Intel Inflates CPU Prices says AMD. We Investigate

[tuannguyen]

We have all heard in recent news that Intel was slapped with a hefty fine by the European Union ringing to the tune of $1.4 billion. This fine, is even larger than the one Microsoft was fined, which was already a record $1.3 billion.

Intel Inflates CPU Prices says AMD. We Investigate : Read more

 

[P1nky]

How can you say "If the EU's findings are indeed true"?? Who do you think UE is?!

This article is a joke. You try to find out the truth when Japan, South Korea and Europe already found it and took action against Intel.

Intel fan boy or Intel paid article?

 

[tenor77]

Well I don't think you can expect AMD to not try to put a positive spin on this. If you come to them directly and ask what they think of their competition they're not going to give them a raving review.

AMD: "Well shucks, Intels alright. Sure they do some illegal things, but they're good people all the same"

No I don't think Intel inflates CPU prices. By the vary nature of competition both companies help to lower prices.

 

[dingumf]

To P1nky

Toms Hardware isn't as good as the good old days.

 

[Guest]

But can it play Crysis?

 

[dman3k]

So by the very nature of competition, it's ok for one company who has significantly more resources kill their competition by selling things at ridiculously low prices that the competition cannot survive?

Great!

 

[tenor77]

[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]So by the very nature of competition, it's ok for one company who has significantly more resources kill their competition by selling things at ridiculously low prices that the competition cannot survive?Great![/citation]

Did I say that? Umm no. The question is, "Does Intel inflate CPU prices?"
No. Competition lowers prices.

 

[turboflame]

We realize that the EU accused Intel of actively paying vendors to outright avoid AMD technology.

You sure? The entire article pretty much sidesteps this issue.

The article also focuses purely on today's CPU situation. Back when the Pentium 4 was facing the Athlon 64, Intel made no real attempt to price it's CPUs competitively as it does now. They were still selling $1000 extreme edition CPUs that were beaten by AMD CPUs that cost less than half as much.

 

[snowysoul]

I own only AMD home built desktops, and yes thought it was great that Intel was getting a fine. But who else thought this was just a bunch of misconstrued garbage for EU to get money? What is next, Cisco getting sued by EU for being competitive?
Also I was appalled to learn that AMD does not have the same level of interaction with company system builders in a previous article on this website. You reap what you sow.

 

[gzhang]

well, is it ridiculously low price or inflated prices?

 

[porksmuggler]

one has to wonder why these trials rarely end in the plaintiff's favor here in the U.S.

Here in the U.S., anti-competitive practices rarely see the light of day in court, unless there's strong public outcry.

We realize that the EU accused Intel of actively paying vendors to outright avoid AMD technology

But yet you are determined to sideline that real issue in this article.

This only makes Intel's behavior anti-competitive

Let's focus on AMD's key question. Why would Intel act to limit customer options? You need to revisit your understanding of the nature/root of anti-competitive behavior.

I leave it up to you to study what AMD said

I get it, you dont, hopefully most that read this will, despite the anecdotal evidence you seem to rely on...

 

[danhitchcock]

I like (meaning I don't like) how I'm left to interpret AMD's response which was kind of the the point of article, but I am not informed that the Intel fine was equal to AMD's loss....

I see AMD's point on price inflating for high end CPUs. They clamin that Intel crippled their ability to produce high end CPUs. Right now, there is no consumer (AMD) processor which can compare to the corei7. $1000 for a corei7 965? c'mon... If AMD released a processor which could compete, we would see that price cut in half in a week.
AMD does provide excellent competition for the mid range, so I agree there is not much if any price inflation for those processors. I suppose since I'll never shell out $1000 for a CPU it doesn't really affect me.

 

[swiftsword69]

If not for AMD, we will still be paying top dollars of our hard earned money to own Intel parts.

Anyone still remember the old days when you pay ridiculous price just for a mid performance part and over the roof for the high end stuff (still true these days but to a much lesser extent).

I will always be grateful of what AMD has done for us and thank god they got their acts together with ATI in their graphics division. The radeon 4 series rock, the 3 series was a joke.

 

[Guest]

In my opinion the company you were working for and HP should both be fined, the company for misleading customers and HP for anti-competitive strategies.

How can you possibly justify the fact that you didn't advise your customers what they needed but advised them with the goal of filling your own pockets?

Apparently this is legal in the US but it sure as hell is a shady area, and a practice that I (and the EU obviously) deem unacceptable.

I have to agree with P1nky on this one, Intel has been proven wrong and who do you think you are questioning the verdicts of several legal authorities?

 

[Soul_keeper]

I payed 300 for my Q9450 over a year ago, prices havn't changed
they just replaced it with the Q9550 (basically identical) and charge the same price for 2009.

Intel will milk every dollar out of us if given the chance.
I refuse to consider/recommend the i7 to anyone, it's just too painfull when I remember the Socket A days, when amd was on top, where for under 100 bucks you could basically get a top of the line athlon (with a little oc).



please don't quote me, just my opinions here.

 

[brother shrike]

I love how AMD completely ignores the question about how they consider Intel's pricing to be inflated.

TH: Do you consider Intel's pricing to be inflated?
AMD: Intel broke the law!

TH: Yes, Yes, we get that. How do you consider Intel's prices to be inflated?
AMD: Intel broke the law!

 

[bill gates is your daddy]

There seems to be a lot more Intel / Nvidia love coming out in the articles nowadays. You might want to try and stay a little more neutral in the future. The fanboyism is starting to show.

 

[armistitiu]

[citation]Why else limit choice if not to ensure their products don't have to compete on merits... with pricing being a component.[/citation]
I think this is pretty clear.

I do remember the Intel jingle all the time and yes AMD needs to focus more on marketing. I mean i do remember "Smarter choice" and "The future is fusion" (i don't like this one) but they don't have a jingle or something really catchy.

 

[swiftsword69]

In the end, im sure everyone here wants the competition between the two rivals to go on for eternity.

Competition = consumer benefits.

I would hate to see AMD die. Intel has money to burn anyway and AMD seriously need that $1.4bil to keep going.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea how much debt they are still in after buying out ATI?

 

[Guest]

One glaring thing this article refuses to acknowledge is the one fact that AMD stresses repeatedly: "For the period from 2002 to 2007". You can ask motherboard manufacturers now and get the expected response "Intel offers high-end, AMD value-priced". What you refuse to acknowledge, repeatedly, is that this was not true for the period in question (2002-2007). Even Tom's Hardware tests repeatedly proved that the Athlon/Athlon64 offerings were superior to Intel's Pentium IV.

 

[KT_WASP]

This article was written by someone who went into this "interview" with their own preconceived notions. All it was ,was one question, asked over and over again, in an argumentative tone, followed by a "preachy" speech based on the "interviewer's" own views. How do you expect AMD to shed light on this subject when it is apparent that the person who did the interview had their own agenda?

Do a search on newegg right now for sub-$100 Retail CPUs :

Intel:
Single core = 1 (1.8GHz)
Dual Core = 8 (1.6GHz - 2.8 GHz)

AMD:
Single Core = 3 (2.2GHz - 2.7GHz)
Dual Core = 9 (2.6GHz - 3.0GHz)
Triple Core 2 (2.1GHz - 2.3GHz)
Quad Core = 1 (2.3GHz)

Intel does offer up some good CPUs in that price range, but half of those Intel dual-cores are 2.2GHz and under, where as AMD's lowest offering for dual cores is 2.6GHz. AMD also has triple and quad core options... I don't think you will see an Intel quad core offered at the sub $100 mark any time soon.

Intel has more money.. hands down... AMD is hurting for money, but still delivers better price conscience options.... Instead of doing underhanded things for business, why doesn't Intel just suck it up and lower their prices?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, AMD's argument holds some water and this article was clearly written by someone who refuses to see that.

 

[xpont8]

i find the article fair. my pc is amd based (using an athlon x2). amd could not really prove that intel has an inflated pricing with thier cpus BASED in US pricing but that would not be the fact in other countries like here in the philippines. amd cpus are almost half the price against inline intel products. check this link: http://enigma-phil.com.ph/Downloads.php.

 

[hellwig]

In the first quarter of 2009, AMD spent a total of $287 million to market (PDF) its products. During the same period, Intel spent $1.2 billion (PDF). Intel also spent $1.31 billion on R&D, while AMD spent only $446 million.

How much is Intel's investment vs. its market share? It seems to me both companies spend an amount similar to their percentage of market share, thus no surprise here.

However, budget and market share are not 1:1, nor do they run on a linear scale. I think that if Intel and AMD were both direct-to-consumer marketing, Intel would need to pay a whole lot more for the amount of share it has. Instead, Intel is going to the OEMs, who in turn limit what is available to the consumer.

Therefore, consumers are still being hurt, if not directly by Intel, by the OEMs who accept this money. How can people want an AMD machine if Dell, HP, etc... only make machines with Intel inside(tm)? Why should AMD advertise on TV or have a catchy commercial like guys in colored clean suits dancing around the fab room if the OEMs aren't going to make consumer PCs with AMD processors? If companies don't make AMD machines because no one wants them, thats fine. If they don't make AMD machines simply because Intel pays them to make Intel machines, that's harmful to the consumer, illegal or not.

 

[brother shrike]

[citation][nom]KT_Wasp[/nom]This article was written by someone who went into this "interview" with their own preconceived notions. All it was ,was one question, asked over and over again, in an argumentative tone, followed by a "preachy" speech based on the "interviewer's" own views. How do you expect AMD to shed light on this subject when it is apparent that the person who did the interview had their own agenda?Do a search on newegg right now for sub-$100 Retail CPUs :Intel:Single core = 1 (1.8GHz)Dual Core = 8 (1.6GHz - 2.8 GHz)AMD:Single Core = 3 (2.2GHz - 2.7GHz)Dual Core = 9 (2.6GHz - 3.0GHz)Triple Core 2 (2.1GHz - 2.3GHz)Quad Core = 1 (2.3GHz)Intel does offer up some good CPUs in that price range, but half of those Intel dual-cores are 2.2GHz and under, where as AMD's lowest offering for dual cores is 2.6GHz. AMD also has triple and quad core options... I don't think you will see an Intel quad core offered at the sub $100 mark any time soon.Intel has more money.. hands down... AMD is hurting for money, but still delivers better price conscience options.... Instead of doing underhanded things for business, why doesn't Intel just suck it up and lower their prices? I guess what I'm trying to say is, AMD's argument holds some water and this article was clearly written by someone who refuses to see that.[/citation]

While I agree with what you're saying, a dual core intel @2 ghz will not necessarily perform the same as a dual core AMD @2ghz, so you can't compare solely by clock speed.

Also, you say that it was one question over and over again, which it was, but I don't see that AMD ever really answered that one question, they kind of skirted around it.

 

[dustime5]

Incentives of any type to provide an advantage to one company over another for market share should be illegal. It is in America overlooked, thanks to lobbyists, a money oriented Congress and lawyers pulling loopholes out of the hat.
Excess profits have been garnered for decades by corporations with sharp attorneys and it's only the consumer who suffers.
Intel's bad boys even infected FAH years ago so I give them an A+ for corrupt practice.