OC Detective said:
You misinterpret my point - which is that in order to provide suitable revenue manufacturers need to cater for all potential consumers. So what if the XP1600+ is getting slow by todays standards that wasnt the basis of the conversation - it was to do with comparison on like for like pricewise between intel and AMD - you just went off on a tangent.
I'm sure its good to cater for all potential market segments, but going down to $55 for an Athlon XP is not a smart move IMHO.
If things were going fine the way they are, they wouldn't need to try to raise their ASPs...
And finally, I think the slight differences in CPU prices in the mid range CPUs means that when people are buying SYSTEMs (and most Average Joes do that, not many have the knowhow to open up their case, let alone upgrade...) the price difference between an Intel system and AMD system really is minimal.
Lets just say you pay $400 for an Intel CPU/mobo/RAM combo and $300 for an AMD CPU/mobo/RAM combo... when you take into account the system costs, that would mean a $1500 AMD sytem and $1600 Intel system, and I would bet most Average Joes would happily spend that little extra just to get an Intel...
Anyway, I know I kinda got offtrack, but was just trying to make a point.
