backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by Webgod.. on Jul 15 at 10:50 PM

Bruised but not broken, AMD fires off another volley of price cuts across Core 2 Duo's bow

With only a month until the most anticipated AMD product launch in five years, the company is pulling out all the stops to get competitive before the Back to School buying season.

The AMD-Intel price war, now almost into its second year, was cited as one of the contributing factors to the $611 million dollar loss AMD posted in the fiscal first quarter of 2007.  Following that loss came a 400 employee headcount reduction and a $2.2 billion cash-for-stock deal.

Almost immediately after posting its Q1 loss, Mercury research declared that Intel managed to recapture all of AMD's marketshare gains from 2006 in the first three months of 2007.  JP Morgan directly attributed the Intel traction due to aggressive pricing.

Effective Monday, July 9, 2007, AMD will enforce the following pricing among its channel:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Pricing
Model


Current
Pricing
July 9
Pricing
6000+

$229
$169
5600+


$179
$149
5200+


$169
$129
4800+


$129
$109
4400+


$115
$89
4200+


$102
$79
4000+


$99
$69

With these new prices cuts, AMD will also significantly trim its retail CPU portfolio.  All single-core Athlon and Sempron models currently in the channel will officially reach end-of-life status (EOL).  The ultra-low cost Athlon 64 3500+, Athlon 64 3200+, Sempron 3500+ and Sempron 3200+ will continue to exist in high growth markets: Brazil, Russia, India and China.

In addition, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 3600+, currently priced at $79 and $69 respectively, will also reach EOL status.

AMD roadmaps confirmed that other low-cost single-core processor families like Lima have already been phased out, just three months after launch. The company is still slated to introduce its 65nm Sparta family, based on the K8 architecture, in September 2007. 

The company's next-generation architecture, occasionally dubbed K10, will officially launch the last week of August for server platforms, and sometime late in the holiday season for desktops.  AMD has not issued pricing notifications on these processors yet.

AMD fired the first volley at the Intel price war when the company dramatically slashed processor prices -- just days before the Intel Core 2 Duo launch.  Since then, both companies reduced pricing of last year's products to less than 33% of last year's street price.

Memos released to DailyTech from AMD distributors confirm that the July 9 AMD price cuts are directly aimed at pre-empting the July 22 Intel price cuts.  These upcoming Intel price cuts will cut current Intel quad-core almost in half.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: No hope...
By hardwareking on 7/8/2007 9:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
i wudn't mind getting the x2 6000+ after the price cut,if they had a really good motherboard out

but with the $266 quad just round the corner,i wudn't bother and basically i wud recommend other people to wait too


RE: No hope...
By bob661 on 7/8/2007 11:50:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but with the $266 quad just round the corner,i wudn't bother and basically i wud recommend other people to wait too
Why would you do that? Not everyone needs the latest and greatest CPU. What the hell is grandma going to do with a quad core? Forget grandma, how about your parents? Or anyone that doesn't game? AMD is more than competitive on the mid to low end and how well they do does NOT depend on us enthusiasts! You guys need to lower your ego's. We are a whopping 1% of AMD's and Intel's market! Wow! We could crash Intel and AMD today if we wanted to with all that buying power we got! And don't bring up the enterprise market because they are the LAST people to jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon.


RE: No hope...
By EndPCNoise on 7/8/2007 7:43:10 PM , Rating: 1
Not everyone needs the latest and greatest CPU...AMD is more than competitive on the mid to low end

Am I the only one on this forum who is growing tired of hearing these same, worn-out, lame arguments?

Let's come back to reality for a moment and look at some facts and real numbers. I'm talking about market share.

AMD gained market share during the pre-core2 duo years. Why, because their K7-K8 series was superior to Intel's Netburst series.

Now fast forward to today. Intel has regained all the market share they lost to AMD, in less than one year's time, due to the release of the superior core2 duo series.

In a nutshell: Whoever has the superior product will make gains in market share, and market share is what really counts.

You can't argue with the numbers.


RE: No hope...
By fenderkb76 on 7/8/2007 10:38:38 PM , Rating: 3
I'm glad someone is talking sense here. Like someone else said, I'll always have a soft spot for AMD, just like most of the sports teams I follow are underdogs and overachievers.

It's a shame that AMD never had the market share and deep pockets of Intel. I'd say they handily pounded Intel in terms of price/performance for 3 years. However, Intel is the 800 pound gorilla who could have taken that treatment for another 5 years without problems, especially with their brute-force marketing and "incentives". Because of the size of Intel and their "installed user base", they were able to completely turn the clock back to pre-K7 days in a matter of months once they created a superior product.

It really is a shame for AMD although it is good for consumers overall. However, if the trend continues, Intel won't be competitively priced a year from now. I hope AMD can make it to the next generation with enough resources to make something "revolutionary" vs. "evolutionary".

What's funny is that right now, I see much more exposure for AMD now than I ever have. Look at a Best Buy or Circuit City ad in the Sunday paper. I dare say that more than half of the PCs and laptops feature AMD CPUs. For crying out loud, Dell even sells them!


RE: No hope...
By InternetGeek on 7/8/2007 11:32:04 PM , Rating: 1
I've owned AMD only once in my life. It wasn't a bad experience and at the time benchmarking wasn't mainstream. The PC then was a 486DX2 or something like that.

Since then I've simply bought the fastest CPU I could get (best price/performance ratio) every 4 years or so. By pure coincidence Intel has always gotten my money because at the moment I was shopping Intel had the speed crown or was so close to the top the price difference wasn't worth it. The PCs, at their respective time, were Pentium 66mhz, Pentium 600Mhz, 2.8GhzHT and currently, after jumping into laptop realm, a Core Duo 2.8Ghz.

My next buying cycle is in exactly 2years. I will buy a 'gaming' laptop because they can let me play and program without much hassle.

It would be nice to try out an AMD, but historically, Intel will have the speed crown then.

Perhaps Intel simply knows how to time their products according to market trends, putting out their best when most of the people are updating. But that would be a gross generalization.


RE: No hope...
By bob661 on 7/8/2007 11:26:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Am I the only one on this forum who is growing tired of hearing these same, worn-out, lame arguments? In a nutshell: Whoever has the superior product will make gains in market share, and market share is what really counts.
Your reading comprehension skills betray you. These "worn-out, lame" arguments will continue until the "worn-out, lame" egotistical belief that enthusiasts drive the market ceases. You NOR I control this market at all. We ARE a very tiny majority. All out performance doesn't mean jack sh!t to the average consumer that pays the bills at AMD and Intel. As long as the web can be surfed, the email can be sent, and the research paper can be written is a REASONABLE time that's all that matters to the bread and butter of Intel and AMD which is NOT us! C2D or Athlon X2. Both work and work well for anything you wish to throw at them. MS Office, Picasa, Google, and even games just don't stop working because you have a slower CPU (which is STILL hella fast!). These are facts that only matter. And tell me once again what AMD's marketshare has to do with how many frames per second I can get in BF2?


RE: No hope...
By EndPCNoise on 7/9/2007 3:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
Hey bob, I find it ironic YOU would bring up reading comprehension skills...

As you read through my post, did you read anything about enthusiasts driving the market?...uh no bob.

In reading my post, did you read anything about you or I controlling the market in any way?...uh that would be no bob.

In reading my post, did I mention anywhere that enthusiasts make up the majority of the market?...again, that would be no bob.

Your comment about what market share has to do with the framerates in BF2 is so ridiculous and off base that I will not even address it here.

bob, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider a $266 CPU to be an extreme enthusiast chip. I would consider a $950 QX6700, a $950 X6800, or a $450 Athlon FX-74 to be the extreme enthusiast chips you wrote about. I would call a $266 CPU midrange or maybe upper midrange at the most.

bob, others who responded to my post understood the point I was making regarding market share.

Judging by how badly you misinterpreted my post or maybe you read things into it that I didn't actually say, maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

Lastly bob, maybe you should reconsider your egotistical comment judging by how badly your ego was bruised by my post.


RE: No hope...
By omnicronx on 7/9/2007 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
and although you make some very good points, i find it ironic that the original topic you replied to was talking about the enthusiast market not counting for much.

You cannot always look at the numbers either, or if you look at the real numbers of the past 5 years where amd has had a cpu that was faster and cheaper than intel, amd would have a lot more market share and up until c2d intel would have been the one running away with their tails between their legs. But this was the case, why? intel has a hell of a lot more resources, this is the exact reason why these numbers can not always be looked at.
When c2d came out i have no doubt in my mind intel forced the big pc makers to use and market their chips exclusively or much more in their mid to high end systems or they would not offer price reductions, hurting them if another company took the intel deal.

so i guess in the end, all i want to get out there is that as long as intel has at least a comparable product to amd they will have a high market share (not necessarily higher than amd, but never as long as amd is now) , whether or not they hold the performance crown or not.


RE: No hope...
By imaheadcase on 7/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: No hope...
By RjBass on 7/9/2007 12:16:18 AM , Rating: 3
People who constantly point out others spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes on the Internet either need to really get a life, or sell the lame one that they have and move onto something else.


RE: No hope...
By SandmanWN on 7/9/2007 9:46:26 AM , Rating: 1
So pushing people to use better grammar is a bad thing? lol


RE: No hope...
By omnicronx on 7/9/2007 10:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
sure is, i h@ve @ r1ght t0 t@1k 1n l337 5p33k 1f I w@nt.
screw grammar =D


RE: No hope...
By SandmanWN on 7/9/2007 10:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
Then you also deserve to be corrected and get made fun of just the same.


RE: No hope...
By wordsworm on 7/11/2007 11:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
The irony of people's rants against others' use of English is that whilst berating they betray their own inadequate grasp of English.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki