backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 82 comment(s) - last by Messudieh.. on Apr 25 at 3:40 PM
Intel cuts prices on the Core 2-family and silently launches the Core 2 Duo E6320 and E6420, now with 4MB of L2 cache

Intel is set to cut prices for its Core 2 dual and quad-core products next week; however, online retailers have already reduced prices. Under the new pricing structure, Intel offers its Core 2 processors starting at $113 per unit, in 1,000 unit quantities. The quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 also drops to a more affordable $530 per unit, in 1,000 unit quantities, price bracket as well.

In addition to the new Q2’2007 price cuts, Intel has also silently launched its lower clocked Core 2 Duo processors with 4MB of L2 cache. The new Core 2 Duo E6320 and E6420 are similar to the E6300 and E6400; however, the E6x20 models feature more L2. Intel prices the new E6x20 models the same as the E6x00 models.

Intel Core 2
Model
 Core
Frequency 		Q2'07
Pricing
NeweggZipZoomFly
Q66002.4 GHz $530$659
$559.99
E67002.66 GHz $316$485
$340.90
E66002.4 GHz $224$235
$234
E64202.13 GHz $183NA
$199
E64002.13 GHz $183$196
$194
E63201.86 GHz $163NA
$175
E63001.86 GHz $163 $176
$175
E44002.00 GHz $133
NA
$149
E43001.80 GHz $113 $135
$129

Despite the mild Q2’2007 price cuts, Intel plans to aggressively cut prices on its complete lineup in Q3’2007, with the exception of the recently launched Core 2 Extreme QX6800. Under the Q3’2007 pricing, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 falls to $266 per unit, in 1,000 unit quantities. Intel also plans to release refreshed Core 2 Duo processors with 1333 MHz front-side buses ranging from $163 to $266 per unit, in 1,000 unit quantities.

AMD also previously cut prices on its Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 FX products earlier this month. AMD’s new pricing places the Athlon 64 X2 3600+ in customer’s hands for under $100. Despite AMD’s aggressive price cuts, the upcoming quad-core Barcelona is nowhere to be found.

Expect retailers to officially begin reducing prices on Intel Core 2 processors in the next few weeks, if they haven’t so already.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The Onslaught Continues
By Ard on 4/21/2007 2:34:51 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think AMD can survive too much more of this. Barcelona better be all they say it is and more if they expect to turn the tide. In any event, Q3 can't come quick enough. I'm all for a Q6600 at $266, which I will then take straight up to 3GHz.




RE: The Onslaught Continues
By johnadams on 4/21/2007 2:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. AMD is being beaten left and right. It's no surprise that their Q1 profits were dissapointing also, and I would think it is due to Intel's introduction of the Core Duo line-up.

Barcelona seems to be a little late. It should've come right when Intel introduced its dual-core line-up. Anyhow I got myself a C2D so won't be switching back to AMD anytime soon. ;)


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By AntDX316 on 4/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Messudieh on 4/25/2007 3:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes ... lower price = more greedy, right?

Right?

And yes, I realize in the long run, it could be taken that way if AMD goes out of the processor market.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By sprockkets on 4/22/2007 1:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
Once the 7050 comes out for Intel, the disadvantage caused by the G965 will disappear. Oh wait, I forgot, the memory controller may not be as good as the G965, so maybe not.

In any case, I just don't understand how Intel can price their stuff so low, and build so many new 45nm fabs. It just seems they are too far ahead now to catch up.

But then again, this comes from the company where the CEO just couldn't stand the fact that they allowed AMD to gain market share. Come on, like no one is asking for your neck if you can't have total market domination.

Whatever the case, they are hell bent on killing AMD with demos of pre release processors, price cuts, and other crap. But as good as Intel is, I will never forget the fact that they coerced people like Asus into not even branding the old AMD boards back in the AMD750/KX133 days, to the Via ballon incident, to you giving them also an ultimatum on either making chipsets or cheap CPUs. Convince people like you are now to buy your silicon based on performance, not based on blackmail. It is unfortunate you got where you are now due to that when you had nothing to show but Prescotts, and that people will buy that crap as long as it has your logo on it. Thanks to that processor, we have computers at work that sound like vacuum cleaners pumping out massive amounts of hot air.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By tacoburrito on 4/23/2007 12:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
Intel is sitting on about 8 billions of cash (their fabs, machinery, and patents are worth another 20B or so). They are using this money to build more fabs while trying to drive AMD to the ground.

As much as I love Intel and what they are doing with their product line and innovation, I'm not too happy that AMD is slowly being bleed to death. Competition is good for the marketplace.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By PrezWeezy on 4/23/2007 12:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
If AMD were on top they would do the same thing. I personaly agree with you that the competition has been great for us, the consumers, though. I do believe that AMD is well enough established that it should be able to come back. Even if barcelona flops, they can cut back and start small again. And the reason Intel can afford to cut the prices is also because a chip to Intel, in manufacturing costs, is about $40. The reason we pay so much for those tiny pieces of silicon is the R&D that goes into them. So they are taking a loss yes, but they are selling more chips because it is a lower price, thereby making up for that loss. I will most likely always buy Intel, but I certainly hope AMD stays alive and kicking.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Lazarus Dark on 4/21/2007 3:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
I will absolutely be getting a q6600 if it can be had under 300 later this summer! And unless amdati has something interesting up its sleeve, I'm liking the intel chipsets of late more than amd chipsets.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Ringold on 4/21/2007 3:57:06 PM , Rating: 4
If companies can't take sustained losses, GM would've withered on the vine a decade ago.

No, AMD will survive, and I wouldn't be shocked if some players gave it some "pity business", much in the way some airlines buy Airbus jets which dont fit their operation or are just inferior for the mere purpose of keeping a competitor to Boeing on life support. AMD will keep trying until it succeeds.

If it takes it too long to turn a profit though Hector Ruiz may be forced out. If the problem just looks nearly insurmountable for a public company, private equity could even possibly come in, buy it out and make whatever investments or changes that are necessary but can't easily be done by a company that has to report to the masses every 3 months.

Thats not at ALL to say AMD will be a company we'll want to buy performance mainstream chips from for a long time, though. :) They'll either hit it with Barcelona, or they're screwed, and some of what I mentioned becomes inevitable. We'll just never see this industry reduced to an Intel-monopoly; there's too much profit to be made. Not enough for 3 players, but plenty for 2.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Crazyeyeskillah on 4/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Howard on 4/21/2007 7:24:18 PM , Rating: 5
Do you remember how much P2s and P3s cost when they first came out? Did you selectively block that from your memory?


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Thorburn on 4/22/2007 3:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Pentium II and III were, relative to the K6 series, expensive CPU's to produce.

The 350nm Klamath core used in early Pentium II's was large for a desktop processor and the 512KB L2 cache had to be bought in (the chip on my desk has cache chips from Mitsubishi).

Even with the 250nm Pentium II and III's the cache kept the prices high, especially as it always ran at half the CPU speed so as the core speed scaled, so did the L2 cache.

The Celeron cores with 128KB L2 cache built into the die were actually very reasonably priced because they escaped from this limitation, and performed very well as the cache was full speed.

The 180nm Coppermine cored Pentium III's also pulled prices down considerably as the 256KB L2 cache was on die.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By GoatMonkey on 4/23/2007 1:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
AMD and Intel are both just companies trying to make a profit. The one that has the better product at the time will charge more relative to their normal pricing structure. Neither of them are saints.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By AntDX316 on 4/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Ard on 4/21/2007 9:09:15 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, except that AMD is nowhere near as massive as a GM or Intel. They can't afford to keep bleeding ($1 billion in the last 2 quarters alone) money like this, quite literally since this last quarter ate up $300 million of their cash reserves. If they don't turn things around, it's not going to be a pretty situation. Honestly, the ATI acquisition came at an extremely bad time and I wonder, if in hindsight, AMD wishes they would've waited.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By alifbaa on 4/21/2007 10:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I never understood what they were doing when they bought ATI. The only thing I could think of was that they were going to make a play for home theater computing with an all AMD processing path to guarantee HDCP compatibility and optimized computing. If that is the case, that business model seems to have tanked in the last few months as the market has shifted in favor of game consoles and future surround sound receivers.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By bob661 on 4/22/2007 4:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a totally bleed. They can claim some if not all of those losses if I'm not mistaken.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By theapparition on 4/22/2007 10:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not a totally bleed. They can claim some if not all of those losses if I'm not mistaken.

Tell you what, you throw away 1 million dollars. Now go fill out your taxes and "claim" you lost 1 mil. Congratulations, you don't have to pay taxes on that million, but you still threw out a LOT more than you saved.

A loss is a loss, anyway you slice it.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By Oregonian2 on 4/23/2007 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If companies can't take sustained losses, GM would've withered on the vine a decade ago.


They can't on a sustained basis. For the same reason people can't. Same math.


RE: The Onslaught Continues
By bob661 on 4/22/2007 4:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm all for a Q6600 at $266, which I will then take straight up to 3GHz.
If they sell it at that price (at Newegg) then I'll get one too but I'm kind of interested in K10's ability to clock down each core separately.


Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By Crazyeyeskillah on 4/21/2007 2:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
After Announcing Stiff losses last Q, to see Intel Premptively slashing prices seems like a KO for AMD. It looks very bleak for their camp at the moment. New releases will revive a faltering lineup, but the profit margins they will be experiencing with new fabs, competetive pricing, and agressive releases from Intel will not bode well. I was an FX adopter years back when intel was beating the netburst architecture to death, but don't see too much light on the horizon to switch back from core2duo and other Intel offerings in the next few years.




RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By MartinT on 4/21/2007 4:02:28 PM , Rating: 1
I think these pricecuts were engineered to keep AMD from getting the urgently-needed external financing, or rather, to make it very expensive, while the Q3 cuts are ment to kill AMD once and for all.

It's simply fascinating to me how, in barely 9 months, AMD got transformed from a performance and market leader with lots of expensive single-cores and dual-cores starting at $300, to the hopelessly-trailing, money-burning joke selling huge 90nm dual-core dies at under $85.

Barcelona can't come soon enough for them, that's for sure.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By archcommus on 4/21/2007 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
"...kill AMD once and for all."

Wow, could you be any more ignorant? You really think that losing for one, even TWO generations, is enough to KILL a company the size of AMD? Give me a break. If you haven't noticed, large companies with a lot of resources can survive losing for many generations and still one day bounce back. Like others have said, just look at GM and Ford. The GPU and CPU industries are both industries that are too complex and competitive and history-dependent for three competitors, but definitely able to sustain two competitors, and at least two will remain in the game to ensure no monopolies or extreme price-gouging develop. NO ONE wants to see Intel be the only CPU developer. And in case you've already forgotten, AMD was the underdog for years and still offered a good value solution, and eventually came to trump Intel. So even being the underdog now, and maybe even still after the release of Barcelona, they can still very well offer a good value and come back to the top in another one or two generations.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By MartinT on 4/22/2007 1:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really think that losing for one, even TWO generations, is enough to KILL a company the size of AMD? Give me a break. If you haven't noticed, large companies with a lot of resources can survive losing for many generations and still one day bounce back.

Look at the fudamentals. Look at AMD's most recent earnings report. Look at the conference call transcript.

You'll find that AMD currently has ~$1.2 billion in cash equivalents, negative cash flow of ~$0.3 billion per quarter , and, according to its CFO, needs $0.6 billion in cash equivs to make "all the machinery work appropriately". (I guess below that, raw materials suppliers get kinda itchy with giving you credit or something.)

With earnings not likely to improve in the rest of 2007, that means that AMD has 5 months to come up with a serious cash injection.

quote:
The GPU and CPU industries are both industries that are [...] definitely able to sustain two competitors

Did you know that thanks to the recent two bloody quarters, AMD is now a couple of hundrend million dollars in the red for its entire company history? Have you taken a look at ATI's historic earnings?


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By Axbattler on 4/22/2007 7:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
This is not the first time Intel is putting pressure on AMD though. Prior the K7, AMD did not have much to compete in terms of performance, and Intel was not shy with price cuts either. Of course, thanks to a few years of success, AMD has expanded, and this most likely have an impact on their operational costs (labour, machinery etc.). I reckon that in the worst case scenario, AMD will just have to restructure/trim their operations, laying off staffs, shutting down fabs. This would undo everything they have accomplished in the last few years, but it would also preserve the company for more than 5 months.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By Ard on 4/22/2007 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but this is the first time Intel has put major pressure on AMD. In previous years, there was pressure but Intel was very lackadaisical about it. Now, it appears that their sole purpose is to crush AMD for their past indiscretions.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By bob661 on 4/22/2007 4:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a lot of you want to go back to paying $1000 per processor like back in the old days of computers. No thanks, I'll bail out before I go back to that shit.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By Ard on 4/22/2007 5:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't recall saying any such thing in my post. However, I'm a realist. If AMD doesn't get their act together, and Intel continues to exert more pressure, there's only one logical outcome and that is the collapse of AMD.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By Ringold on 4/22/2007 8:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
There's just too much profit that can be made by competitive firms in the CPU market for it to be a monopoly.

First, firms like AMD can pull down mind-boggling amounts of debt before it becomes unsustainable. It's current situation looks worse than it is.

Second, Intel's made some statements that suggest the price war is winding down and margins will return to something closer to normalcy later this year. Either they've somehow pulled 20% extra margin out of thin air, or the price war will subside.

Third, AMD's CPU business can eat the leftover profits from its GPU business to sustain itself for the time being.

Fourth, going back to potential profits, it's be a trivial matter for private equity firms with gajillions of billions of dollars to come in on a whim and take AMD private, make deep, profound changes and badly needed investments, fix management from the top down, and then after a few years of good parenting put it back on the market heavily laden with debt but in a significantly better position than it was when it first came under private control (that, at least, is historically how it goes, with such companies out-performing peers once taken public again).

So, I'm sorry doomsayers, but AMD will not be going anywhere. It'll either pull off its usual come-back with a good next-gen part, or it'll stumble for a couple generations, or it'll really screw up, be taken private, fixed, and then put back out there. Firms this size, of this importance (duopolist in a technology market that every first-world consumer buys from), almost never disappear. AMD might look bad for a year or two or five but it's just Intel's turn to look good.


By Ard on 4/23/2007 1:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
1. That's simply not true when dealing with a smaller corporation like AMD. There is only so much debt you can take on and AMD has already stated that if their cash reserves drop below $600 million they're in serious trouble. That's even more poignant considering that their cash reserves just lost $300 million.

2. While the price war may wind down, that doesn't mean anything for AMD if their products can't compete. The only way an end to the price war "benefits" AMD is if they decide to leave their prices abysmally low, and even then it does absolutely nothing for their ASPs.

3. AMD's CPU business definitely can't eat any leftover profits from the GPU business because, as it stands now, the GPU business isn't making any money. That division lost $15 million this quarter, and it will probably lose more money in Q2 now that NVIDIA has a complete DX10 lineup available.

4. As "trivial" as it may be for a large investment firm to drop a boatload of cash and simply take AMD over, it's not quite that simple from a corporate/legal point of view. That doesn't even take into account whether any private equity firm would even want to buy AMD considering how intense the semiconductor business is. A restructuring of that magnitude is also extremely time consuming and, semantics aside, is still equivalent to the collapse of AMD as we know it. If Justice wouldn't stand in the way, I'd bank on Intel simply buying AMD at that point in their life.

In any event, the situation is still clear. AMD needs to drastically improve their situation if they hope to survive. You can only lose $1 billion every 6 months so many times before you realize that the hole you're in is too deep to climb out of.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By Oregonian2 on 4/23/2007 6:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fourth, going back to potential profits, it's be a trivial matter for private equity firms with gajillions of billions of dollars to come in on a whim and take AMD private, make deep, profound changes and badly needed investments, fix management from the top down, and then after a few years of good parenting put it back on the market heavily laden with debt but in a significantly better position than it was when it first came under private control (that, at least, is historically how it goes, with such companies out-performing peers once taken public again).


"Trivial"? Or just use magic pixie dust! It's that simple!

Intel has always spent a HUGE amount of money on CPU's compared to AMD and the fabs to make them (if there was an earthquake in Dresden, AMD would be toast tomorrow). There's something to be said for that.


By Ringold on 4/23/2007 11:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
There's something to be said for that indeed; that Intel can outrageously out-spend AMD and still be a performance laggard for the last several years, and that their latest, greatest chip over-powers, but doesn't entirely destroy, AMD's several year old product.

As for 'trivial', there's been larger companies taken asunder. Looking at their Q1..

$504m loss, $363m loss excluding one-time expenses, and $196m loss EBITDA.

I'm much too lazy to dig through all their quarterly reports, but this one shows that capital additions have nearly doubled over the last year, but are down compared to Q4. If it returned to Q1 06 levels there, it'd be back to break-even territory right off the top. It shows a huge jump in employee count; obviously the ATI acquisition, but considering ATI's revenue is much smaller than the rest of AMD, for it to have so many employees seems excessive. My crystal ball says layoffs are in the future.

Their consumer electronics division sunk from a $20m profit in Q4 to a 4m loss here in Q1, I don't know why but a reversal there would swing the number 24m back towards the black -- every bit helps.

They've also got $144m in 'Other', including mostly those one-time items that, excluded, give us the $363m loss, which is high again compared to a year ago, though shrinking.

I don't know. I still refuse to sing songs of doom and gloom. There seems to be plenty of opportunity to turn things. Their DX10 parts could be just stellar and flip their graphics division from a mild loss to a moderate profit, their Barcelona parts could end the price war and jack prices back up, they could pull a contract out of left field to supply some mad scientists with a bunch of processors for a supercomputer, who knows. The numbers look scary, but really arent. They're partly just an ATI-acquisition hang-over, which we'll all go from whining about to praising them for if they integrate it nicely in to a competitive overall platform.

And again, private equity/LBO groups have taken down much bigger companies. (TXU, $45 billion!! AMD's market cap is tiny next to that; 7.79B) The fact that the ATI acquisition boosted their headcount by 60% but only added an extra 15% or so to revenue seems suspect; if private equity thinks they could squeeze things there significantly, make some management changes and get some investment done with cheap debt then there's no reason in the world why it couldn't happen. Almost every week they're scooping up corporations; they say themselves we're in the peak of private equity buyouts, so it wont last forever, but for now, yes indeedy, they do have some of that pixie dust. They make it by burning benjamins.


RE: Things aren't looking too hot for AMD
By theapparition on 4/23/2007 6:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like a lot of you want to go back to paying $1000 per processor like back in the old days of computers.

Errr, you mean like last year, today, and next year.
Both AMD and Intel have priced their flagship processors at 1000, and today is no different.


By Ringold on 4/23/2007 5:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was refering to mainstream processors, not just high end ;)

A monopoly in the CPU market would definitely see higher prices. We've seen how much prices have utterly tanked during this price war; if it leads to AMD's ultimate doom or exit from the CPU market, then it'd be the last. Development would slow, quantity supplied would be slashed and prices would soar. It'd be as close to text-book as markets tend to get I'd imagine, unless someone like IBM comes in with something serious.


By camped69 on 4/23/2007 11:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
Blah Blah.......I could care less for AMD except for the fact that they bought ATI. Now I suppose they must survive for ATI's sake. And yes, I do think huge losses for 2 cycles could put AMD in a much worst scenario than it currently finds itself(which by the way is very bleak). But in the end they will probably survive and have a comeback with K14.


By Jcruiser89 on 4/21/2007 5:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since the release of the Core Duo series processors AMD has been slacking. If they had got their Barcelona core out there before Intel They would of had a chance, But already intel has released 3 Quad-Cores to AMD's 0. But knowing AMD they will find someway to drag themselves of of the hole they dug.


Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By swtethan on 4/21/2007 2:24:05 PM , Rating: 4
ZZF is looking pretty good right now according tot he chart




RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By Lazarus Dark on 4/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By Ard on 4/21/2007 9:11:21 PM , Rating: 3
Once you know, you Newegg :)


By bravacentauri83 on 4/22/2007 1:26:28 AM , Rating: 3
Not always. ZZF is either exact with Newegg or +/-$5-10. Just look up the CM Stacker case as an example. $20 cheaper AND free shipping. I ordered the majority of my parts for my computer from ZZF because the overall price was better than Newegg. Granted Newegg's RMA process is better and ZZF's is rather brief.

Either way, both companies are good.


RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By protosv on 4/22/2007 10:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Just got a set of Logitech z5500 speakers. ZZF had them 25 cheaper than newegg when you factor in the FREE SHIPPING i got! the only thing i did notice is that zzf took 2 days to ship the item, while newegg usually does it the same day. but if you can afford to wait an extra day, and don't mind digging through a poorly organized website, zzf is always worth a shot.


By Lazarus Dark on 4/25/2007 8:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not really sure why that comment got a -1? I was just sharing my experience on the op's topic. Did it seem fanboish? Cause I have ordered stuff from mwave when newegg didn't carry it. And newegg certainly isn't perfect.
??


RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By JeffDM on 4/21/2007 3:35:30 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I wonder how Zip Zoom Fly is managing those prices. Newegg may be a bit high, but ZZF is a little low. If you factor in credit card charges, there's barely any margin at all, a 2% margin after credit card is not sustainable.


RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By Ringold on 4/21/2007 3:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
2% margin - 'free 2nd day shipping' cost - labor costs - fixed capital overhead costs = massive loss leader

I suspect ZZF and these guys get further discounts.. that's the only way I imagine it'd be profitable. They must need at least 15% margin over the component price, or so I'd imagine. Maybe there's an unspoken agreement amongst e-tailers to screw us all on motherboards or something? I doubt that, though, because there'd be too much pressure to destroy everyone else by breaking agreement.. There just must be further discounts, I think.


RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By alifbaa on 4/21/2007 10:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget those kickbacks Intel got in a little trouble over a few months ago. It is quite common for large manufacturers to delay sending the bill for a few months or something like that, effectively giving retailers free financing. They sell 1000 chips and hold onto all the cash for the interim and use it to sell something else. If ZZF had a deal like this and needed cash to increase inventory somewhere else, it's conceivable they would sell for a slight loss. There's also a very good chance that anyone buying a CPU would also buy something else at a higher profit margin.


By Lazarus Dark on 4/22/2007 4:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I've noticed this is probably especially true of selling cpu's. If you buy a new cpu, you are almost guaranteed to need something else, either a new mobo, memory, cooler, or something else. If there is a decent profit in the related components prices, selling cpu's at a slight loss is a good strategy to get customers in, especially for convenience; personally, I prefer to get all my purchases from a single site to minimize the number of orders I have to track, and because it typically reduces shipping cost to get it all in one order.


RE: Stop ripping us off newegg :(
By CorrND on 4/22/2007 1:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that they just take the loss on the CPU and hope to turn a profit with other products you buy from them. It's the ol' "door buster" sale -- they just want to get you in the door, or on the site in this case -- and CPUs are a high-profile product segment.


By Oregonian2 on 4/23/2007 6:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ordered three drives from ZZF once. All were bad. All had their "sealed wrappers" with holes in 'em. Looked like they had been dragged on the ground some. Mfgr replaced them all under warrantee w/o problem, but ZZF's supplier may not have been a factory authorized warehouse. They fell out of a truck somewhere.


AMD Technologically Ahead
By End Of Times on 4/22/2007 4:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
AMD remains in my opinion a technologically more advanced company with their core logic etc.
The only advantage Intel has over AMD is in (money) with more fabs using the lower NM manufacture processes.
I reckon if K8 was manufactured with 45nm technology it would still kick some core 2 duo butt.
Barcelona manufactured with the same 45nm as Nehalem would most likely belt it.
I have 3 Intel rigs and one AMD so this is not a fan boy post just simply stating that AMD is a more technologic advanced operator that needs our cash to compete ultimately for our to benefit. I will wait for Barcelona before I decide on my next upgrade path.




By SquidianLoveGod on 4/22/2007 5:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
I thought that when they reduce the core sizes lik from 90nm down to 80 or so, That it didnt increase performance? But instead created more space to make more pretty stuff?

Anyway, Right now Is a great time to buy AMD, My old Pentium M laptop from the year 2004 is a little old in the tooth, And a nice new Desktop Athlon 64 X2 4800+ looks good enough to replace my old Athlon XP 3000+
Any of the AMD Dual cores would handle anything I throw at it for the next 3-5 years, They may not be as powerful as Intels, But they are cheap!


RE: AMD Technologically Ahead
By Ard on 4/22/2007 3:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
It really amazes me that fanboys (you say you're not, but your actions say otherwise) continue to spew nonsense like this while maintaining a straight face. How in the world can you consider AMD technologically superior? What makes them so superior? The fact that K8 has an IMC? You do realize that putting K8 on 45nm would do absolutely nothing for performance, right? The simple fact of the matter is, Intel is easily the technologically superior company because of their manufacturing prowess and their multiple design teams. And until AMD shows me some Barcelona benchmarks in the same vein as Intel, I'm giving the next round to Penryn.


RE: AMD Technologically Ahead
By End Of Times on 4/23/2007 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Reduce and boost is the namometer advantage.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39...

AMD RECKONS its upcoming Barcelona quad-core Opterons will outperform Intel by up to 50 per cent. Chimpzilla claims that Barcelona's SPECcpu2006 benchmark figures demonstrate a 50 percent floating point and 20 percent integer performance over current Intel quad core parts.
Randy Allen, AMD's server and workstation veep, says the parts will be available in the Summer and we should expect more than four cores in the future. Allen added that the Opteron 2222 and 8222 SE dual core server chips are available in volume from today, priced at $873 and $2,149 respectively in 1,000 unit tray quantities.µ


RE: AMD Technologically Ahead
By mindless1 on 4/23/2007 7:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are confused, it's not a fanboi contest to get higher, or even the same benchmarks. Benchmarks mean nothing.

Marketing and lack of manufacturing are still what are hurting AMD, to stay competitive all they have to do is make a good profit on the LOW END, which is where the vast majority of systems are sold these days.

That's why AMD can't compete, and why these Intel price cuts hurt them even more, attacking the $100 price point with Core2Duo has to have an effect as nobody that's sane was thinking Intel unless they had an extra hundred in the system budget up until recently. Of course this being a tech site, a majority of users have an ePenis large enough they do pay the extra $100 or more, just to feel modern. Sometimes they even have legitimate needs like gaming or business productivity issues, but these are more often excuse-justifications than real needs, if their productivity were that important they'd not have so much free time to post here.


RE: AMD Technologically Ahead
By Ringold on 4/23/2007 11:56:23 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. In many other industries I wouldn't, but here I do.

Benchmarks make the people that frequent DailyTech happy. We get our benchmarks, we go buy whats the best bang-for-buck typically, and occasionally we buy whats absolutely the best (at any cost). And when our friends and family ask us for advice? Friends don't let friends buy AMD these days, simple as that. Intel, if it had inferior parts, could've cut prices all it wanted and AMD wouldn't of had to respond if it were still a performance leader thanks purely to their demand not changing much.

And now they lose the performance crown and we blame their lousy marketing and manufacturing for their sudden losses? Those problems existed when they were reporting profits, and they'll probably still exist when they report their next profit, whenever that is.

As for randomly bashing DT readers, there's plenty of studies that inform management what a good manager already knows; when good employees are slacking on company time it'd be more detrimental to productivity to deny them their mild slacking than it would be to let them recharge and get back to work. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" comes to mind for some reason. As for an ePenis, sure, you're right. So what? It's a want, not a need. All we need is a room shared with 4 other people with communal bathrooms and mass transit. Thank god for wants. But those wants drive this industry, more so than some others.


Also
By AntDX316 on 4/21/2007 10:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
the team who invented the Core 2s and up is a Godsend to intel




RE: Also
By Stan11003 on 4/22/2007 12:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
Israel is the new silicon valley!!


RE: Also
By EastCoast on 4/22/2007 3:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the C2D is not new but a revisit from the P3 cpu (if memory serves correctly). <:)


RE: Also
By clnee55 on 4/23/2007 8:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
WHat? that would be even more amazing. A revisit of a 10 year old architecture can beat the top of the line AMD hand down.


I still haven't lost faith in AMD
By daftrok on 4/21/2007 2:47:02 PM , Rating: 4
They know they're in a rough spot right now. I'm sure their newly released processors will add some juice in their quarterback.




By TheMold on 4/21/2007 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 3
What newly released processors? Sense the 6000+ they haven't released a thing.


AMD screwed up with S939
By ghostbuster on 4/21/2007 4:31:26 PM , Rating: 3
I had two Athlon XP's before I got a socket-939 setup circa 2 1/2 years ago. At that time AMD was phasing out socket-754 parts and toting S939 as "stable platform" with the upgrade path for years to come. What a sad joke that was... I have a perfectly capable nForce4 motherboard and I would very much like to upgrade my outdated A64-3800+ with a dual-core CPU, but the fastest S939 X2 I can get is 4200+ for more $$$ than AM2 X2-4800+ costs, and what I would really like is to get a 5600+ anyway... Sorry AMD, you shot yourself in the foot here.




RE: AMD screwed up with S939
By johnsonx on 4/22/2007 12:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
While on one hand I agree that S939 was a little too short lived, why are you complaining about this right now?

NewEgg has X2-3800's for $90, and they're late model toledo cores cut down to 1mb cache. All reports on Newegg say they oc very easily, 2.5ghz with zero effort (HTT to 250Mhz, HT mult to 4x, memory speed cap to 333Mhz (=416mhz effective), +.1 vcore), higher still with a little oc skill. That's 4800+ to 5000+ territory for $90. I've just ordered one myself. It's an easy choice vs. swapping mainboard, memory and possibly video card to go AM2 or 775.

When there are no sub-$100 S939 dual cores left, then you can complain. I suspect Opty 165's will drop to the sub $100 range before the end of the year, so your complaint window may be a ways off.


RE: AMD screwed up with S939
By Ard on 4/22/2007 3:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you on that. Prior to building my C2D rig, I was using a 4200+ setup (2500+ and 3500+ before that). When it came time for me to think about upgrading, I realized that I pretty much had no options. The fastest S939 processor was an FX-55 and it was still more than $500, which was far too expensive for a mere 400MHz bump.

At that point, it became a question of which platform do I overhaul to and the answer was simple: C2D. If AMD would've given me more options at some great prices (similar to what we're seeing right now with AM2), I would most likely have just done a drop-in upgrade and waited for Barcelona. But, that didn't happen and I can't say I see myself building a new AMD rig anytime soon with the way Intel is performing.


Not very "Silent"
By Cogman on 4/21/2007 10:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, but the title "Intel Slashes Prices and Silently Launches New Models" seems pretty inaccuriate to me. The moment Intel anounced the price cut they also anounced the new models, every web site that you go to that has details of the price cut also have the new models listed.

People have been excited (or at least I have) about this price cut for a long time and consiquently have known about the models since about Jan. So what exactly makes the new models a "Silent" release?




RE: Not very "Silent"
By ScythedBlade on 4/21/2007 11:01:04 PM , Rating: 3
There wasn't a press release. The reason why all the sites have it is because most sites see it from one site, and then they all post it because its all "news"

But it's silent as long as Intel doesn't publicly announce it. The news site is only representative of spreading information.


RE: Not very "Silent"
By EastCoast on 4/22/2007 3:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
Cogman you do realize they are just releasing the E4400, right? I hope intel markets that in their low end integrated systems. That would be awesome!


Nearing the End for LGA775
By EndPCNoise on 4/21/2007 5:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't claim to be an expert, so please politely correct me if I'm wrong...

Current and upcoming chipsets, Bearlake and Eaglelake will have LGA775 sockets, and will not be compatible with upcoming Nehalem CPU's Q4 2008 or Q1 2009.

However, I am very pleased to finally see a quad core for the masses and mainstream with the Q6600 at $266 in Q3 2007.
Hope I can save up some money by Q3 2007.

Thanks again to all DailyTech forum contributors.




RE: Nearing the End for LGA775
By fierce on 4/21/2007 6:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
btw:", in 1,000 unit quantities."


RE: Nearing the End for LGA775
By redbone75 on 4/22/2007 5:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
Quite correct, but I don't see them being over $300 still. But, man, a quad core for under $300 finally. Can't wait!


Intel please respond.
By crystal clear on 4/21/2007 11:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel plans to aggressively cut prices on its complete lineup in Q3’2007,


I wonder if any of these price cuts are ever passed on to the buyers of computers by OEMs & resellers.
I mean on a worldwide basis & not only the N.American market.
Does Intel check if the benefits of these price cuts,reach the ordinary buyers?




RE: Intel please respond.
By AntDX316 on 4/21/2007 11:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Business Class 101 give a product that can deliver at a demanding price everyone vs ur opponents product that is slower and cost more everyone would be all over it


RE: Intel please respond.
By AntDX316 on 4/21/2007 11:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
price vs ur* correction


What?
By fierce on 4/21/2007 6:41:37 PM , Rating: 1
Look at the QE6600.... Q3 2007 is over 500... do you understand that Q6600 is not E6600 (Core 2 Duo NOT QUAD, it has to have the Q infront of it to be a Quad Core Processor)... the Quad Core 6600 will be over 500 in Q3 2007, and that the Q (QUAD CORE) E6600 will cost around 600 now... and the E6600 is the same core 2 duo everyone is use to except cheaper in Q3 2007?




RE: What?
By EndPCNoise on 4/21/2007 8:01:48 PM , Rating: 4
I think fierce has been staring at his monitor for bit too long.

Scroll up and look again Q6600 $530 in Q2, 07 .

Refer to this past DailyTech article for Q6600 pricing in Q3 2007 at $266.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6488

Oh fierce, yeah I get it that is in 1000 unit quantities smart a$$.


Price cuts
By sweb74 on 4/21/2007 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 4
Ah, sweet sweet competition. How I love thee.




By MrEMan on 4/22/2007 10:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
Just what exactly has AMD gotten from collaborating with IBM? I don't see any evidence of much of anything.

It reminds me of past companies which partnered with IBM and didn't have much success: Cryix, nVidia, and of course Apple (although Motorola was also involved).

It seems IBM has major problems getting from the theoretical design stage to actual production implementation.

Anyone know otherwise?

As for those who want AMD to belly up, you are very short sited as you will end up with increased monopoly pricing and longer time periods between design revisions. You would still be running Pentium 4s if AMD didn't wake Intel up and cause upper management to let engineering run the company instead of sales and marketing.

I guess those who argued that AMD's lawsuit was unnecessary a few years back because their market share was increasing can stop trying that false argument (of course they seem to ignore the fact that market share gains didn't occur much until after AMD filed the lawsuit). The lawsuit should be decided based on the time period the actions occurred if found to be true, independent of the current status of either company.

The one thing which probably worries Intel at this point is a bigger player purchasing AMD and producing their own line of competing processors (IBM, nVidia, Microsoft (to get back at Intel for the Apple deal), Samsung, Lenovo).

Time will tell.




By Ard on 4/23/2007 1:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what IBM has to do with any of this. AMD simply had a manufacturing agreement with them. If anything, their partnership has been greatly beneficial to AMD. As for IBM having problems getting out of the theoretical stage, I'd look to the fact that they have their hands in all 3 next-gen consoles (2 of which use rather complex processors), among other initiatives, to disprove that.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here wants AMD to go out of business, but, as I iterated above, most of us are not so out of touch with reality to realize that it's certainly a possibility with the way things are going right now.


GOOD, GOOD..
By hrah20 on 4/22/2007 1:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love the competiton, its always good for US !!!, if intel were the only company on the market, processor prices would be out of reach for everybody except maybe bill gates.




RE: GOOD, GOOD..
By ChipDude on 4/22/2007 8:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
Guys who think that if AMD goes away we'll be back to > $1000 CPU and the dissapeearance of 399, 599, and 999 computers simply don't understand the business.

Like Cell phones the volumes go up with price. INTEL's business of investing a couple billion in R&D and another 10 billion or so in the factories requires they sell CPUs by the couple hundred million. THe only way you move this many chips every year is to drop the price. INTEL can't justify the R&D nor the factories for low volume high prices. That is AMD, charge a lot and lose a bundle business model.

INTEL is currently looking to grow in China and India. To make it they need to continue to drive CPU prices down below 100 bucks. This will happen with or without AMD. What is certain is AMD's days are limited. But have no fear the days of 100 and 200 buck CPUs that double in transistor density will continue. Its called Moore's law and INTEL will continue to deliver this as long as they can.

So please stop with the nonsense about no AMD causing prices to go up. People won't buy if there isn't a compelling reason, and these days price is a the number one driving factor as no one really needs the performance.

I also agree with a previous post that AMD blew it going with IBM. IBM has never delivered any high volume process and made money. Look at all the business they got out of once it got competitive; DRAMs, Harddrives, PCs, laptops. You name it if it requires high volume, innovation, and efficiency count IBM technology out


AMD will most likely survive this ...
By just4U on 4/23/2007 3:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
Amd has posted losses pretty much thru-out it's history. It's only been a short while for them to actually post profits in back to back years. (from what I recall anyway) They finally have a real foothold on the CPU market and it's not the C2D that is hurting them at all. It's the price war.

They will survive this but, I think those that are concerned (but in the know) wonder ... "at what cost?"




By End Of Times on 4/23/2007 2:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sure they will survive and perhaps become a bigger better company to tackle Intel.

Applied Materials rumoured to want to buy AMD

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39...

ONE OF THE HOT rumours floating around is over the sale of AMD. No, not the PE one from last week. This one has Applied Materials (AMAT) buying the firm out. Now, wouldn't that be interesting?
Both AMD and AMAT have denied it vigorously with a confused 'no comment', but we were not expecting anything more. The tie-up makes a bit of snese, and if true, and it is only a rumour right now, it may portend a falling out between AMAT and Intel.

Keep an eye on both companies in the coming weeks, this one has more depth than the usual ones


AMD stopped talking...
By AntDX316 on 4/21/2007 10:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
amds claim of being 27 percent faster than intels core 2 quads has stopped because intels counter benchmark of the yorksfield being 41 percent faster than the kentsfield

whatever amd announces to beat intel... intel counters by slashing prices and rennovating their product line with new ones

basically intel knows when AMD talks people stop buying intel for now so intel is making AMD shut up to almost a permanent seal :)




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki