DailyTech - Why Start a War When You Don't Need to?

Submit News

Blog: Hardware Why Start a War When You Don't Need to?
Rahul Sood (Blog) - January 22, 2007 2:01 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

6 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Jan 26 at 3:13 PM

Why did AMD and Intel start this most recent price war? They did a good job of wounding themselves in the process

In early 2006 when Intel announced its new architecture there was wide expectation that prices would stay constant at launch – Intel was expected to drop pricing only on the Pentium 4 architecture to clear out excess “sell-proof” inventory. In the meantime AMD already won a number of design wins throughout the industry, and it also had plans to finally tip the scales within Dell who (at the time) was a 100% Intel operation. Other than potentially losing the performance crown in the high end sliver, things were looking quite good for AMD.

So, imagine if you will the scenario where AMD and Intel both have equally compelling “good enough” products for the mainstream, and Intel is winning the performance game – this, in a nutshell, is where we sit today.

Click here for the rest of the article and comments...

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

1st thought

By ninjit on 1/22/2007 3:39:07 PM , Rating: 2

When I saw the title of this post, I first thought it was going to be your opinion on the Iraq war!

RE: 1st thought

By rahulsood on 1/22/2007 6:45:46 PM , Rating: 2

:)

I may be vocal, but not that vocal :)

Parent

You are forgetting one thing:

By Captain Orgazmo on 1/23/2007 5:59:01 PM , Rating: 2

Price wars are great for the consumer. Intel has the crown right now in both the top performance and performance-per-dollar categories. This in perfect timing to take advantage of all the people who will upgrade their computers in time for Windows Vista. Local computer shops don't even bother trying to sell AMD anymore, they just mention how the $280 Intel outperforms the $400 AMD, and they are selling like hotcakes. The fact that you can buy a new computer for under $1500 with very respectable performance will entice many more people to buy, and boost Intel's earnings.

RE: You are forgetting one thing:

By oTAL

(blog) on 1/26/2007 3:13:36 PM , Rating: 2

*lolol*
For under $1500
Right now, for $1000 you can get a great machine including a 19" 16:9 LCD monitor. You just have to find the distinction between what you crave for and what will actually be useful. Any graphics card over $200 is a waste of money for anyone on a small budget who doesn't take gaming seriously (I know many people may have other uses for GPUs, but those shouldn't be restricted by a small computer budget to begin with).

Parent

It may not be just a reactionary decision.

By nurbsenvi on 1/22/2007 5:18:53 PM , Rating: 3

Intel ,these days ,doesn't act like a sleeping rabbit it used to be in Pentium 4 era. Instead they are being hyper aggressive.

While AMD is struggling to move to 65nm process Intel keeps hopping despite it's advantages over AMD in terms of CPU Architecture, process and finance.

AMD brings out quad processor Intel one the next day as if they had it in their pouch.

I think Intel wouldn't overlook such a HUGE drop in margin they saw last year.

They must know that AMD won't be able to bring Core beating architecture for a while...

And this may be the best chance to hurt AMD as much as they can.

AMD just bought ATI and has HUGE debt and no major product line up change will happen before fusion (2008?) and Intel knows it.

Why would they miss this and live and let live?

why not?

By dwalton on 1/23/2007 6:22:46 PM , Rating: 2

Why wouldn't you want to maintain financial strain on your competitor and help maintain an importance advantage, greater resources? The closer AMD is to the red the slower it will be able to catch up with Intel in terms of fabs and R&D.