Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Damn....

  1. #1

    Damn....

    Shamelessly stolen from Anantech Forums....

    From the Opteron Article on at News.com

    In the past 16 years, AMD has had eight profitable years and eight in the red. Total net earnings since the end of 1986, including acquisitions and sell-offs, comes to around $350 million, about the same as Intel earns in six weeks.

  2. #2
    Member oops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    799
    of course this happens...

    Intel use their brand name charge much higher prices while still control 80%+ market. And they mass produce the chips outside the US, so they can pay really low wage to the third world countries' employees...

    (Also I don't think it cost any difference for them to make a P4 3.066GHZ HT chip and a Celeron 600MHZ chip)

  3. #3
    Member NookieN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,415
    Originally posted by oops
    And they mass produce the chips outside the US, so they can pay really low wage to the third world countries' employees...
    Any you think other companies don't do that? Most AMD chips I've seen are packaged in Malaysia or the Phillipines. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola is the same way.

    But pretty much all of the actual chips Intel makes are made in the US -- they just get shipped overseas for packaging and testing.


    (Also I don't think it cost any difference for them to make a P4 3.066GHZ HT chip and a Celeron 600MHZ chip)
    The actual cost of physically making those two might not differ much, but the R&D costs for both the chip design and process are much higher for the 3.06.

  4. #4
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    55

    yep

    nookieN's comments are exactly what I was thinking as well.

    I work in a pharmaceutical setting where people bitch when a drug makes a ton of money. they don't realize all the money that was dumped into R&D. mostly on things that for whatever reason don't work as intended so never are marketed. those R&D costs really pile up. so you have to make your money when you can to shore up the lean years.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    331

    Re: Damn....

    Originally posted by Terry
    In the past 16 years, AMD has had eight profitable years and eight in the red. Total net earnings since the end of 1986, including acquisitions and sell-offs, comes to around $350 million, about the same as Intel earns in six weeks.
    Intel sells a lot more products and services besides CPUs. So it's only natural their total earnings would be a lot higher than AMDs.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    wash dc area
    Posts
    4,546
    more money is spent on advertizing in the big drug companies than r&d.. i resent the fact that a box of nicorrette that cost 50 bucks in the states can be bought from overseas for 25 dollars.. likewise pray that amd survives cause if not intel will charge what they want. just look at the rdram fiasco a couple years back..intel shoves an absurdly expensive memory technology down our throats... without via they wouldve screwed us royally...

  7. #7
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    55
    Flapperhead has an excellent point about Intel having a competitor. It is the "job" of AMD to come up with decent chips and the consumers "job" to at least consider them when building a machine. I am guilty of never buying an AMD chip, as both times I built my computer the Intels were a "better" deal. /shrug

  8. #8
    Member NookieN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,415
    Originally posted by flapperhead
    likewise pray that amd survives cause if not intel will charge what they want. just look at the rdram fiasco a couple years back..intel shoves an absurdly expensive memory technology down our throats... without via they wouldve screwed us royally...
    I would argue that competitive pressure from AMD has forced Intel to make chips _faster_. However, we cannot solely credit AMD with bringing chip prices down. This is dictated by the market, and these days the market doesn't support a $600 ASP per cpu.

    The processor business is definitely an oligopoly, so companies should be set prices at the most profitable level. If AMD could, they would charge more. I once paid $330 for an AMD K6, but few people are willing to pay that much for an AMD (or Intel) processor these days.

    For both companies, the cost of making cpus has been decreasing over the years, which may also have helped to bring down prices. But I suspect most of those savings are pushed back into R&D.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •