Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > Intel CPUs
Intel CPUs
Forum Jump

Damn....

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-24-03, 03:39 AM Thread Starter   #1
Terry
Member

 
Terry's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2000

10 Year Badge
 
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.

__________________
My Heatware
Terry is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-24-03, 07:37 AM   #2
oops
Member

 
oops's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2002

 
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)
oops is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-24-03, 10:27 AM   #3
NookieN
Member

 
NookieN's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The West

 
Quote:
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.


Quote:
(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.
NookieN is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-24-03, 11:06 AM   #4
AngryKid
Registered



Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: michigan

 
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.
AngryKid is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-24-03, 01:14 PM   #5
baraka
Member



Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA

 
Re: Damn....


Quote:
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.
baraka is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-25-03, 07:18 AM   #6
flapperhead
Senior Member



Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: wash dc area

 
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...
flapperhead is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-25-03, 08:23 AM   #7
AngryKid
Registered



Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: michigan

 
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
AngryKid is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-25-03, 10:12 AM   #8
NookieN
Member

 
NookieN's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The West

 
Quote:
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.
NookieN is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > Intel CPUs
Intel CPUs
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?