[HousERaT]

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00949/

Personally I hope AMD loses lots of customers behind their pricing practice as of late. I'm still a bit heated about the whole 939 Opteron drama so at this point, good for Intel if they wipe the flow with AMD.

[ShadowPho]

I would like for AMD to go low....really low with prices.
I am thinking of upgrading you see :P.
This is perfect! NVidia vs Radeon price war and now this! w00t!

[stunt]

Price war? you need both sides involved to have a war. I only see Intel. AMD is sitting on the sidelines hoping the high price of their chips isn't noticed.

They seem to think gamers, OC'ers and hardcore users don't mind over paying for components. Which would lead me to believe that they don't look at this board.

[ShadowPho]

Well...looking at conroe prices, I seem to prefer that :P
Then I will jump across 3 generations of memory and 2 generations of video card and 3 generations of CPU...
*sigh*

[rseven]

This isn't what I would call a price war. It's called a monopolistic trick on the part of Intel to drive down AMD's stockprices and profitability. AMD can't afford to get into a price war with Intel because they don't have those kinds of assets.

[Bad Maniac]

Originally Posted by ShadowPho

NVidia vs Radeon price war and now this! w00t!

nVidia vs. ATI price war? Fat lot of good that's done! A good graphcs card is still $1000 and you need 2 of the bloody things! War over who can charge the most outrageous price for their stuff maybe.

I agree this is nothing more than a dirty trick by Intel to reclaim the few sales they've lost to AMD since Athlon took the crown a bit back.

[HousERaT]

Originally Posted by rseven

This isn't what I would call a price war. It's called a monopolistic trick on the part of Intel to drive down AMD's stockprices and profitability. AMD can't afford to get into a price war with Intel because they don't have those kinds of assets.

I'm sorry but I'm not feeling your sympathy for AMD. AMD had several chances in the past to change their pricing policies. They chose to sell a few cpus at high prices instead of selling many at lower prices. They've set themselves up to be abused just like this by Intel. Good for them. I hope the person who came up with this pricing scheme get's fired. That decision was just plain stupid.

[hkgonra]

I only hope AMD and Intel don't get into a price war like ATI and NVidia did.
That war tripled prices on graphics cards !!!!

[Ross]

They seem to think gamers, OC'ers and hardcore users don't mind over paying for components

Why not? It worked for Intel for LOOOOONNGG time and they didn't even perform as well

This isn't what I would call a price war. It's called a monopolistic trick on the part of Intel to drive down AMD's stockprices and profitability. AMD can't afford to get into a price war with Intel because they don't have those kinds of assets.

Intel lowering *$$/performance* and AMD increasing it doesn't exactly reek of a monopolistic trick on Intel's part. The fact of the matter is that they will be using the same architecture for desktop, mobile and server procs and there's cost reduction in economies of scale. Let's face it, it doesn't cost Intel any more $$ to make a 950 than a 920, but it's 3x the price. If they're making $$ on a 920, they are making sick $$ on a 950

The fact that everyone seems to be missing is not the price of the procs, it's the performance you get from them for the money. I don't know about anyone else, but $500 for a Conroe still isn't exactly cheap. In fact, that would be the most I've ever spent on a proc to date. The issue is, it's a $500 processor that, performance-wise, rivals AMD procs that cost twice as much. Retail prices aren't exactly cheaper on Intel's end, but you'll get a LOT more bang for the $$ starting with Conroe. Does that mean Intel should raise prices to match the price of AMD procs at a similar performance level or vice versa? That's what Boards of Directors have to decide, not us All we decide is what we're willing to spend the money on...or not spend at all.

[hkgonra]

Originally Posted by Ross

I don't know about anyone else, but $500 for a Conroe still isn't exactly cheap. In fact, that would be the most I've ever spent on a proc to date.

You bring up a very interesting point. I know I have never paid more than $100 for a processor.

[Ross]

Smoke-free since 11-21-04

OT, but I just saw this in your "cig" Congrats on that! I know exactly how hard it can be to quit and stay quit. I was smoke-free for *3 years* and started again...can you believe that?

[T_Ravis]

Originally Posted by Ross

OT, but I just saw this in your "cig" Congrats on that! I know exactly how hard it can be to quit and stay quit. I was smoke-free for *3 years* and started again...can you believe that?

Smoke free for 7 Weeks with Da patch and getting nervous about my last days on the patch... But the fact is Intel did well for many years over charging for CPU's and AMD got caught with there hand in the cookie jar trying to do the same. I have been fighting the urge to purchase a new 165 or 170 for a couple weeks now because the chance that Intel wants my money more then AMD. I don't like doing a complete system upgrade but will have to because of socket AM2 anyway so why not get the best bang for the buck? I don't really think AMD cares much anymore anyway... Just look at there AMD Tech Tour this year they changed the rules to purchase bundles or even really go. But back in the day they did any thing they could to get anyone to go. AMD is growing and starting to see the signs of being a major company and leaving the ones that help start them behind. I still love them but I am starting to see that its becoming a one way street and with any thing one of us has to lose out !!!

[boris_37]

i don't understand... they are rating Intel mhz- AMD mhz... are they not totally different things?

It's like saying my sempron 1.8ghz is equal to a p4 1.8ghz... which is just not true because my sempron will "be faster"(although i still hate sempron, good budget chip though).

Or am i thinking of this all wrong and AMD/Intel decided to adopt similar clock readings? Because AMD chips hit 3ghz avg overclock while some pentiums hit 5ghz... is each mhz the same "power"? No not really.

I am also not saying intels conroe wont be impressive, im thinking of buying one.

Someone set me straight im confused and either i am right and this article is soooo freaking wrong, or i am wrong and intel might just be taking the lead for good.

[funnyperson1]

Originally Posted by boris_37

i don't understand... they are rating Intel mhz- AMD mhz... are they not totally different things?

It's like saying my sempron 1.8ghz is equal to a p4 1.8ghz... which is just not true because my sempron will "be faster"(although i still hate sempron, good budget chip though).

Or am i thinking of this all wrong and AMD/Intel decided to adopt similar clock readings? Because AMD chips hit 3ghz avg overclock while some pentiums hit 5ghz... is each mhz the same "power"? No not really.

I am also not saying intels conroe wont be impressive, im thinking of buying one.

Someone set me straight im confused and either i am right and this article is soooo freaking wrong, or i am wrong and intel might just be taking the lead for good.

It was never a case of Intel mhz vs AMD mhz, it was AMD Mhz vs Pentium 4 mhz. Conroe is more closely related to Dothan which performs very similarly to AMD64s clock per clock. In fact the only benchmarks which have been released so far had Conroe 20% faster than 939 Chips clock for clock (but those benchies are kinda shady being they were done on systems that intel setup, however they will still be at least as good as an A64 clock per clock).

I am glad that Intel is going low, because AMD used to represent the best deal, now they overcharge. AMD's single Core cpus aren't that bad (although I think the 3000+ should be a bit cheaper than it is), but they are really pushing it with dual-core, imho the price of even entry dual-core from AMD is more than I paid for Mobo+CPU+Ram, and its more than 6 times as much as I paid for my 1700+ 3 years ago which after overclocking competed with the best stock systems of the time.

Thats my problem with AMD right now, they really don't have one of those entry level cpus with great prices that you can overclock the snot out of. If I were building a system now I think I would get an 805D, those things have been overclocking like crazy and are incredibly cheap for dual-cores. Yes, Intel's dual-core pricing would even convince me to overcome my intense dislike for the Netburst architecture. Not to mention that there

[greenmaji]

Question.. How is Intel going to sell chips they have themself said are inferior without lowering prices? They relised information on Conroe too soon not to have to hack prices IMHO

[Ross]

green, we're talking Conroe vs. AMD, not P4. P4s are getting some pretty hefty price cuts next week (CedarMills & Preslers). Intel wants Conroe out ASAP obviously and releasing Conroe results is hurting them, but maybe more importantly, it's hurting AMD.

