Intel Needs to Drop CPU Price to Meet Ultrabook Goal

[shreeharsha]

[citation][nom]mikeasaurus[/nom]Wait.... Apple is able to do an "ultrabook" at 1000.00 for their low-end thin & light laptop. With Intel top tier pricing, but that's what other PC manufacturers get too. Am I missing a point? why can't ACER doit?[/citation]
Apple is very close to intel's heart

 

[alyoshka]

Use 2 Low TDP High Performance Processors From AMD in one ultra book. We have manage to SLI and Cross Fire stuff, why are they not trying to increase performance by using 2 Processors for the usual or common market.
Why are other companies trying it out and making big farms for rent to others.

 

[slabbo]

Hahaha, Acer should totally just say to Intel, okay, we'll make an ultrabook...with Llano inside! That would totally meet the price goal and performance goal, even with gaming.

 

[clonazepam]

If they're too greedy to drop prices for everyone, maybe they should do some sort of loyalty card that rewards discounts on future purchases.

 

[cookoy]

Larry Ellison of Oracle said Sun x86 servers will be dropped because all the margins are going to Intel and Microsoft. So why work your tail off to benefit those 2 other guys.

 

[jungleboogiemonster]

I can't see paying more for less. Even Apple has that figured out...

 

[Nintendork]

2012 will face the 17w Trinity APU. That model has a victim in his agenda, we know who it it.

 

[Nintendork]

Good fail in the "ultrabook" gimmick int-el.

 

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]alyoshka[/nom]Use 2 Low TDP High Performance Processors From AMD in one ultra book. We have manage to SLI and Cross Fire stuff, why are they not trying to increase performance by using 2 Processors for the usual or common market.Why are other companies trying it out and making big farms for rent to others.[/citation]

Well, going multi-core was a way to avoid having so many processors in the first place. For one, it cuts down on motherboard complexity, and for another, it aids in much faster inter-CPU communication. However, the more complex the CPU, the more expensive it is to manufacture, so there could be a niche for having two less complex CPUs working in tandem via a high speed bus; quite like X2 cards or SLi/Crossfire I suppose.

 

[GaMEChld]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Intel lost $2B in court for subsidizing its CPU cost's to keep AMD out of certain markets, I don't think they will be doing that again no matter how much the manufacturers complain.[/citation]
Perhaps, but that is a little bit of an oversimplification. At that time Intel wasn't JUST subsidizing costs with rebates, they were also providing those discounts with the threat of cutting shipments unless AMD's shipments were below a certain number, or absent altogether (depending on which OEM we are talking about). Very dirty stuff.

I'm not sure if JUST providing subsidies without additional conditions would fetch the same punishment. Anyone here have legal background and an opinion?

 

[bernardv]

At work I've got a 3 year old notebook with Core 2 duo and it works just fine. At home I've got a Phenom2 950 and it plenty fast for me there.

Intel's problem is that their CPUs are getting faster than people need them. "Ultrabook" is a pure example of a marketing invention to make people pay for something they don't need - a netbook with an overpowerd and overpriced CPU. What the hell are you going to do with an ultrabook to get that CPU to 100%??? Transcode video? Do hard core Adobe CS work?