AMD: Barcelona to outperform Clovertown by 40%. WOW!!!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
So there's a possibility of stock on 11/22. How much and is this for real? Most companies try to release new products before Christmas season because it's a BIG money maker. I can't help but think that the AMD execs are beating themselves over the head trying to figure out how to get this out to take advantage of Christmas. If they don't get it out by Christmas, I would have to figure that they have a SERIOUS, and I mean SERIOUS problem preventing wide distribution. No company just 'lets' their product not get released at xmas unless someone's getting fired for their failure to plan for a good release. Even if their product sucks, they should still be striving to get it out by christmas, even if only to try to make money selling in volume.
 



Too late for Christmas. In order to take advantage of that AMD needs to be shipping from Dell and HP, they've missed that bus. Hell, I bet we won't even see Barcelona's shipping from the big guys this year. AMD has only been able to trickle Barcelonas to retailers, big guys like Dell and IBM aren't interested in a limited quantity.

This is exactly why Dell didn't go with AMD in the first place, because they know Intel can deliver.
 


AMD just got $622 from Dhabi, so they have a good chance to survive. Bigger prospect that I see is AMD going back to being a second rate company like it was years ago, putting out fair chips, but not top performers. Of course, if that happens, then Intel will have its way free to increase prices again.
 


How much was an X2 3800+ prior to Core 2 Duo's release? Did AMD price them cheap? So, because AMD is now in the same situation as Intel was during Netburst, it's all Intel's fault that they price their products accordingly? I didn't hear complaining when AMD did the same just 2 years ago. So, why now?

Also, if Intel was just into price gouging, they would've kept the Q6600 high, and not even release the QX9650. That would've been the old days again. They (Intel) are not doing that. Yes, their newest and greatest Extremes will always be overpriced for the performance, but people still buy them. Same way AMD's latest and greatest did back in the day.

If AMD could, they would price the Phenoms in the high price range. Nothing would make them happier. They can't, cause the price would not equal the performance (at least what has been leaked). Back when the X2 3800+ was kicking Intel's entire CPU line, they were priced quite high.

Take a look at this price list from 2004. Price list Even without Intel challenging AMD's performance, was AMD's CPUs dirt cheap?

 


No, the AMD chips weren't cheap, but neither were the Intel chips. It was the price war that brought chips down to where they are now, from both companies. Without that price war, chips from both companies would be a lot more expensive. As you note, the 3800+ was expensive at $626, but Intel's p4's were running as high as $999 for a 3.4ghz Northwood, socket 478.

As for Intel's Q6600 and QX9650, they are there more because there has been competition from AMD then out of Intel being generous. I wouldn't call the QX9650 a low priced chip at $1295 either. No, its competition that has given us the present low prices for CPUs and if AMD functionally disappears as a competition, then Intel will be free to raise its prices to pre-price war levels. We need AMD. I'll be building a new computer in the next month, and I want to be able to buy a Q6600 at a cheap price, not at a level like that old P4 3.4 ghz was.
 


Yes, but you are listing the price for the always overpriced Extreme CPUs.
The P4 5xx series were mid-ranged priced, but compared to the 939 sockets starting with the A64 3500+, the prices AMD put on their processors matched the performance gains over Intel's CPUs, at the time.
So, now that Intel has the upper hand, people are beginning to complain about how prices will skyrocket? Even AMD's 2.4GHz A64 line (with no less than 3 different names) went from $451 to 729. And it's the same frequency.

Intel might keep a premium on their latest and greatest, but after the Netburst debacle, I seriously doubt they will just hike the prices up to old P3 days. The market won't allow it, I believe.
 


hahaha ok
 
Intel might keep a premium on their latest and greatest, but after the Netburst debacle, I seriously doubt they will just hike the prices up to old P3 days. The market won't allow it, I believe.
Click to expand...
That's my thought about all this hysteria about Intel shooting prices skyward. There are too many things and people dependent on computers now for Intel to go and price themselves out of the reach of the majority of people. Sure their top end will carry a premium, but I can't see them charging $500+ for a midrange cpu. I think it would be too much of a risk to sway people over to AMD.
 



This was part of my original point, that AMD must remain a serious enough competitor to Intel so that Intel doesn't feel that there is no risk to raising its prices.

Consider the car business of about 35-45 years ago. The American auto companies did not consider the Japanese auto companies as a threat, so they could make cars as poorly as they wanted and charge as much as they wanted. Only when the Japanes companies started becoming a threat to sales in teh late 1970's did the American companies start to respond. Even now, the American car companies have yet to fully recover from their arrogance and bad reputation built decades ago.

During the heyday of AMD's 939 platform, AMD became a threat to Intel, so Intel responded and lowered prices across the board, starting the present price war and giving us better CPUs at lower prices. If AMD gets fully crushed and becomes a non-threat to Intel's business, then Intel will not feel any pressure to continue the lower prices that we now see, as the risk will be gone. I don't think this is hysteria, but is rather based on sound economics. I want AMD to remain, because then I can buy a Q6600 or some other future CPU at a low price.

As for too many things and people being dependant on computers, that's similar to the American car companies attitudes during the 1960's and 1970's. People needed and depended on cars, but there was no good alternative other than the American car. Without AMD providing a good alternative CPU, then people will have to buy from Intel at whatever price Intel charged for its CPUs.

Perhaps you might try thinking of it this way. If the best CPU you could buy from AMD was a slow AM2 for $200, but Intel was offering a fast C2D or Quad for $500-$600, would you pay the extra money for the fast Intel, or would you buy the slow AMD? In the business market, which is the most profitable one for computer chip companies, the businesses would pay the extra money and get the Intel. As far as enthusiasts go, we make up only a very small portion of the overall sales of computer chips, so Intel wouldn't really care that much about us. It would simply say, "Here is the chip. This is its price. Take it or leave it". That may not sound nice, but that's the way businesses run when they control the market.
 
Neither do I. I'm sure Intel has its own business counselors to advise what can be done and what can't. One other thing they must acknowledge is that if they go too far, some government agency or other will intrude, and that's about the last thing they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom