Nvidia Says Intel Pricing is Anticompetitive

[JMcEntegart]

Nvidia has thrown in its two cents regarding Intel’s processor pricing and the company’s fine from the EU.

Nvidia Says Intel Pricing is Anticompetitive : Read more

 

[dman3k]

I wonder if the nVidia fanboys will now cry that nVidia is childish.

 

[fulle]

If a 3 piece set with an Atom processor, IGP, and motherboard only costs 25 dollars... why do piece of shit netbooks cost so much money?

 

[bill gates is your daddy]

What is that over there? Is that a bandwagon? Well I think it is. Hey! I have a great idea. Let's all go jump on it!

 

[icepick314]

Et tu, Bruté?

 

[bustapr]

nvidia is really being stupid on making these bad comments about intel. Chances are that some people will think about what nvidia said and will go running at AMD for help, making it a bigger company and also reinforcing ATI. Why would intel be worrying about lower-end graphics on netbooks? They should be worrying about PC graphics cards and the evergrowing ATI and should make better, heaper cards just as ATI has been doing.

 

[bill gates is your daddy]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]If a 3 piece set with an Atom processor, IGP, and motherboard only costs 25 dollars... why do piece of shit netbooks cost so much money?[/citation]

There is this funny little thing some of us like to do and you might benefit from it as well. It's called reading. Turns out it's a fun way of finding and understanding information that's floating all around us today.

I'm quite certain the story says, and I quote, "Intel prices its Atom processor $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away". I think this means they sell to an OEM 3 chips for $25 even though a single chip only costs $45.

Wasn't that fun boys and girls?

 

[duanekimball]

Nice Nvidia... fair pricing??? what the heck?
You build two boards. One is faster than the other by your own engineering.
Probably costs 95% the price of the "fast" board and you charge twice as much for the "fast" board...even though it doesn't cost twice as much.

I know..I know..supply/demand. But, is that really fair?
Police yourself first..not to mention your graphics card (high-end) costs as much as an entire computer.

 

[tenor77]

ATI and Nvidia agree on something. So that's 6 seals broken, now for the 7th......

 

[dman3k]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]nvidia is really being stupid on making these bad comments about intel. Chances are that some people will think about what nvidia said and will go running at AMD for help, making it a bigger company and also reinforcing ATI. Why would intel be worrying about lower-end graphics on netbooks? They should be worrying about PC graphics cards and the evergrowing ATI and should make better, heaper cards just as ATI has been doing.[/citation]So other companies should not talk about how Intel has hurt their business buy offering anti-competitive oem pricing?

 

[Guest]

Why don't you read before commenting? In the above article a "three-chip set" clearly refers to Atom with motherboard and IGP.

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]bill gates is your daddy[/nom]There is this funny little thing some of us like to do and you might benefit from it as well. It's called reading. Turns out it's a fun way of finding and understanding information that's floating all around us today.I'm quite certain the story says, and I quote, "Intel prices its Atom processor $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away". I think this means they sell to an OEM 3 chips for $25 even though a single chip only costs $45.Wasn't that fun boys and girls?[/citation]

"Nvidia graphics is because Intel’s atom by itself is more expensive than purchasing a three-chip set (Atom with motherboard and IGP). According to Reuters, Huang says Intel prices its Atom processor $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away."

It wasn't suggested that they sell 3 OEM chips for $25. It was suggested that Intel sells a 3 piece set with the processor, IGP, and motherboard for $25.

You're the one with fucked up reading proficiency, doofus.

 

[endif]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]"Nvidia graphics is because Intel’s atom by itself is more expensive than purchasing a three-chip set (Atom with motherboard and IGP). According to Reuters, Huang says Intel prices its Atom processor $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away."It wasn't suggested that they sell 3 OEM chips for $25. It was suggested that Intel sells a 3 piece set with the processor, IGP, and motherboard for $25.You're the one with fucked up reading proficiency, doofus.[/citation]

Thank you for being the one to say it... I didn't want to have to point it out. I hate flamers.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

This has been known for awhile. And we see apologists claiming that this isnt needed on Netbooks anyways, tho Id point out Acers recent editions, which do HD video, and whatll be the next excuse?
Intel needs to quit slowing down potential, tho, nVidia should also do the same, and not hold back DX releases either. Tho in Intels case, its market manipulation, which is more anti-competitive, than what nVidia did.
I hope they sue as well, and this sort of thing stops now

 

[fulle]

lol, lets give a guy negative votes for thinking systems including a 25 dollar mobo + IGP + processor combos shouldn't cost 300-400 dollars. I was waay off base, amiright?

Back on subject though, if Intel is selling such combos for $25, while selling Atom processors individually for $45, they're obviously abusing their monopolistic position to hurt Nvidia. Which, seems to just be the trend with Intel over the years.

 

[B-Unit]

Wow, that HAS to be illegal, I can see getting good savings, i.e Atom for $45 by itself, combo for $50, but selling the combo for LESS than an individual CPU...

 

[chuenl]

Intel's outrageously cheap bundle price of $25 explains why nobody could build a netbook with Atom/Ion and still price it as competitive.

 

[scarywoody]

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. So

Atom $45
Atom$ $25+cost of 2 other chips.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Every time I brought this up, I was shot down, and told no one needs decent IGPs in a netbook. A way of diffusing the real problem, Intels market manipulation.
Now Acer and others are bringing out somewhat decent video playback in their new Netbooks, this no longer works.
Im just wondering, what the excuse will be? Because its Intels chips, they dont have the right to seel them as they may, not when it comes to anti competition, so, all you Intel fans, get over it

 

[IzzyCraft]

[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]I wonder if the nVidia fanboys will now cry that nVidia is childish.[/citation]
Naw i'd expect this from nvidia the company that gets a better card out then ati first that cost 400$ but then when ati comes out with their performer that is similar in performance for 200$ Nvidia follows suit and drops the price down. But they dont seem to loose money so makes me wonder how much of that is profit. But not like i care i just like nvidia more then ATI green is just a better color

 

[IzzyCraft]

[citation][nom]chuenl[/nom]Intel's outrageously cheap bundle price of $25 explains why nobody could build a netbook with Atom/Ion and still price it as competitive.[/citation]
I still want an nvidia ion netbook i want to rip it apart in the good curious way.

 

[battery]

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.

 

[roofus]

[citation][nom]jaydeejohn[/nom]Every time I brought this up, I was shot down, and told no one needs decent IGPs in a netbook. A way of diffusing the real problem, Intels market manipulation.Now Acer and others are bringing out somewhat decent video playback in their new Netbooks, this no longer works.Im just wondering, what the excuse will be? Because its Intels chips, they dont have the right to seel them as they may, not when it comes to anti competition, so, all you Intel fans, get over it[/citation]

Yep. This is just a side affect of what you were talking about 2 months ago in the forums. All I can say is people be careful what you ask for. I am all for a business decimating their competition on the up and up but Intel sure seems to exist in the "gray" alot of the time.

 

[bfstev]

This pricing structure is just too perfectly done to target and discourage adoption of the ion platform by OEMs. I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't anticompettitive. even if it is just a discount on the chip for the chip, IGP, and motherboard combo, i'm sure the nvidia offering would be higher priced anyway but that discount is nearly 50% and thats pretty big when dealing with large orders from the factory.

 

[norbs]

I like Intel products but what they are doing is pretty lame...