Wow, that's probably the most convuluted argument/statement I've ever read. Because 500 million Red Chinese can buy their CPU's cheaper, the Chinese stock market tanked? That is the meat of your statement, no?
Sooo, because the chinese economy nets CPUs on the cheap and costs intel money, this panics investors in Shanghai, who begin selling left and right?
Or was it possibly because the National People's Congress was meeting and there were rumors flying around that the Party was going to take some sort of action to cool down the stock market??
My money is on the latter. I understand you dislike Intel Sir, but let's not get carried away, shall we?
Sooo, because the chinese economy nets CPUs on the cheap and costs intel money, this panics investors in Shanghai, who begin selling left and right?
Or was it possibly because the National People's Congress was meeting and there were rumors flying around that the Party was going to take some sort of action to cool down the stock market??
My money is on the latter. I understand you dislike Intel Sir, but let's not get carried away, shall we?
xpresso
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2006
- 172
- 0
- 18,680
Vern,
I am with you on this one, except I had cheered on AMD for years to give Intel healthy competition until I saw the serious arrogance displayed by AMD execs and their boasting of their superiority in 2005-2006. As a matter of fact they seem to be still doing that till this day. IBM doing something similar calling Intel's 45nm high-k gate "can openers" compared with IBM's solution. Give me a break ! 8O
xpresso
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2006
- 172
- 0
- 18,680
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$$"
Pulp Fiction - Marsellus Wallace, after he was treated ... let's say... improperly.
Zed is dead baby, Zed is dead :lol: :lol:
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
Hmm thats a very interesting theory you have there.
It implies that to prevent future competiton, Intel wouldnt raise its prices if it did indeed drive AMD out of business. In which case, other theories about it being bad for the consumer if AMD were to go out of business are wrong.
Who said no one believes K10 wont be faster than opteron by 40%?
I think your confusing the disbelief over the Fanboys who are running around saying K10 will be faster than C2D by 40%-80%. You know, the idiots who didnt actually read the tech articles. The ones who just read the quotes from nameless sources in unreliable adver-rags
BaronMatrix
Splendid
- Dec 14, 2005
- 6,655
- 0
- 25,790
seems to me just plain Hypocricy by AMD's dweebs :!:
Well, let's hope the word "Espresso" was taken and you can spell that and hypocrisy.
If not, go back to the short bus. I won't say anything else. I hope the bottom falls out of the industry and their are mass Ch11s from all over the world as support industries have to cut profits by as much as 30-40%.
boduke
Distinguished
- Oct 25, 2006
- 410
- 0
- 18,780
seems to me just plain Hypocricy by AMD's dweebs :!:
Well, let's hope the word "Espresso" was taken and you can spell that and hypocrisy.
If not, go back to the short bus. I won't say anything else. I hope the bottom falls out of the industry and their are mass Ch11s from all over the world as support industries have to cut profits by as much as 30-40%.
ALL HAIL THE IDIOCRACY!
Sorry couldn't help it...
Probably a consortium... keep in mind if AMD does not go Chap 11 (reorg)... but rather liquidates...
Then any company entering the market would get all of AMD's assets for pennies on the dollar (or at least the ones that they wanted).
I wouldn't rule out some korean companies getting in the mix against Intel.
But anyway... what can you overclock a 6800 or 6850 to?
Edit: Hypothetically, if Intel was the only game in town... the government would be all over it - it would become a regulated company. I'm sure there would either be a break-up or profit limits enacted. However, I see either an AMD reorg or a new competitor arising as much more realistic.
Don't worry, if AMD bites the bullet (I doubt it), no one wil be able to come in with the perdatory pricing scheme Intel is getting away with.
First, you'd need something much faster and then you'd need enough capital to deal with the bleeding Intel can cause with their "monopoly."
It looks bad for the PC industry right now. If OEMs thoght their margins were razor thin before......
Intel is not engaging in predatory pricing.
Predatory pricing (also known as Destroyer pricing) is the practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barrier to entry into the market for potential new competitors. The Supreme Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's cost.
Intel is making a profit. To say it is predatory pricing is factually incorrect. It is impossible to argue otherwise unless you make up a new definition for predatory pricing.
Intel is not a monopoly.
Primary characteristics of a monopoly:
1. Single Seller: In this type of market, there is only one seller of a single, specific commodity which is well known.
2. No close substitutes: 'Monopoly' not only implies a single seller, but it also means a single seller of a commodity that has no close substitutes. If there are substitutes available, competition arises.
3.Price maker: there are no competitors present that can exert pressure on the pricing structure of the dominant firm.
Intel does not have any of the primary characteristics of a monopoly. AMD's pricing affects Intel's pricing. The demand for Intel's products is directly related to Intel's pricing (i.e. there is an upwardly sloping demand curve, not a vertical curve.)
It's tiring to hear the same rubbish over and over again. It is as if repetition will make it true!
If AMD disappears, would Intel then become a monopoly? Probably, but that is a big IF.....and not a current truth.
Whizzard9992
Distinguished
- Jan 18, 2006
- 1,076
- 0
- 19,280
I doubt Intel's doing this simply to apply pressure on AMD. They've demonstrated already with Conroe that a better product will allow them to regain market share. They don't need to lower prices for the sake of lowering them; they can turn a huge profit simply by having a superior product.
My point is that it's more likely that Barcelona is going to be a great chip, and Intel is poising themselves to respond accordingly. It's a theory that makes a great deal of sense without going to extremes (e.g. Predatory Pricing).
My point is that it's more likely that Barcelona is going to be a great chip, and Intel is poising themselves to respond accordingly. It's a theory that makes a great deal of sense without going to extremes (e.g. Predatory Pricing).
pausert20
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2006
- 577
- 0
- 18,980
Vern, has Intel dropped the pricing on any Core 2 Duo processors since their release? Not that I have found.
The netburst line has gone under significant pricing drop. That is to move them out of inventory.
What is going to happen in April? For the first time the Core 2 Duo line of processors is going to get a price reduction. To me that is not agreesive pricing but milking the most money possible out of the Core 2 Duo line.
If, and I repeat if Intel does drop prices in the 3rd Quarter down to what HK site has stated I believe that is is in response to the launch of the new Penryn based core processors. This follows the history of what Intel does when launching new processors or a new speed bin of a current processor.
So, what is supposed to be coming out in Q3?
New Celeron based Core based processor
New cut cache E2xxx Core 2 Duo based Pentium line
New higher Bin of the Allendale E4xxx line of processors
Several new Core 2 Duo E6xxx series of processors which include the 1333 based ones.
Then sometime in the 3rd or 4th quarter the new Penryn based processors come out at a much higher top bin speed to compete with the Barcelona based server and desktop parts.
Has anyone seen what Intel plans on releasing in April with the first Core 2 Duo price reduction? I have not. Just that the low end of the Core 2 Duo line gets cheaper making it harder for AMD to compete until they launch their new core.
The netburst line has gone under significant pricing drop. That is to move them out of inventory.
What is going to happen in April? For the first time the Core 2 Duo line of processors is going to get a price reduction. To me that is not agreesive pricing but milking the most money possible out of the Core 2 Duo line.
If, and I repeat if Intel does drop prices in the 3rd Quarter down to what HK site has stated I believe that is is in response to the launch of the new Penryn based core processors. This follows the history of what Intel does when launching new processors or a new speed bin of a current processor.
So, what is supposed to be coming out in Q3?
New Celeron based Core based processor
New cut cache E2xxx Core 2 Duo based Pentium line
New higher Bin of the Allendale E4xxx line of processors
Several new Core 2 Duo E6xxx series of processors which include the 1333 based ones.
Then sometime in the 3rd or 4th quarter the new Penryn based processors come out at a much higher top bin speed to compete with the Barcelona based server and desktop parts.
Has anyone seen what Intel plans on releasing in April with the first Core 2 Duo price reduction? I have not. Just that the low end of the Core 2 Duo line gets cheaper making it harder for AMD to compete until they launch their new core.
Periander
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2007
- 170
- 0
- 18,680
Yep, exactly right. Let me nip this predatory pricing thing in the bud here. There is ZERO chance under current US anti-trust case law that Intel is going to have any chance of being in trouble with the FTC on the grounds of predatory pricing, unless they lower their prices to something below their cost of production. Levels which would be far far lower than the announced 2H price cuts. The key case here is Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2589 (1993), Kennedy writing for the majority:
There has been no successful prosecution for predatory pricing by the FTC since this decision. Zero. In fact, the 10th Circut in United States v. AMR Corp., held that sellers "cost", in order to meet the requirement of selling below cost for a finding of predatory pricing, to be average variable cost i.e. not inclusive of Plant + Equipment ect, and it's those fixed costs which constitute the bulk of total costs that go into semiconductor manufacturing. In other words, Intel could charge something like $25 for it's quad cores, and it still would not constitute predatory pricing under current US law.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram