the end of the day is getting the most I can for what cash I have, that is probably why I over clock too.

RE: Holy crap
By FITCamaro on 4/21/2008 4:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'd still love to know where you're seeing it for that price.

RE: Holy crap
By PhoenixKnight on 4/21/2008 4:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen them on sale from Frys/Outpost for $180 + $6 shipping last week. Unfortunately, the price is back up to $259 now.

RE: Holy crap
By darkpaw on 4/21/2008 5:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fry's had em at that price for a few weeks.

Microcenter still advertising them for $199. Thats what I paid for mine last month.

RE: Holy crap
By darkpaw on 4/21/2008 5:16:41 PM , Rating: 2

Not sure if they in stock online, but store still has em.

RE: Holy crap
By crystal clear on 4/21/2008 1:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
As per price changes on Intel Web site on April 20.

Intel also cut the price of its high-end Core 2 Quad Q6700 model by 50 percent, from $530 and $266, and the Q6600 by 16 percent, from $266 to $224.

RE: Holy crap
RE: Holy crap
By fic2 on 4/21/2008 2:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
I see mostly 0% changes in the complete list. Looks like mostly they are taking out a lower speed cpu and replacing it with the next highest speed at the same price. Pretty nice, though.

RE: Holy crap
By crystal clear on 4/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Holy crap
By fic2 on 4/21/2008 7:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, that help. Now I can see that most (294 out of 318) had 0% changes. And that the ones that did have price changes they are looking to replace a lower speed cpu at the same price point.

RE: Holy crap
By xsilver on 4/21/2008 11:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
Is there a slated price reduction on the q9450 before the end of the year? Will it even be worth it with timing being so close to nehalem coming out?

RE: Holy crap
By crystal clear on 4/22/2008 2:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yes in addition the other possible reasons could be- market corrections,inventory reductions,boost slugish sales

Dealer feedbacks & OEM responses are taken into consideration to prevent inventory pile ups,discontiuation of products that are slower movers in the market,inventory clearance,etc etc.

The 45nm productions is rapidly replacing the 65nm ones for greater profit margins.

By elpresidente2075 on 4/21/2008 1:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's cool. I am glad that performance is becoming cheaper at such a rate. Unfortunately, it doesn't directly affect me right now, as I refuse to spend more than $120 on a proc, and my current lineup is satisfying my needs quite well.

The thing about mentioning AMD losing 10% of their workforce makes me wonder whether or not it is related to possible position duplications between the ATI and AMD portions of the business that no longer make sense due to the current financial difficulties of the company.

And lastly, Xenon is a Noble Gas, not an Intel product ;)

RE: Well
By adam92682 on 4/21/2008 1:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
its an IBM product in the xbox 360.

RE: Well
By elpresidente2075 on 4/21/2008 1:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Aye, but IBM is not Intel ;)

RE: Well
By AmberClad on 4/21/2008 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
The Xenon is a processor...just not an Intel one (IBM proc for the 360).

RE: Well
By TangoCharlie on 4/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/21/2008 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
[insert royalty-related flatulence joke here]

RE: Well
By fxyefx on 4/21/2008 2:00:46 PM , Rating: 4
You are both correct. Xenon is a noble gas and also the name of the IBM chip the xbox 360 is based on. Xeon is a workstation/server chip from Intel. :-D

RE: Well
By PICBoy on 4/21/2008 2:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
as I refuse to spend more than $120 on a proc, and my current lineup is satisfying my needs quite well

I thought 150$ was the sweet spot but you are right. If you don't need it don't buy it ;-)

RE: Well
By ImSpartacus on 4/21/2008 4:30:47 PM , Rating: 1
I always though 150-250$ was the universal sweet spot for GPU's and CPU's with 200$ being the optimal price range.

That's where you get the 8800GT, E8400 and other well known products.

Where's the love?
By judasmachine on 4/21/2008 2:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
I know the lowly Celey never gets any love, but a capable cpu for everyday surfing, and email for $35 is an awesome deal.

RE: Where's the love?
By judasmachine on 4/21/2008 2:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's only $34.

RE: Where's the love?
By Joz on 4/21/2008 2:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
grab one, and overclock it.

Trust me, its worth it. (make sure you get a ZeroTherm BTF90 or CF900 on it for best HTPC, web-surfer/emailer results.

Plays d2 just fine.

RE: Where's the love?
By judasmachine on 4/21/2008 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm personally eyeballing the e8400, or e8300 for my websurfing/email needs. ;)

Where the hell is the price list ?
By zpdixon on 4/22/2008 10:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
Intel used to publish a very convenient price table on their website. But they recently stopped doing it. I now only find outdated or 404 pages:

Does anyone know where this info can be found now ? It was very practical to compare it against

RE: Where the hell is the price list ?
By crystal clear on 4/23/2008 3:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Read my comment - you will find the link there.

Its all here
By crystal clear on 4/21/08, Rating: 2
By crystal clear on 4/21/2008 2:19:20 PM ,

RE: Where the hell is the price list ?
By zpdixon on 4/23/2008 1:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. It looks like Intel is now restricting price information to redistributors.

However the 3.0GHz quad-core (2-socket) Xeon X5472 is listed at $562 which is probably an error given all the other 2.8+GHz quad-core (2-socket) Xeon sell at $800+.

By crystal clear on 4/23/2008 5:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
I do not speak for Intel, but these price list are a cause of considerable confusions when the ordinary users/buyers/consumers etc visiting the site read these price list.

These price are mistaken for "as prices for the end users,when in fact they are for OEMs/dealers/resellers/etc"

Some of them (consumers) know these prices apply to dealers,
but those price cuts announced spark off a controversy as to why those cuts are not passed to them (the buyers/user/consumer).

We are talking on a worldwide basis & not the N.American market only.

By royalcrown on 4/21/2008 1:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
I just ordered an x2 5400 on thursday for 90 bucks...grrrr...I would went e7200 already...

At least my xp2800+ can retire now and live on a farm with other athlons and pentiums and have clean electricity and do int math...

By just4U on 4/21/2008 2:58:34 PM , Rating: 1
Don't feel bad about it. Those proccessor's are just fine for their price ranges. I've picked up a few for cheap builds other's needed. While I am on a Q6600 it's not like I do a install on a New X2 and go <groan> it's so sloow ... because their not.

At amd's current pricing I don't quit understand why their X2's are not flying off the shelf. Don't get it.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/08, Rating: 0
By AlphaVirus on 4/22/2008 12:41:40 PM , Rating: 3
At amd's current pricing I don't quit understand why their X2's are not flying off the shelf. Don't get it.

People have gone Intel crazy. Everyone has switched to Intel options and are just sitting back "waiting" to see what AMD will offer.

The entire time AMD's ship is sinking, everyone just keeps "waiting" for AMD.

By UppityMatt on 4/21/2008 1:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
A pair of new Core 2 Duo processors was also introduced with the 2.83 GHz E8300 retailing for $163 and the E7200 running at 2.53GHz costing $133.

I think thats what you were looking for.

Its all here
By crystal clear on 4/21/2008 2:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote: reports that Intel slashed the price of its Core 2

Is it so difficult to check up the Intel site that you have to quote as your source of this news item.

Its all here for you to read it-

The change is coming
By crystal clear on 4/22/2008 7:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Intel pricing in 2008 will reflect a major/drastic change in consumer preferences.

The change being "The crossover from the desktop to the notebook

Intel pricing in 2008 will also reflect the switch in manufacturing technologies from 65nm to 45nm completely,yes they have long started to switched over to 45nm but the pace has increased drastically with their Israel fab ready to go into full production.

Out goes those 65nms parts in inventory clearance - implications being future price cuts.

Target being "the introduction of Nehalems initially on 45nm then later on 32nm technologies".

So a combination of factors mentioned above, namely consumer preferences & technologies will bring in further price cuts in 2008.

The article below would make interesting reading in this context.

Intel will sell more mobile CPUs than desktop processors this year, the chip giant's CEO claimed this week.

"The crossover from the desktop to the notebook [is] happening essentially a year sooner than we first had thought," said Paul Otellini at Intel's earnings conference.

It's not that long ago that Intel and others were looking out to 2010 for the point at which more laptops are sold than desktops, a state towards which the computer market has been clearly heading for the best part of a decade.

More recently, Intel forecast the crossover point would come in 2009.

Indeed, Intel CFO Stacy Smith highlighted SCCs(Small Cheap computers) as one of the drivers behind accelerated demand for laptops.

"We are going to start to see the impact of that in the second quarter," he said. "It does look to be driving some incremental unit growth beyond what I thought when I first set my forecast for the year."

CRT TV deals
By epobirs on 4/22/2008 11:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
While CRT TVs have disappeared from many retail channels, there are plenty of great deals to be had on used equipment. The place to check is independent repair shops. They frequently have a stock of used refurbs for very low prices. These are often abandoned by the original owners aftere they decide the cost of repair is too great compared to purchasing a new display. Since the repair shop doesn't charge itself labor, they can often restore these units to service and sell them quite cheaply along with a decent warranty period.

For instance, I recently saw the 36" RCA model that was promoted for use with the original Xbox being sold for all of $125 with a 1-year guarantee. If I wasn't severely lacking for space I would have been sorely tempted.

Prices summarized
By crystal clear on 4/23/2008 3:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
Previous Price - Current Price - % Change

Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q6700 (8M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB)

$530 - $266 - 50%

Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q6600 (8M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB)

$266 -$224 -16%

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E8300 (6M Cache, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) - $163 0%

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E7200 (3M Cache, 2.53 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) - $133 0%

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6850 (4M Cache, 3.00 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB)

$266 -$183 -31%

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E4600 (2M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

$133 -$113 -15%

Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core Processor E2200 (1M Cache, 2.20 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

$84 -$74 -12%

Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core Processor E2180 (1M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

$74 -$64 -14%

Intel® Celeron® Dual-Core Processor E1400 (512K Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB) - $53 0%

Intel® Celeron® Dual-Core Processor E1200 (512K Cache, 1.60 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

$53 - $43 - 19%

Intel® Celeron® Processor 440 (512K Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

$53 - $44 - 17%

Intel® Celeron® Processor 430 (512K Cache, 1.80 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

$44 - $34 - 23%

Intel® Celeron® Processor 570 (1M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 533 MHz FSB) - $134 0%

Intel® Celeron® Processor 560 (1M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 533 MHz FSB)

$134 - $107 - 20%

Intel® Celeron® Processor 550 (1M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 533 MHz FSB)

$107 - $86 - 20%

Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X3230 (8M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB)

$530 - $266 - 50%

Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X3220 (8M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB)

$266 - $224 - 16%

Dual-Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 3085 (4M Cache, 3.00 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB)

$266 - $188 - 29%

Boo Intel...
By iFX on 4/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Boo Intel...
By marvdmartian on 4/21/2008 3:34:17 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, if AMD weren't giving them some competition, albeit not as much as during the K7 days, then Intel would never have any reason to develop new chips quickly, or drop prices EVER.
I just built a new system last year, and have no reason to need a 4-core system now, so will wait to see what AMD can bring to market over the next year or two. Who knows? I sure wouldn't mind seeing them give Intel a run for their money again! :)

RE: Boo Intel...
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 4:13:12 PM , Rating: 3
Right and I remember in the P1/P2 days when there was little Intel competion. They never dropped prices and never did anything new. /sarcasm

Killing AMD is a nice side effect, but Intel lowers prices to get us to buy into their planned obsolesence theory. In other words they do it so we'll buy more stuff. Hell my PC is fine at home and even I am starting to think I "NEED" a quad core. When the truth is very few people "need" more than 2 cores (most get by fine with 1 believe it or not).

RE: Boo Intel...
By ImSpartacus on 4/21/2008 4:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Very few people need computers at all, but many many want them just like many want quad cores versus duals.

RE: Boo Intel...
By bhieb on 4/21/2008 5:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
True hence the price break. Just pointing out that Intel is not just lowering price to push out AMD (AMD is doing that just fine with their lack of innovation), rather they are doing it to increase sales and make us techies break down and upgrade again (even tho the systems we have are probably fine).

RE: Boo Intel...
By ImSpartacus on 4/21/2008 9:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ha! If I were to upgrade, I would get a Penryn at this point, or wait for the new socket w/Nahelem.

I personally just upgraded from a P4 to an E8400, so I will be good until a while. I play PC games and don't need the cores, just the oc'ed clocks.

RE: Boo Intel...
By Inkjammer on 4/21/2008 3:44:15 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but in this case AMD provided their own nails... and they all have "ATI" and "Phenom" logos on them.

And I say this as a fan of AMD/ATI.

RE: Boo Intel...
By ImSpartacus on 4/21/2008 4:45:51 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree. I'm personally an Intel fanboy, but AMD is getting a ton better. Their integrated graphics do great. They sell cheap quad cores that still perform.

The 9850 Black edition nearly matches the Q6600's price and for most part keeps up and does better in some cases.

AMD doesn't have a high end (hell, their 'extreme' unlocked CPU is 235$, but I believe they will start to do really well in the OEM world with people wanting cheap quads with decent integrated graphics and good power usage.

But in the high end the Q9450 and E8400 take the cake for overclocking and performance.

RE: Boo Intel...
By darkpaw on 4/21/2008 5:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Intel hasn't been losing money though, just look at their sales. That'd be a fair argument if Intel was underpricing just to kill AMD, but they are selling them dirt cheap and still making a ton.

RE: Boo Intel...
By radializer on 4/21/2008 10:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree...

If anything, this looks like an attempt to unload all their 65nm inventory and let the 45nm parts build up in stock as the production fabs ramp up fully.

Plus, the 65nm technology for Intel has been maturing for over 2+ years, so their yields are possibly significantly better now as compared to at launch - which would allow them to price the parts lower and still make enough margin on them.

Just my $0.02 ... I doubt this has anything to do with AMD

RE: Boo Intel...
By phusg on 4/23/2008 11:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt this has anything to do with AMD

I agree with the rest of what you're saying but company X price cuts having *nothing* to do with their sole competitor?!? If AMD weren't here (as they may well not be this time next year) then do you really think these price cuts would be being made now?

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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