Intel has made enough $$ on Netburst to probably not sell a damn thing for a couple of Qs and still not show a loss, LOL. Q2 will probably be 10x than Q1 was for Intel (sucked) even with the price cuts, but Q3-Q4 will probably be ridiculously strong. No one in their right mind would buy an Intel at all until Conroe is released and Intel knows it, so if they're going to have to eat it anyway, might as well put some results out there and plant the seed in AMD users heads

[degeester]

Agree with Funnyman1, if we look back at prices for processors. Intel always had a low price point of approx. 175, and going up every 40-50 dollars until the high end which hisotrically been about 400-500. AMD was always the value chip undercutting Intel prices.

My point is if Intel is now cheaper for its chips I will build a new system to replace by socket 478 & buy my first non AGP video card. I've been on the sidelines for a couple of years but it may be time to jump back in.

I had always budgeted paying about $225-250 for a Intel processor. I had always paid $100-$150 for a AMD chip(non Sempron). Yes, I date myself, but I remember when AMD was known for having hot chips.

Intel will be getting rid of the Netburst chips and we'll likely see $100-150 chips(non Celeron).

[Alpha_One]

Originally Posted by rseven

This isn't what I would call a price war. It's called a monopolistic trick on the part of Intel to drive down AMD's stockprices and profitability. AMD can't afford to get into a price war with Intel because they don't have those kinds of assets.

During AMD's heyday back in the T-Bird era, AMD stuff were dirt cheap. Everyone I knew who didn't have a branded computer had a K6something, a Duron, or sometimes an Athlon. All Internet Cafe computers I know had Durons, and some still have them. Pentiums and Celerons were only found in high-end and branded stuff. The Duron was a steal back when it still existed, the Sempron is just... well an AMD Celeron. Sure it's better than the current Celeron, but it's priced the same as a Celeron. I think AMD killed the Duron line to get "cheap/budget" chipmaker image out.

Hell, AMD actually had a price war with itself (Opteron fiasco), so why not Intel?!

Originally Posted by Ross

The fact that everyone seems to be missing is not the price of the procs, it's the performance you get from them for the money. I don't know about anyone else, but $500 for a Conroe still isn't exactly cheap. In fact, that would be the most I've ever spent on a proc to date. The issue is, it's a $500 processor that, performance-wise, rivals AMD procs that cost twice as much. Retail prices aren't exactly cheaper on Intel's end, but you'll get a LOT more bang for the $$ starting with Conroe. Does that mean Intel should raise prices to match the price of AMD procs at a similar performance level or vice versa? That's what Boards of Directors have to decide, not us All we decide is what we're willing to spend the money on...or not spend at all.

Well, if Conroe is at least like the Dothan with 64-bit, then a certain Conroe would cost half as much as a similar X2, performing just as well. I wonder, though, if the cheapest Smithfield/Presler would cost low 100's by then, AMD should have a similarly priced X2. An baseline X2 that costs twice as much isn't going to be twice as good.

Originally Posted by greenmaji

Question.. How is Intel going to sell chips they have themself said are inferior without lowering prices? They relised information on Conroe too soon not to have to hack prices IMHO

Pentium D 805, this is greenmaji. greenmaji, Pentium D 805.

[degeester]

Don't forget about Intel barrelling ahead with 45nm die shrink which scheduled to arrive in chips in 2007 (probably end of 07, but still what has AMD said about 45nm?). If their R&D is working they are going to stay ahead of AMD. It will be partially about economies of scale. As is it now, Intel will be firmly shipping 65 nm with Conroe and AMD is struggling with getting its fabs to 65 nm (with decent yields) or contract with someone else i.e. Chartered

[tresmonos]

Unfortunately for us, AMD will do whatever they can to maintain their stock prices. Since they don't have the massive market shart that Intel has, we're going to continue to see high prices