First E6850 Benchmarks With Aggressive Pricing

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
Well, AMD will have no one except themselves to blame if they don't plan their product mix right. I think they should make a strategic decision to also offer a lower end quad core (smaller caches) that is cheap enough to make, just because it makes sense. This kind of thing requires just a bit of imagination, and AMd will certainly need to plan it's mix intelligently.
 
for the first 6 months or so,every k10 made will be an opty that the hungry oems will swallow in rageiung gulps,then for the first 4 months or so,the desktop k10 cores will be impossible to find, so imho we have almost a year before k10 will be avalible to most people...about the same time intel replaces penryn...so AMD most set their sights on not conroe, or penryn...but what comes next, and they need to price according to that to...get enough k10s out, that the upgrade path keeps people with them
 
1) Give me a sec to pick my jaw back up if the Q6600 is going to be $266
2) Intel already shoved AMD to the edge of the map with Core arch,
3) Intel could very well fart hard enough in AMD's direction to push it off the map with this kind of pricing - this is out for blood pricing.

A question though for you guys: WTF happens to server end chips? I mean, if Intel plans on doing this with these bleeding edge prices and killing AMD then i'd buy up more than a few quad-cores for price jacking reasons, but whats the use if you can't put them in more than one socket? They'd all be outdated at once! Unless you can do a server setup and distribute your main computer's processing/graphics over like 10 computers to play DX11 games hahaha. But seriously, if this off's AMD then what happens to us and technology?

The courts yell monopoly and split Intel, or IBM joins in the PC market, cause you all know for damn sure HP/Dell/Etc are no way in hell going to start producing CPU's... OMG! TEXAS INSTRUMENTS! PWNT!!!!

/shitbrick
/ragequit
 
First of all, welcome back ltcommander_data. Second, interesting article and good read, as always :)
I am a bit suspicious about the prices, but if it is true than it could mean that:
1. K10 kicks ass, so Intel are going to try to kill it with low prices.
2. Penryn kicks ass and better performing C2's will fill the higher price range
3. Intel wants to destroy AMD and make it unsuccessful at any cost

Anyway, Q6600 before x-mas to me sounds like a perfect upgrade.
 
Since this is my first post and don't want it coming out later and having people question my motives I am going to say the following. I work for Intel, in no way shape or form do I speak for Intel. The following is my personal opinion only and does not reflect the opinions of anyone other than me.


OK, having said that, I can, with all honesty, say I have never seen a single thing within Intel which would suggest they want AMD to go out of business. In fact, I have specifically heard(and believe) comments that having a real competitor in AMD is making us a better company. The fact that for many recent years Intel was complacent and executed very poorly while a great competitor executed crisply really stung many of us. We love competition, even internally, and it is well understood we simply did not execute well for many years. So what now? Intel has definitely turned the corner regarding ability to execute(3 years ago we couldn't decide our way out of a paper bag) and begun to operate effectively again. I only say effectively because the company is still not hitting on all 8 Cylinders (I'd personally say it is at 5 or six cylinders).

Did I begrudge AMD when they clearly had the best processors and drove Intel ASP's down? No. We are in competition and they won the round (quite a few rounds actually). Maybe Intel one the recent round, but I have no doubt that AMD will hit back with a great product and take the lead again at some point. Companies are very much like people...there are times when they seem unstoppable, but inevitably they stumble, or the competition comes up with a technology shifting product that changes the landscape. And then the cycle starts over again. I know it is very easy to get caught up in what is happening at any given time, but if people take a step back and look at technology historically you will see, there is almost always great competition, technology advances can quickly change the playing field, and what makes great companies great is their ability to adjust to those changes (and yes, I consider both AMD and Intel great companies).

hognose
Click to expand...


as the dragon said earlier!


Intel is trying to put the hurt on amd but they are not that stupid to sell a q6600 for under $300 - that is bs!

what is that sound? omg amd...... :twisted: ... just died!
Click to expand...


I think Intel has sufficiently made its point, they dont need to get that personal about it. especially since it will screw us all to have AMD dead.
Click to expand...

I do not think intel is making a point i think they are going to show good profits next quarter or so.
its up to amd to compete and they better get the dies smaller or making some really cheap silicon metal

even intel agrees with me!
 
It reminds me of a movie line, see if you can guess ---

"I'm gonna call up some homies... with a pair of pliers and a blow torch, hear that you hillbilly rapist, I'm gonna get midevil on your a$$" :)
Click to expand...

Pulp Fiction - Marsellus Wallace, after he was treated ... let's say... improperly.
 
I'm late I know but duty called.

Basically if AMD does fall the prices will just shoot back up again coz there is no competition to keep the prices low. Intel won't advance as quickly anymore also due to no competition so let's hope AMD can weather the storm about to come...IMHO
 
Why am I not shocked at all? I've been to Malaysia a couple of weeks ago and had the chance to visit one of intel's subcontracting plants that manufacture their chips. The cost of production of "one" of these processors is less than $5.oo. It is shocking that I spent a good $314.oo for the e6600. Now all I have to do is go back to Malaysia and maybe just maybe convince them to sneak me out a couple of e6320s and e6420s in exchange for a crispy $100.oo.

If Intel keeps this up, they might be able to drive AMD to sell out sooner than we think. Once its done, Intel will do a Microsoft on us, monopolize the processor arena and pretty much control the pricing once AMD is out of the woodworks. Competition is healthy. If Intel wins this out, its bad enough for AMD and its bad enough for us as well!
 
The cost of production of "one" of these processors is less than $5.oo.
Click to expand...
This is plain wrong...
If you consider only the price of the used physical materials, than yes it is sub $5. But you are missing the huge part which is forming the price:
- equipment needed for developing, testing and mass producing
- marketing, technical(software and hardware developers) and customer support
- scientists, engineers, developers
So if you sum this up, you need:
- years(consider time=money) and billions to build appropriate fabs for developing and mass producing
- years and hundreds of millions to pay the scientists, engineers and developers
- hundreds of millions to pay other employees from administration, marketing and other sectors
- hundreds of millions for software and hardware developers support, market support, customer support, developing tools, licenses, certificates, etc.
And this list is just basic. I guess that there are much other categories which are affecting the price of a single CPU.

@verndewd
Its only Hognose's personal opinion. We don't think same :wink:
 
From what I remember, before the A64s, Intel had a fairly consistant price range for it's top chips. Does anyone remember?
As I recall, the top chip had a pricetag just under $500. The 5th chip went for ~ $183.
It seems to me that Intel is just moving back to it's old pricing format.
 
Since this is my first post and don't want it coming out later and having people question my motives I am going to say the following. I work for Intel, in no way shape or form do I speak for Intel. The following is my personal opinion only and does not reflect the opinions of anyone other than me.


OK, having said that, I can, with all honesty, say I have never seen a single thing within Intel which would suggest they want AMD to go out of business. In fact, I have specifically heard(and believe) comments that having a real competitor in AMD is making us a better company. The fact that for many recent years Intel was complacent and executed very poorly while a great competitor executed crisply really stung many of us. We love competition, even internally, and it is well understood we simply did not execute well for many years. So what now? Intel has definitely turned the corner regarding ability to execute(3 years ago we couldn't decide our way out of a paper bag) and begun to operate effectively again. I only say effectively because the company is still not hitting on all 8 Cylinders (I'd personally say it is at 5 or six cylinders).

Did I begrudge AMD when they clearly had the best processors and drove Intel ASP's down? No. We are in competition and they won the round (quite a few rounds actually). Maybe Intel one the recent round, but I have no doubt that AMD will hit back with a great product and take the lead again at some point. Companies are very much like people...there are times when they seem unstoppable, but inevitably they stumble, or the competition comes up with a technology shifting product that changes the landscape. And then the cycle starts over again. I know it is very easy to get caught up in what is happening at any given time, but if people take a step back and look at technology historically you will see, there is almost always great competition, technology advances can quickly change the playing field, and what makes great companies great is their ability to adjust to those changes (and yes, I consider both AMD and Intel great companies).

hognose
Click to expand...

wow,awesome statement.

One problem with that...

Unless you're one of the bigwigs in the company, I severely doubt Intel doesn't want to kill AMD.

We all know what the big directors and COs want. They want to keep shareholders happy, and how do you think they're going to do that? By getting record profits and dividends for shareholders.
What needs to happen for Intel to get limitless amounts of profits? No competition.

But your statement, hognose, is 100% true. You need competition to be able to perform at your peak, and as you said, it's just like two fighters in life. How did (and I'm throwing this out there) Rocky become the greatest fighter ever (at least in the movies)? By competition and motivation, be it Apollo or Mick or family.
 
One thing to remember, is that AMD/ATI are not confined to the cpu/gpu space. There are fairly large margins in the mobile sector and entertainment sector which is incidentally one of the major factors in the aquisition of ATI.

http://s1.blog.sanriotown.com/yingdong:hellokitty.com/2007/03/09/china-expects-600m-mobile-users-by-2010/

A large share of the products 600 million chinese will be using, contain AMD's mobile technology. There are other areas of the market where AMD is well positioned as well. They are not in as much of a desperate position that many seem to believe.
 
3Dmark scores and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
I've never been able to figure how a P4 chip got a better cpu mark, while the A64 with same gfx card got a higher overall score.
I guess the A64s made better gaming systems, but they would have been even more better if they came with an Intel Inside sticker.
 
3Dmark scores and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
I've never been able to figure how a P4 chip got a better cpu mark, while the A64 with same gfx card got a higher overall score.
I guess the A64s made better gaming systems, but they would have been even more better if they came with an Intel Inside sticker.
Click to expand...
and prescott would have sold better with a Pentium 5 sticker on:

Prescott
 
At that time, everyone on the planet was trying to make a chip. Fairchild had spent years on it. Faggin was the one who made the 4004 work. I'm sure someone else would have done it eventually, but probably not anyone at Intel. Well, that's my take on it, at any rate.
Hate the company, love the product, when they do it right.
 
Whoa. Those prices are seriously... whoa. AMD's current flagship processors will have to drop below $100 to keep the price/performance ratio up. I wonder if AMD will be able to produce Barcelona at low enough cost to compete with Intel's prices.
Click to expand...


Predators introduce predatory prices in the hopes that the competition can't hang in there.
 
In other news, Hector Ruiz responded today on behalf of AMD saying, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"

:)
 
I actually don't know if the Prescott would have sold better with a Pentium 5 sticker. I think that by saying Pentium 5, Intel would be saying "this is a new poduct that is significantly better than the last" when in fact it wasn't a better product that Northwood - it was more of a step sideways. So to name the product as a new generation would be slightly misleading to the consumer and that hurts brand loyalty. Core was a shift and Core 2 was as well, hence the new names. If Penryn doesn't radically change performance, then it may not get a new name either (it probably won't as people are still confused on the difference b/w Core and Core 2).
 
I actually don't know if the Prescott would have sold better with a Pentium 5 sticker.
Click to expand...

For anyone that remembers, the P5 was actually the first pentium released. It was easy to surmise before the release of C2D that Intel would have to deviate from the "Pentium" brand; at least in the form of sequntial numbering.

Even so, I think Intel did a good job of pilfering the "Core" name just as "Core" became a common buzz-word (e.g. "Multi-Core", "It has a 2.8 GHz Core", etc). It's a morally contemptible, however effective, marketing tactic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom