Nvidia Says Intel Pricing is Anticompetitive

Page 2 - 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.
Heres the problem. Since it 25$, using only Intel, and 45$ if you want to use an nVidia igp, chipset etc, then how are you to compete?

Im tired of companies , especially well established monopoies, that want to hold a segment hostage by making it impossible to compete in that segement. It does nothing for us the consumer. Intel is trying to own a segment, not by offering superior quality, but by limiting the segment itself, and how does that benefit the consumer?
 
The point is, the Atom was always meant as an integrated platform. The next version of the Atom will have the GPU on-die anyway. There's still a market for hybrid netbooks with both integrated and discrete graphics, but that will be a niche market better served by regular Celeron and Core CPUs.
 
[citation][nom]scarywoody[/nom]From my understanding and reading a few of these across a few other sites. Intel sells the atom itself for $45, but when bundled with the 2 other supporting chips the atom itself costs $25. So $25+cost of the other 2 chips. Not $25 for all 3 chips. SoAtom $45Atom$ $25+cost of 2 other chips.[/citation]
I think that's wrong. It sounds like just the Atom: $45. Atom + Intel NB + Intel SB = $25.

Question: Is the 3-chip set pre-soldered onto a motherboard, or are they individual? Why not just throw-out the chips you don't want, and basically use just the Atom with a ION? I'd do that just to cost Intel money if for no other reason. Get the chip cheaper, and make Intel waste resources on the two chips you aren't using.
 
Now we hear that its always meant to be an integrated system, and tho that sounds good, it limits that integration solely to Intel parts thru pricing, which is extremely anti competitive. TRhats the point. Its the point of this article, and its a point I made months ago.
Some people are happy with monopolies, and monopolistic behavior, but it appears many consumers, many countries, and many businesses arent, unless of course, youre the said monopoly
 
Actually, I like both companies, but I certainly think that if the truth is that you cannot buy an atom processor by itself for less than you can buy the package, they are correct that they are utilizing an UNFAIR business practice in order to shut out competition. There can be absolutely no reason that a single chip should cost more than that same chip packaged with an IGP and north/south bridge. What this does, is hurt the consumer in two ways. It prevents inovation, because of lack of compitition in the chip set/IGP market (cost 9/5 makes it economically unviable). It artificially supports a fixed price that is not set through market/compitition, but by monoplistic practices. I really am looking forward to the Nvidia version of the atom motherboard, because it will improve the atom's performance tremendously. Intel simply cannot defend this pricing structure as anything other than a monopolistic manuever. While Intel is not a monopoly, in this case, it is acting as if it were.
 
I think this is being misinterpreted. Intel is offering the Atom chipset (NB, SB, IGP) for ~$25, not including the Atom. Actually the chipset ranges from ~$20 for the 945GC and GZ, to ~$40 for the 945GT.

Intel is not reducing the price on the Atom and throwing in a free chipset. Intel can't keep up with demand as it is (they're even contracting TSMC to help meet the demand). Intel has no need to reduce the price. If they did reduce the price of the Atom+chipset to $25, they would make far more money just letting nVidia make the chipsets while they just sold the CPU.
 
[citation][nom]battery[/nom]Maybe nVidia should try this thing called competative pricing instead of complaining. As I recall nVidia has this tendency to have very high initial prices accociated with their products. Remember the days when the gtx280 ran for $650 USD? Had ATI(AMD)'s 4000 series been garbage then the prices no doubt would still be lingering around there.In this situation I'm not saying Intel is totally innocent but I fail to see how Intel offering a [very] nice offer to oem is a bad thing. Substancially lower oem prices translates to slightly lower prices for the consumer.If other companies like AMD and nVidia want to sell more then they should produce better products for a lower cost then the competator.[/citation]
For the $650 price tag for the GTX 280 and if the 4000 series sucked... They then deserve the premium, because they brought the best to the table and can command a higher price. It is supply and demand. If there is only one point of supply, and people demand that supply, the supplier can charge what ever the market will bare. That is business, and that is how it works. It is not anti competitive, it is not monopolistic, and it is not illegal. While it may piss you off and make you feel ripped off, you are free to buy a cheaper model with less performance, get over it baby.
As far as the not seeing a bad side to Intel pricing the Atom + IGP + motherboard at a lower price than the Atom alone, I have to wonder what size your shoes are (in US units), because I think they are larger than your IQ. The first problem is that if they can price it at $25 and obviously make money, that means they are seriously ripping people off who just want the processor, I would say bad for the consumer. If they price the whole chip, IGP and motherboard set for less than the chip alone, this means that other companies which may have better chipsets cannot possibly do what you are asking, for them to produce a low cost alternative, because the Chip already costs more than Intel's entire package, and they still have to provide the IGP and motherboard on top of that higher price. Others have pointed out that the $25 may just be price of the chip, but only if it is bundled, and if this is the case, then that still means they have to produce an IGP and motherboard for $20 less than Intel to be in the same price range. Considering the over all price, that $20 could be 25% to 50% or maybe more of the actual price of the Intel IGP/Motherboard. This makes it basically impossible for the ION platform to get to price parity. Thus your entire argument is completely flawed and I happily tag you as the single least informed person in this threadline.
 
Whats the definition of a monopoly? 100%? If they didnt need AMD around, Intel would put them out of business, so people wouldnt claim them as a pure monopoly.
Since AMDs highest marketshare is said to be near 30% on DT, why is the overall at only close to 20%? Because of Atom, and mobile, which theres a few things there about Intel as well, but way too far OT.
No, Intels is a monopoly, and has been acting like one for some time now, and why we see the lawsuits coming, and the decisions already brought down by various world entities, with more to come
 
I'll argue on both sides just to be even handed!
Pro-Intel: well, I don't see anyone else competing with the Atom directly. The whole fuss is because Intel is the only source of a decent netbook processor, and they want to bundle their chipset with their processor. If the others stopped whinging and brought out an Atom-killer to go with the Ion etc then there would be full competition and Intel would have no monopoly to exploit.
Anti-Intel: well let's make the analogy with another company famous for anti-trust suite, but I'll let you guess who. If this other company offered to provide an operating system bundled with web browser for $75 but was willing to make it available without the browser for only £145, could they get away with saying:
"We compete fairly. We do not force bundles on any computer makers and customers can purchase the OS individually or as part of the OS+browser bundle. If you want to purchase the bundle, obviously there is better pricing" Hmm...
 
If this isnt illegal it should be. You shouldnt be able to buy an item for half price if you take 2 other items with it for free. That pricing plan is strictly to increase market share, while locking others out of the market.
 
[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]As far as the not seeing a bad side to Intel pricing the Atom + IGP + motherboard at a lower price than the Atom alone...The first problem is that if they can price it at $25 and obviously make money, that means they are seriously ripping people off who just want the processor, I would say bad for the consumer. If they price the whole chip, IGP and motherboard set for less than the chip alone, this means that other companies which may have better chipsets cannot possibly do what you are asking, for them to produce a low cost alternative, because the Chip already costs more than Intel's entire package, and they still have to provide the IGP and motherboard on top of that higher price.[/citation]
That's a pretty big 'if'
I'd just like to point out:
[citation][nom]battery[/nom]In this situation I'm not saying Intel is totally innocent[/citation]
I dont see a problem with companies providing incentives for others to buy their parts [ie providing oems with rebates/discounts, go to walmart buy a pepsi products get one half price], but IN THIS SITUATION i agree that Intel appears to be trying to create a monopoly in netbooks.

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Others have pointed out that the $25 may just be price of the chip, but only if it is bundled, and if this is the case, then that still means they have to produce an IGP and motherboard for $20 less than Intel to be in the same price range. Considering the over all price, that $20 could be 25% to 50% or maybe more of the actual price of the Intel IGP/Motherboard. This makes it basically impossible for the ION platform to get to price parity.[/citation]
My initial assumption was that the chip was $25 if bundled, i figured a $20 increase in price for an ion system wasn't really a big deal, but if it is infact $25 for all three then that really tanks the competition, which would be bad cause I plan to replace my previous computer [current role htpc], with an ion system :\

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]you are free to buy a cheaper model with less performance, get over it baby...I have to wonder what size your shoes are (in US units), because I think they are larger than your IQ.[/citation]
I never said I had a problem with paying top dollar to get the best parts. no need to flame.
[sorry I chopped apart your post]
 
I recall a time when SLI was only possible on Nvidia based chip sets. Now its possible with an x58 chip set from Intel and the ability did not come cheap for Intel. apple ties all there software to whatever off the shelf chips in their computers. Now people are complaining about this unfair business practice. I agree that Intel uses questionable practices !!AS DO OTHERS!! people seem to want these companies regulated, so lets regulate the **** out of them.
 
[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]So other companies should not talk about how Intel has hurt their business buy offering anti-competitive oem pricing?[/citation]

No but when they are complaining about a market that Intel CREATED and is the only one in right now it begs the question as to if nVidia is truly jumping the bandwagon.

I mean seriously..... Atom.... Intel gets 2500 per freakin waffer. The chips probably cost nothing anyways.
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]nivida is a 800 lbs gorilla in vid cards[/citation]+1 very nice

[citation]Intel is tryign to kill nvidia 6. if they suceed they will go back to targeting amd/ati[/citation]i doubt intel wants to kill nvidia, or even has a chance at killing nvidia. the point of the larrabee isn't to take over the gpu market.
if its $25 for the package then intel's definitely trying to crush the ion. from intel perspective: Sometimes you dont want competition ruining a good thing.
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]this is the way i see it 1. amd bought ati , thus amd /ati are now same company 2. intell is making larrabee (stupid fucking name for a vid card ) 3. nivida is a 800 lbs gorilla in vid cards , so is nto endanger aka is not lookign to be bought 4. intel cant buy nvidia so...5. Intel is tryign to kill nvidia 6. if they suceed they will go back to targeting amd/ati[/citation]

"Larrabee" is a code name, not the product - just like Conroe is Core 2 Duo (65nm) etc

As for Intel killing nvidia - its more like turning the market away from a native nvidia/ati "GPU" design and more to an Intel "all in one" easier to program/use "larrabee" platform, capable of being used as a GPU aswell as other tasks - sure its Intel, but if i can use my video card to speed up my pc when not in games (eg Video Editing, task offloading etc) then cudos to Intel - i aint affraid of better performance 😉
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]wow nvidia, should we mention your faulty 8 series and 9 series chips? and your re badged cards with names that trick people??[/citation]
Tell that faulty geforce 8800gt that was best performance for money for 2 years. Dont you mean super faulty ati 2k chips (as they cannot run in 256 colors pissing of so many people who play sc also 8800gt crushed them in the charts)and not up to snuff 3k chips
 
... just compare tha performance of intel GMA3100 or GMA4500 with nVidia Geforce 9400M!!! Would like to see a Eee pc with ION than tha crap that intel iz flooding in to the market... and why intel iz doing that? Just to keep tha market share... it's allover internet... nVidia should go VIA NANO or AMD NEO... more likely VIA... tha CPU iz not powerful, but sufficient... the rest is done by GPU...
 
[citation][nom]IzzyCraft[/nom]Tell that faulty geforce 8800gt that was best performance for money for 2 years. Dont you mean super faulty ati 2k chips (as they cannot run in 256 colors pissing of so many people who play sc also 8800gt crushed them in the charts)and not up to snuff 3k chips[/citation]

Atleast more then 50% outlast the first 2 years 😉
 
Hahaha, this article is too funny. At first I thought that Intel was unfairly selling their cpus for such a low price. Oh wait they are. Would Nvidia and AMD want Intel to raise the price of their cpus? Then maybe AMD will garner more business for their pathetic Phenom cpus. As for why more Nvidia chipsets are not in more netbooks/notebooks you only need to look at the Dell notebook fiasco. Most of the problems associated with owning a Dell notebook have been due to poor Nvidia chipset. Lol..which is why I'm going to get a Dell notebook with an ATI chipset eventhough I'm a diehard Nvidia desktop gpu user.
 
Quite frankly, I love the fact that Intel can price the combo cheaper than the individual atom chip. We need to trust that a consumer, when faced with the decision, will look at it and go, "Hmm... $45 for just the processor, or $25 for all three components... I think I'll take the combo." Really hard choice there. This is the United States. We thrive on capitalism. If nVidia has a problem with it, then they should improve to compete. In the end, the consumer wins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom