Intel Inflates CPU Prices says AMD. We Investigate

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
Status
Not open for further replies.
My take on it is AMD has lost their competitive edge when it comes to performance. It's only $160 for an E8400 Core 2 and that cpu dogs most of the similarly priced AMD's. I've been a fan of AMD since the 486 days but I need performance. AMD Phenom II shows promise but the price is similar to a Intel Quad. I loved the days when the Athlon XP's and Athlon 64's were kicking Intel's butt. Unfortunately, Intel made an awesome dual core cpu (Core 2). Kudos to them.
 
[citation][nom]Brother Shrike[/nom]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![/citation]

I love how you didn't read the whole article. They eventually did answer at the end even if they did not come right out and say it. AMD wants people to draw their own conclusion basically and actually see HOW Intel did price inflation indirectly through the smoke and mirrors. Who knows maybe AMD does not want to be guilty of promoting a bad reputation of Intel and risk getting sued by them. It's really easy to speculate and bash from the sidelines.
 
[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]Lol, exactly. This artcle wasnt created to discuss Intel's anti-consumer pratices, they were to discuss AMD's accusations that Intel significantly inflates their prices. And then finally when someone actually compares performance to price, we see that the prices are almost identical.I think basically the real problem here is AMD's mismanagement, and their rediculus excuses afterwards. They're trying to pass the buck for their mistakes when instead they need to own up to it and start firing back with better marketing and better technology.[/citation]


how did you two jokers get "up-rated"? I think the real problem is people don't finish reading. Yes AMD was not being very clear on their answer at first. Heck, maybe even they were taking the opportunity to take a few freebie shots at Intel. BUT they did ACTUALLY ANSWER the question at the end if you have any basic comprehension skills.
 
Comparing the raw dollar amounts spent by Intel and AMD on marketing and R&D is shifty. A comparison based on the percentage of revenue would be much more useful.

Less propaganda, more analysis, please.
 
All these people who claim "Intel is more stable and reliable" and AMD is garbage...need to get real....

AMD are very stable and reliable, I still have a Athlon ThunderBird 1GHz in a Biostar socket A motherboard that WILL NOT DIE.. and I abuse the hell out of that thing!

I've NEVER had an unreliable AMD CPU, they have always worked as they were intended and never was there a complaint from me. I have my X2 5200 Windsor and it still keeps up with every application and game I throw at it. At the time of purchase, the nearest CD2 performance chip from intel was over $100 more. So, I got a great CPU that hasn't let me down and I saved myself $100 (at the time) for a better GPU.... Relaible and affordable... whats wrong with that?
 
Comparing AMD's Phenom II X4 955 to Intel's Q9550 is now fair any more. After all, they are not too much difference in these CPUs in terms of performance, power consumption and cost nowadays.

Please look back at the past 10 years. Considering what Intel has done by giving out cash as MDFs while selling the inferior P4s did seem unfair to AMD at the time. As the article said, which retailers really want to refuse the Intel MDF money and dip into our own pockets to pay for advertisements.


 
Comparing AMD's Phenom II X4 955 to Intel's Q9550 is NOT fair any more. After all, they are not too much difference in these CPUs in terms of performance, power consumption and cost nowadays.

Please look back at the past 10 years. Considering what Intel has done by giving out cash as MDFs while selling the inferior P4s did seem unfair to AMD at the time. As the article said, which retailers really want to refuse the Intel MDF money and dip into our own pockets to pay for advertisements.
 
There are 2 things 2 this debate

1. AMD shud accept that traditionally it has been behind Intel by atleast 6 months in technology
except when intel slept durig P4 launch

2. If vendors start offering AMD based solutions then do they have the capacity to fulfill the demand???
 
"states that intel blocked consumer access to a cheaper alternative"

If that is true, case closed. Intel did inflate cpu prices. The case is centered on the past tense obviously. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10248899-64.html

Tuan, your logic when it comes to value and prices makes me go crazy (Mac articles.) He answered your question exactly in the first sentence. Your question "is hardly "inflated" pricing as suggested by McCoy" starts off with an incorrect 'fact' reguarding the topic McCoy was talking about. So your actual question "What do you make of this?" is answered by him correcting your false assumption.
 
SamprasFan,

You've actually got it all wrong.

Intel pays much less for developing their chips than AMD does. Intel has roughly 80% market share, AMD 20%. Therefore, even if Intel only sold processors, they'd have to spend four times as much as AMD for the cost per processor to be the same. As you saw from the budgets, it's not even close to that.

Both spend money on graphics cards, but Intel supports three different processors, AMD just one. There are derivatives for both, but Intel supports the Core line, Atom, and Itanium which are all very clearly different.

Intel also spends money on software. A lot in fact. They spend money on motherboards too.

So, the amount of money spent on development per processor is much less for Intel than it is for AMD. Also, Intel does not pay a royalty to AMD, AMD pays it to Intel.

So, the cost of making a Phenom II is higher than the i7, unless yields are terrible for Intel, which I have not heard. In any event that would pass pretty quickly, and would have by now.

So, i7 is much faster per cycle, clocks higher, uses less power under load, and is cheaper to make. It's really a good thing Intel overprices their products, or AMD would be out of business.
 
AMD only exists because Governments keep it alive so we may pretend to have competition with Intel, for CPU's. It would have died along time ago, if it was not contiunuously bailed out. It kind of like GM, too important for the system (not too big, though) to fail. How much has Germany given it to stay and employ people in Dresden?
 
I think the issue is regional than a "one size fits all". It seems to me that the problem is happening outside of the United States. In other countries like in Europe, Asia and parts of the Americas (including Canada), CPU prices aren't cheap at all. The difference in price gets wider when you compare Intel processors to AMD processors the lower end it gets in other countries than the US. The difference in price between the AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE and Intel Core 2 Duo E7400, similar performance, the price is a whopping USD$60 in the US and CAD$67 in Canada. The gap widens even more so with local retailers in Canada listed with a CAD$75 difference at DirectCanada or $73 at Canada Computers (one of Canada's large computer chains).

From my understanding this gap is even wider in Europe than even in Canada. So yes, Intel prices are more inflated in my opinion. I took the prices of these mid-range processors and this is the bulk of processors being bought in stores as the majority of computer users don't tend to need anything more than this.
 
[citation][nom]BT[/nom]AMD only exists because Governments keep it alive so we may pretend to have competition with Intel, for CPU's. It would have died along time ago, if it was not contiunuously bailed out. It kind of like GM, too important for the system (not too big, though) to fail. How much has Germany given it to stay and employ people in Dresden?[/citation]

AMD doesn't have any foundries, those incentives if there were any were given to GlobalFoundries and not AMD as the plant in Dresden is owned by GlobalFoundries and not AMD.
 
OK - let's see Economics 101... and, oh yes -- Business Law 101...
I guess Tuan slept through those courses.
And, apparently - Philosophy of Ethics...

Tuan: the reason HP was bribing you with kick-backs to sell its products was… come on - think, Tuan.

But, this isn’t the forum to go into the details of US business laws.

I know many (most?) cultures cannot understand why bribes and kick-backs are a bad thing. Clearly you just don’t get it, Tuan.

And on a differnt issue, you are apparently somewhat mystified that US legal courts are hesitant to shackle US multinational corporations with strict interpretations of market manipulation laws. But – surprise! – non-US courts have no problem with finding against US multinational corporations. Are you stupid or are you pretending to be stupid? There are obviously political as well as moral and legal issues in play.

Bottom line – and this is extremely important to understand: Bribes and kick-backs are bad. If a manufacturer is not selling a product at the same price to everyone, then everyone eventually loses - including the manufacturer and the people accepting the bribe – including you, Tuan. Your convoluted attempt at understanding this issue is non-astute and simultaneously evil. You should not be writing for public forums.
 
I like AMD and just bought a pII system to save money but would have gone 17 if a lil richer right now.
But they Both inflate prices! How can u say that both companies don't infate the prices of their highest chips just coz they can. It's only now that AMD's top chip is priced fairly because it can't beat the I7's. Garenteed if the I7's were not out Amd's best phenoms 2's would be double the price just like their hard core athlons were.
 
In 2006, look at AMD's market share, they are around 40.00 points accoreding to NYSE. Now AMD is broke, and they are around 4.00 points.

I think this is a proof that Intel is trying to destroy AMD.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
WOW! for a while there I thought I was reading an interview with a politician who had been caught with their hand in the cookie jar - not a straight answer to any of the questions asked at all!!!
Im no fanboy of any technology (except perhaps the Nissan GTR) and over the years have had intel and amd based computers.

The thing that astonises me wrt this article is that AMD claims that Intel inflates prices, the first question asked was posed along the lines of 'hey, your cpus are about the same price as intels - how can they be inflating their prices' (as amd have claimed)? and the answer is an incredible 'well, its not about pricing!!??!!?'

Some of you may also remember that brief period when AMD had the fastest CPU on the market and BOY DID WE $PAY$ FOR IT - as I recall there was outcry at the time becuase amd had not long finished whining about how much intel charged for its top end cpu's.

So, AMD - harden up, answer the questions and stop crying
Intel - take yer medicine, get on with it

 
When asking this type of question to management, do you honestly expect something else than political type answers? I like AMD, but should try to stay away from being absorbed by the political fighting.
 
[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]

You forget to mention that those 2.6GHz+ AMD CPUs are Athlon X2s that are older and do not keep up with most of the Intel dual cores.

The quads are Phenom Is that don't compete as easily with Intels C2Q 65nm Kentsfield as are the triple cores. Also the Phenoms are no longer being made. When the first 3.4GHz EE for 478 was not being made I grabbed one for $150. Only about 10% of the price.

Overall, AMD can't really talk. When X2 was top of the ladder, they put the prices as high as possible. They had the same FX chips @ $1K.
 
This is like written by some busy body kid who thinks he knows everything, daring to repeat a question over and over as if to say look at me 'i'm right' being so blinded by the fact YOUR WRONG.

Lets go back to the START of your repeated question with AMD's response.

1. The EU's findings were founded between 2002-2007
2. Do your research buddy on pricing, CPU's available "back then" when INTEL WERE LOOSING.
3. Intel has ALWAYS inflated their pricing on CPU's.
4. You quote "motherboard manufactures" without stating WHO.

All through the article you compare the past to the present to justify your comparisons, answers and so called facts.

Someone should fire this writer. Either Tom's Hardware is about fact or it's about fiction. The line is being drawn lately by the lack of proper fact being shown throughout some articles.

If your going to MAKE A POINT, then get your facts straight before you put it to your Intel "computer".

 
Comparing anti-trust rulings in the United States and those in Europe, one has to wonder why these trials rarely end in the plaintiff's favor here in the U.S., but seem to routinely punish the defendants with judgments of biblical proportions in Europe.
Click to expand...

It's easier to bribe (backhand, kickback, payoff, entice)the whole US justice system than the EU system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom