Intel Inflates CPU Prices says AMD. We Investigate

Page 3 - 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.
I think everyone is missing the point of the article. It's basically questioning why McCoy thinks intel inflates CPU prices. AMD doesn't really answer the question, but states that intel blocked consumer access to a cheaper alternative. That in itself doesn't mean intel has inflated their prices. There has always been a correlation between the amd vs intel price at various performance levels. The article isn't about the EU or any other ruling.
 
This article once again makes some good points. Yes Intel may do some things to limit market choice, but that doesn't mean AMD would be blowing away Intel if it weren't (this is, however, no reason to NOT fine Intel).

Let me put it this way: at my store, I have access to the Intel Retail Edge, a program that allows resellers to get free stuff and heavily discounted stuff from Intel. Our Intel rep is in monthly. Intel is always sending free pens and T-Shirts to sales staff. They even wanted to hold an Intel Event for customers once (fell through on timing). Intel has commercials for its own products and then games and computer ads almost always have the Intel jingle at the end.

Conversely, AMD has... nothing. Its true that AMD doesn't have the money for much of that, and also true that it doesn't have the money for that due to Intel's illegal actions. Still though, how hard would it be (or costly) to just have a website with some fun features for the kids at Best Buy to use and access? What about free T-Shirts and pens? Not costly, and although it seems simple, it gives the salesmen a mental note that might push them towards the product eventually.

AMD simply needs to do more marketing. Its products, as noted, are great and offer great price/performance ratios. Its platforms are the most energy efficient: even in cases where the processor might use more energy, add the rest of the platform in and AMD sips less power than Intel. But AMD isn't getting the word out. They are just waiting for website reviews and such to push them. There is far, far more to do than that.
 
What I find interesting is, shop/boutique owners go on about Intels lil perks, as they see only 1 side of the coin, which is fine. My question to them is, dont you think AMD would want to be able to do such things?

Look at the Austin ocee event recently from AMD. Now, if you ask the guys that were there, theyd be praising AMD to no end, much like the shop/builders do for Intel. The question is, why havnt AMD done this then. Its money. Theyve been cash starved for awhile now, and the ruling, Intels previous activities do have everything to do with that
 
I think it's arguable how much intel's activities and AMD issues have to do with being cash starved. That said I think it would be a wise investment for AMD to give shops/builders incentives like intel does. You have to spend money to make money in any market. AMD can only cry foul for so long before it needs to pick itself up and move on.
 
[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]
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.
 
I can understand the thoughts about AMD not being able to compete because of a lack of money, if it were true. And it is true at this point, totally. But it's a very stupid excuse.

AMD spent 6 billion dollars on ATI which instead should have gone into RnD and Marketing. They have no excuse for their piss poor management when it's clear they had TONS of cash on hand to take care of this crap. It's not about AMD's technology, or about Intel's Anti-competitve behavior. It's about AMD screwing up by making poor buisness decisions and blaming others for their failure. If they would spend their time improving their management instead of spending so much time bashing intel and nvidia, we might have a competitive AMD on our hands again.
 
After reading all the comments I just want to say something. Yes AMD DID dodge the question every time it was asked. Does that mean they were wrong? No. In fact, they probably "dodged" the question to to bring up things they considered to be more important.

The "inflated CPU prices" were referring to the P4's Vs. Athlon XP's back in the day. It is NOT the current CPU line up. I mean heck, with the current CPU line up and the statement form the EU ruling that mentioned evidence that proved Intel tried to cover its tracks may even explain WHY there is none if hardly any inflation on current CPU's.

Also, I am NOT an AMD fanboy. I consider change to be an important aspect of everyday life and so sticking with one company simply because they are THAT one company is bad practive, imo. I go with whatever product makes my wallet happy which atm is AMD, DDR2, AMD chipsets ($150 for a high end mobo?!?!), and Cooler Master ($50 case that I love).
 
The ironic part of all this is, AMD is the primary benefactor of Intel "inflating" prices.

Think about it. We all know AMD sells garbage now, if you don't, you're too biased and probably pathetic if you're married to a CPU company that knows nothing about you, and cares even less. Get over it, it's so pathetic.

But, let's just examine the facts. The i7 is the same size as the underperforming Phenom II, uses less power under load, and can hit higher clock speeds. The performance difference is enormous. Yet, they are the same size, and roughly the same cost to make (probably cheaper for Intel, since they own their fabs and they are exceptional at manufacturing things, and don't pay IBM royalties). But, let's say they are the same.

The reality is, AMD should be dead right now, since they don't make a useful CPU. It's entirely, and greatly inferior to the i7. They could stay in business by virtue of ATI, but non-ATI AMD is a worthless company that makes nothing but worthless, badly designed products.

Except for the fact Intel inflates pricing. The i7 is way overpriced for what it costs Intel, so are the Penryns that cost more than the Phenom II at the same clock speed, and are much smaller, and cheaper to make.

AMD is only selling processors because Intel overprices them. Who would buy a Phenom II if it were priced the same as a i7 at the same clock speed? Show me that person, and I'll show you an idiot.

AMD loves to whine. It's shameful and undignified. I used to really like the company when Jerry Sanders was king, but it's frankly disgusting now. Can you even imagine what they'd be saying if Intel priced the i7s very low??? They be whining how Intel was trying to put them out of business.

So, yes, Intel does inflate the prices of their CPUs based on the cost to make them, compared to AMD. That's why AMD can still sell CPUs. Why in Hell are they complaining about it????? If Intel drops prices, they're done for. It's not like the Phenom II is cheaper to make, it isn't. It's far more expensive than the Penryn. Why do they want Intel to lower prices????

 
@ta152h
Manufacturing cost is not the only part of the equation in determining the cost to make a chip. As was said in the article, Intel spends several times more money on R+D, this gets bundled in with the price on chips. It's not just how many chips you can get out of a sheet of silicon.
AMD has been doing pretty damn well trying to keep up with Intel considering their much smaller budget. At this point they're far enough behind, I don't see them catching up. It would have been interesting to see what they could have done with the revenues from a superior product if it hadn't been elbowed out of the marketplace by anti-competitive practices.
 
eh i aint care about all this - all i want is my good performing CPU with a [citation][nom]ironmug[/nom]"Despite AMD's response, it's interesting to note that a very well-known motherboard manufacturer indicated that it sells more Intel-based motherboards simply because of customer demand for better performing parts."Interesting to read what the sales numbers were back in 1999 (enter Athlon) and then in 2003 (enter 64-bit Opteron) when AMD was the clear performance leader. Somehow, Intel continued to gain market-share during this time with their inferior products. All that money went to Intel instead of AMD, but AMD earned it. That cuts out R&D and increases the advantage of Intel. It's unfair, unethical, and has cost the consumer a better price point. This cannot be disputed intelligently, except through coercive smear and spin - much like your article. Intel does not innovate, they copy, re-engineer, spin it as their own "new innovation", and then sell it for a premium. Oh, and cut out the other options to avoid competition, thus keeping their cost/price ratio in-check. We all lose when companies like Intel and Microsoft are allowed to reign unchecked.[/citation]

Its Intel - it sells just having a blue Intel logo
 
"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."

... intel's 1.31 billion to AMD's 446 million... say, what YOU all want, but AMD is efficient... it is almost 3 times less resources for AMD... but they managed to not fall far behind... ok... last time they had a CPU performance crown was with FX-60... but they don't give up... and in my opinion Phenome II is really a good CPU...
 
[citation][nom]turboflame[/nom]They were still selling $1000 extreme edition CPUs that were beaten by AMD CPUs that cost less than half as much.[/citation]
CPUs that cost half as much? Remind me again how much the FX-62 was when it was released.
 
seems to me AMD is struggling to survive and trying to blame intel for their lower sales....
Things get dangerous when companies start accusing others...
I've always been an AMD fan, but ever since the C2Duo things have just been better with Intel (at least for work related notebooks).
I agree AMD has caught up to C2Duo mainly by having a more efficient platform than intel's.. (i7 excluded here)..
And you get a pretty good value for a dragon platform home pc!
 
I'm sorry, but I've seen offerings from both companies at every price range, and Intel simply makes a better processor. I am more than willing to pay the extra money for solid performance and reliability. If in the next three months, AMD comes out with a great processor that outperforms anything at the same level from Intel, I will buy it; I am only biased in the fact that I want the best for my money. To me, that is why AMD did this; they were top dog up until 2002, then they became second fiddle, and were looking for an excuse to hurt Intel, knowing this garbage wouldn't even fly in the US. I work at a computer shop, and we don't even mention AMD, for the simple fact that we want to sell computers that are reliable and perform well. Maybe that is what companies were doing in the EU region, simply trying to prevent people from purchasing processors they knew were garbage!
 
I agree that AMD and Intel processors in the mid range are similar in price (although the core2duos are way overpriced these days), but what Intel was fined for is paying companies to offer their products over AMD's. What would happen is, vendors would get incentives to sell a particular Intel processor for whatever price, and then have a competing AMD system with a far worse processor for nearly the same price. Of course people will go for Intel when vendors only offer lesser AMD models at increased prices. Even today if you go to HP, sure you can get AMD computers, but their all older processors and are outdated compared to what AMD actually has on the market. The options arent there. If you have 6 customizable systems with intel and only 1 with AMD, its obvious what people will choose. If Intel offers incentives and rebated based on the number sold, vendors will just limit the available AMD products so that people are forced to buy Intel and thus increase the vendors profits from Intel.
 
[citation][nom]Klark5[/nom]I'm sorry, but I've seen offerings from both companies at every price range, and Intel simply makes a better processor. I am more than willing to pay the extra money for solid performance and reliability. If in the next three months, AMD comes out with a great processor that outperforms anything at the same level from Intel, I will buy it; I am only biased in the fact that I want the best for my money. To me, that is why AMD did this; they were top dog up until 2002, then they became second fiddle, and were looking for an excuse to hurt Intel, knowing this garbage wouldn't even fly in the US. I work at a computer shop, and we don't even mention AMD, for the simple fact that we want to sell computers that are reliable and perform well. Maybe that is what companies were doing in the EU region, simply trying to prevent people from purchasing processors they knew were garbage![/citation]


Why are you talking about stability and reliability. All processors are stable and reliable, Intel and AMD alike. That isnt even an issue here. No one has ever has issues with AMD processors in terms of stability and reliability. Sure maybe if their idiots and overclock them too much, but under spec conditions... Its never an issue. The issue here is illegal incentives and the practices of a giant company throwing their weight around to nudge out the competition
 
Those were some very anti-answers from AMD. They went out of their way to not address the question that was asked at all.

Sure AMD has a point in that Intel had a lot more money to use for incentives to OEMs, but that is only a part of the story. Most people either look for an Intel CPU or don't know anything about what they are buying. At least most people buying from an OEM.

They keep going back to the 2002-2007, and while 2002 AMD was a lot better off. It was about 2005 when Intel was all over them in terms of performance and pretty much matched in the price/performance area (not counting the motherboard option, which is where AMD makes up a fair amount of their price/performance for a complete system, and even then its only a small percentage of the total system cost). Sure you can't compare what vendors say right now in 2009, but Intel has been in the performance lead for quite a while now, since the first line of Core2 chips.

Sure AMD had the faster processors in the P4 days and they were better in just about every way. But they were more expensive for the most part and the only people that really knew they were better were people building their own systems. All those people buying OEM had no idea who was better. If they knew anything at all to look for it would probably have simply been clock speed, where Intel was higher, even though that didn't mean the chips were faster. But of course most people didn't know this and AMD made very little effort to inform the general public of this. Intel out marketed AMD when AMD had the performance lead and they are still out marketing them now that they have the lead.

Considering that computers for most people have got to the same level of commodity as cars and TVs and it is purchased by a lot of people that have no idea on performance, so much comes down to marketing. (one of the reasons Apple gets so much more for their products, and Dell is less so but still more then most other OEMs because they advertise a lot) Marketing is a huge part of the equation that most enthusiasts ignore because the marketing isn't really directed at them and even if it is they have a lot of other sources of information that they go by (benchmarks and reviews) that most people buying systems don't know anything about.
 
[citation][nom]KT_Wasp[/nom]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.[/citation]
You seem to imply that AMD is offering those CPUs at such a low price because they are the "good guys". Seems like everyone's forgetting the basic rule of economics. You price your product based on what the market will bear. All those AMD processors you're pointing out are priced so low because nobody will touch them at any higher price. They're not wanted unless they can be had for a steal. That anonymous motherboard manufacturer said it all... Intel-compatible mobos have a 6:4 advantage over AMD-compatible mobos. This is true even though Intel CPUs are more expensive.

AMD is now the "ugly pig" of the CPU manufacturers and they know it, so they've slashed prices to slap a little "lipstick" on themselves. Someone needs to tell them a pig with makeup is still a pig.
 
[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]CPUs that cost half as much? Remind me again how much the FX-62 was when it was released.[/citation]

You think the FX-62 was the only CPU that outperformed Intel's entire line up? I suggest you take a look at some benchmarks.
 
it seems to me like the guy misspoke in relation to current day pricing on chips vs. the time that was in question and then the author decided to jump on the oportunity to try and use that against them. Valid points were brought up, but that doesn't remove the flavor of favoritism in this article.
 
[citation][nom]Klark5[/nom] I am more than willing to pay the extra money for solid performance and reliability. .... I am only biased in the fact that I want the best for my money.[/citation]

Reliability???? Show me and the rest of the world one shred of evidence that AMD is not reliable? Intel began that BS propaganda years ago with the K7, and neither I nor anyone else I know has ever had/used/known of an unreliable AMD proc

Best for the money? Seems to me that Tom's repeatably shows that AMD is the best for the money, seems like you mean to say you like to spend a lot of money for a little gain in performance (i7)


For those of you who dont understand AMD, imagine this: If you were wronged you'd be pissed too

Intel was shady and dirty when AMD was the performance King thats what this is all about, now right now

sidenote: I bought my FX-62 for $250ish

AMD is not the ugly pig, Intel is, they just use plastic surgey and make-up (Marketing and catchy jingles) to appeal to the lesser brain powered masses
 
AMD did not dodge the question. And everyone here needs to take a remedial course in logic.

Let us start with the statement, "Intel inflates CPU prices."
This does not equate with "Intel inflates Intel's CPU prices," as the interviewer seems to think.
Nor does it equate with "Intel has overpriced CPU's," as some posters think.

CPU prices indicates the overall amount paid for CPU's in the world. The entire market. Not just Intel's niche, large though it is.

AMD's argument, in a mathematical format is:

Assuming: AMD CPU A >= Intel CPU B (2002 - 2007 time frame, please)
and $A (retail cost of AMD CPU A) < $B (retail cost of Intel CPU B)
EM (Existing market) = (40% * $A) + (60% * $B)
EMI (Existing market - Intel marketing) = (60% * $A) + (40% * $B)
EM > EMI

Since the existing market is priced higher than the market would be without Intel's marketing, the statement "Intel inflates CPU prices" is valid. Whether or not the argument is relevant is left to the reader.

But, it is an argument AMD made consistently in the article, with no trickery.
 
this is not a matter of how competition is right now
is a matter of how it was in the 2002-2007 period.

Is a matter of Intel inflatED prices.
right now it is much better than how it was in the P4 days...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom