Sunday, October 07, 2007

AMD ready to push Intel into the ultra low end

Phenom system is ready to rock Patty's options value -- expect him to dump some and make a quick buck.

We know Intel system performance is substantially lower than AMD in most common settings. You can get a decent AMD system with enjoyable 3D and CPU power with a reasonable price. For Intel, you will have to rely on either AMD or Nvidia graphics to get some basic stuff out of Vista.

44 Comments:

Blogger GutterRat said...

We know Intel system performance is substantially lower than AMD in most common settings

We know that in most common settings you are known to be a NOP.

12:26 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger Alex said...

LOL!!!!!!
Maube we should call the virtual AMD settings .. I mean powerpoint setting of course. :)
These guys are good in presentation ... woot

12:49 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger The Burninator said...

Intel Pumpers! The end is here now!

Phenom is the 100% super-chip destroyer of evil Nazi Intellers! At its super-high clocking of GREATER than the 2Ghz it is so fast that evil Intel "Benchmarks" Cannot be used in the measuring of its fastitude!

Fact 1: Phenom is already the most popular CPU in all of the desktop history!! AMD has the sales of at least 10 BILLION in this month! This is obvious since Phenom comes in many different cores while Stupid Evil Intel only has the 2 cores or the "glue" in the 4 cores!!
3 Cores is better than the 4 cores unless AMD says that the 4 cores is better!

FAct 3: All Intel CPUs are the VAPORWARE. Oh, Intel says it makes some lie called "core 2" but here is truth: Those chips are only old AMD chips that the INTel STOLE from the AMD and then lied and said it made them. INTEL HAS NEVER MADE A SINGLE CHIP EVER!! IT ONLY STEALS FROM THE AMD!!!
AMD will always be the 10x generation leader because Intel can only steal the old AMD chips!

Penryn is the most delayed CPU in all of the history of the computing!! This is because the dumb Intellers could not steal the 10 year old AMD chips!!
Nehalem is a lie!!! Just compare: Phenom is the most widely used and tested chip in the history of all the world! Randy Allen has powerpoints proving Phenom is the bestest of AMD!! But Nehalem is just a stupid demo! INTEL VAPORWARE!!

Fact B: Intel is ALREADY BK!! Do not believe some lying pro-Intel pumper who says Intel will survive until 2009. Do not believe some fanboy who is saying that the 2Q 2008 BK will come true!! These are all Intel lies! It uses its illegal money to buy off the pumpers, but HECTOR knows that it is already the BK!!!

Fact VIII: All Intellers are the evil Nazis as the Sharikous proved! Intel people believe in evil ideas like "thinking" and "facts". All good PURE AMD peoples know that this is evil and dumb. Only the Hector is needed for thinking! Only things that the AMD approves are allowable!
Do not believe evil Intellers who talk about "choice" or "competition" These words are the stupid and bad. Since Intel is EVIL any choice that is not AMD IS THE EVIL! Only AMD must be the processor! Only AMD may be legal in the usage!
Choice is the Evil! AMD MUST RULE AND ALL OTHERS MUST DIE! Heil Hector!

2:25 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

For crap from Sharidouches mouth...

I swear every time this fuckwit opens his mouth, more crap pours out of it. No wonder he lies about his PHd.

OMG! I got fired by Intel cause I couldn't do my job! Fuck them, lets lie about my PhD, gather the fucking stupidest fanbois around and make a blog!

Yeah thats it!


When I'm not too busy with my autoerotic asphyxiation, I'll make up new stories along the way.


You ignorant little tool.

You are about as much as a journalist as I am a nun.

4:55 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

Another BRILLIANT post by the burninator!

Sharikou's graphics comparisons are stupid. IGPs are awful for gaming, no matter who makes them.

IGP:

http://tinyurl.com/2qxcg9

$79 GPU (7600 GT)

http://tinyurl.com/32r2eh

8:03 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger 13ringinheat said...

AMD fanboi's description of gaming pc is a 3800+ x2 with an IGP.....

11:01 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger AndyW35 said...

The rv670 looks an interesting product that could give good performance at a low cost level and finally give nvidia something to think about. After R600's false dawn (pardon he pun) though I am going to just wait and see. The Rv670 could be a more exciting product than K10!

I doubt Pat is overly worried, they have hardly dropped the ball going from Conroe to Penryn have they, indeed they seem to be running on at the same speed at least. It's up to AMD to do likewise and currently, with 1.5 months to go or so it is still very much up in the air whether they will or not.

11:04 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

BARCELONA FRAGGED:

http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=83478&threadid=83478&roomid=2

AMD BK by Q2'08.

11:46 PM, October 07, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

AMD CLEARLY THE BEST....

Uruguay poised to make first governmental OLPC purchase

By Lisa Hoover on October 06, 2007 (2:00:00 PM)

Uruguay's government this week announced the results of a study indicating that XO computers from the One Laptop Per Child project were a better value for the nation's schoolchildren than Intel's similar offering, the Classmate PC. The next step is likely to be a purchase agreement between OLPC and Uruguay for at least 100,000 laptops. Though nothing has been finalized yet, when asked what needs to happen for formal agreement to occur, OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte simply says, "business closure."

OLPC has been in talks with the Uruguay government for about a year. When the country decided to pursue the idea of giving portable computers to all its schoolchildren, it issued a Request for Proposals to solicit bids from suppliers. A months-long study was conducted by Uruguay's Technological Laboratory (LATU), in which Brightstar Corp. presented the OLPC's XO unit and Grupo Positivo de Brasil offered the Classmate PC from Intel. The XO edged out the Classmate by a narrow margin, with scores of 56.84 and 53.06 respectively.

While other nations have done small test programs within a school or village, Uruguay's study represents the first time a government agency has done a comparitive analyis of the XO and another computer to determine their applicability to its country's educational system.

Although Negroponte has not had a chance to thoroughly review the study, he says it's likely the XO stood out for a number of reasons, including "low power, mesh network, sunlight readability, and the strong educational heritage from which it was born."

Brightstar presented the XO proposal with only teacher training and tech support, but the bid includes an additional 1% supply of replacement laptops and some replaceable parts to accommodate repairs and maintenance by the children who own the units. The XO was originally priced at $205, but LATU negotiated the price down to $199.

Grupo Positivo's proposal included hardware, a Linux-based operating system, connectivity, teacher training, servers, and tech support in Uruguay, and was priced at $274. The proposal also offered an option to include the Windows operating system -- along with a per-unit price increase.

Uruguay plans to run a pilot program in the Cardal School in the country's Florida department and intends to have a laptop in the hands of every child in the school by the end of the calendar year. If the results are positive, it hopes to roll out units to all the schools in the country by the end of the current administration in 2010. Uruguay has said that when it formalizes an agreement with a laptop supplier, it will include a commitment to purchase 100,000 units, with an option to buy 50,000 more.

Negroponte says if Uruguay places an order for XO laptops, the project is ready to deliver. "Some machines would arrive as early as December 1," he says. Complete order fulfillment depends on a number of factors. "The exact rollout of laptops ... is driven as much by other orders and the need to keep overall manufacturing smooth -- flat or upward sloping -- not with peaks and troughs, to drive the price lower and lower."

According to Pablo Flores, a team member with the Ceibal Project, the organization overseeing the implementation of laptops in Uruguay's classrooms, there is a "logistics plan to distribute the laptops school by school" once delivery is taken. Flores says the Ceibal Project team is already preparing schools for the influx of laptops. "We are working very hard to integrate the computers into the educational system. We are training teachers and working in a collaborative environment to join together the contents and applications chosen by educators, as well as sharing educational experiences."
A waiting game

Now that the the testing phase is complete and the Uruguay government is close to making a purchase decision, Grupo Positivo has five days to formally protest the decision and present objections. It is unclear, however, if the organization will lodge an objection, since Intel(copytel), maker of the (intel-copytel knock off)Classmate PC, is a member of the OLPC board. As Vota notes, "Objecting to the decision would be like objecting to your own brother." Grupo Positivo de Brasil could not be reached for comment.

The Uruguay government's vote of confidence gives the OLPC a much-needed boost at a crucial time for the project. Although OLPC has received a tremendous amount of publicity, comparatively few of the units have actually been sold. Mexican businessman Carlos Slim purchased 250,000 through private funding, and Lybian leader Muammar al-Gaddafi continues to waffle on the idea of buying 500,000 via his charitable organization, the Gaddafi Foundation.

Wayan Vota, editor of OLPCnews.com, says, "If Uruguay and OLPC reach a formal agreement, it is a great day for Uruguay's children -- their future is One Laptop Per Child. The choice of XO laptops is also a wake-up call to the technology industry. The government of Uruguay has spoken, and its message is clear: They want the OLPC's computing revolution of technology adapted specifically for the developing world, not yesterday's designs simply cheapened down to meet a price point."

The original intent of the OLPC project was to sell low-cost computers directly to government entities. Despite garnering conceptual interest worldwide, the project has as yet been unable to pin down any governmental agencies wiling to commit to a purchase, leading Negroponte to recently take a different approach.

Beginning November 12, a limited number of XO laptops will be available to the American market for $399. For every order placed, OLPC pledges to donate one laptop to a child in a developing country, in what it calls the Give 1, Get 1 program. Negroponte promises that the first 25,000 buyers will receive their orders in time for the Christmas holiday.

AMD fully supports the OLPC and all of us can help.
intel(copytel) while on the OLPC board is also in direct competition with the OLPC. I am sure all of the intel(copytel)fanboys will all be buying intels(copytels) classmate pc.

BUY AMD hi performance, energy saving, low cost, state of the art, cpus, platforms, and video solutions.

8:39 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:48 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger oneexpert said...

AMD/ATI CLEARLY THE BEST COMPANY....

BRUSSELS, Oct 8 (Reuters) - U.S. chipmaker Intel(copytel) Corp (INTC.O:) has asked for more time to respond to antitrust charges leveled by the European Commission, an official at the European Union's executive arm said on Monday. "We have received a request for an extension from Intel (copytel)and it is still under consideration," said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The Commission in July charged Intel(copytel) with slashing prices below cost and offering huge rebates in an illegal attempt to drive smaller competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) out of the market.

The Commission gave Intel(copytel) until Oct. 8 to respond.

The chipmaker's general counsel said in July that Intel(copytel) followed the law and that the Commission had made mistakes in its charge sheet.

The EU executive has locked horns recently with other U.S. chipmakers, charging Rambus (RMBS.O: Quote, Profile, Research) in August with claiming "unreasonable royalties" and opening formal proceedings against Qualcomm (QCOM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) in a similar case last week.

The Commission is the EU's ultimate antitrust regulator and has powers to fine companies up to 10 percent of their global annual revenues for competition abuses

BUY AMD hi performance, energy saving, low cost, state of the art, cpus, platforms, and video solutions from the good business company AMD.

8:52 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

The Commission in July charged Intel with slashing prices below cost and offering huge rebates in an illegal attempt to drive smaller competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) out of the market.

So oneexpert, since you brand yourself an expert these questions should be easy to answer.

1) How in blazes does Intel make profit when selling CPUs below cost?!

2) How does Intel result in higher prices and earning $60bn in "monopoly profits" (Source: Hector Ruiz's rectum) when they sell CPUs below cost?

AMD claims that Intel sells CPUs below cost forcing AMD out of business out of business one minutes and the next they're claiming that Intel prices CPUs too high and earns monopoly profits!

It just seems that Rectum Ruiz and AMD just can't make up their mind!

9:28 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Christian M. Howell said...

1) How in blazes does Intel make profit when selling CPUs below cost?!

2) How does Intel result in higher prices and earning $60bn in "monopoly profits" (Source: Hector Ruiz's rectum) when they sell CPUs below cost?

AMD claims that Intel sells CPUs below cost forcing AMD out of business out of business one minutes and the next they're claiming that Intel prices CPUs too high and earns monopoly profits!

It just seems that Rectum Ruiz and AMD just can't make up their mind!




I'll explain it for you.

1) Intel releases E6300 (nearly faster than 965EE) at $183 well below the price THEY SET for the perf level. AMD in turns has to lower prices to keep up.

Intel releases Q6600 for $299 while E6600 is $229. That means you get two E6600's for $70 more, so if E6600 costs over $70, that is below cost.

And then Intel releases Q6700 at $1100 saying that the high end hasn't changed but the mid-range and low end have been commoditized.

So in essence they are setting the prices WITH THEIR MONOPOLY to hurt AMD. Fortunately, AMD does have Phenom coming out to help stabilize ASPs, but that doesn't change the facts.

10:13 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Andy said...

We all know the 965EE was overpriced though. The other P4's were a lot cheaper.

Still doesn't change the fact that Intel has made profit. How did they make profit if they sold at a loss? They made a lot of profit too.

10:23 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Ho Ho said...

Should all CPUs be sold at the same price point as their production takes almost exactly the same amount of money?

10:28 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...


Intel releases Q6600 for $299 while E6600 is $229. That means you get two E6600's for $70 more, so if E6600 costs over $70, that is below cost.


It's $266 for the Q6600. The E6600 is $224. This difference is really only $42. But the E6600 is being phased out in favour of the E6x50 series with the faster bus.

A more correct comparison would be:

Q6600 = $266, E6750 for $183. That's $83 difference.

At any rate, even if there was only one dollar in price difference between E6600 and Q6600 that's still not pricing below cost.

Intel is really increasing it's profit on quad core CPUs while lowering the cost.

The Q6600 used to cost $535. That's what I bought mine at, my work can easily use four cores it was easy to justify. But for most people, that kind of money would not be spent on a quad core CPU. So Intel halves the price to $266. Let's be easy and say it costs Intel $100 to make a quad core CPU. Before, Intel was making $435 per quad core CPU. Now they have just $166. But at $266 they're going to sell WAY more than before. The extra volume is more than going to make up for the reduced profits per CPU.


1) Intel releases E6300 (nearly faster than 965EE) at $183 well below the price THEY SET for the perf level. AMD in turns has to lower prices to keep up.


That's what happens when you release a new generation of CPUs. Your customers are going to get more CPU power for less money.

10:46 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Masch said...

Intel is going to move into AMD's market, the ultra-low-end?

AMD processors are very close to being sold in bins outside of store fronts.

How about this for gaining marketshare: You buy a box of Frosted Flakes and BLAMMO, a free tri-core processor inside.

10:55 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Spaztic Pizza said...

Intel setting a processor price below a previous performance level price point is not illegal and they have every right to do that as long as they are not setting it below the cost of manufacturing the part. They are not doing that, no matter how hard you wish they were.

No matter how you phrase it, Barondumbtrix, you are still wrong. You were wrong at Tom's (repeatedly proven) you are wrong here.

11:34 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Ho Ho said...

giant
"Q6600 = $266, E6750 for $183. That's $83 difference. "

Actually E6550 at 2.33GHz would be much closer in speed to E6600. Price of that one is around $163, difference with Q6600 is around $103

11:37 AM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger yomamafor2 said...

Here goes BaronFudrix with his...well....beautiful stories he carefully and diligently crafted.

Baron, or Chris, have you thought about this:
What is Intel is making less money on Q6600 than E6600 instead? What if the margin on Q6600 is lower than E6600?

e.g. what if the cost of a E6600 die is 100 bucks? Then Q6600 will cost 200 bucks to manufacture. However, if E6600 is sold for 229 bucks, then Intel makes roughly 129USD on it. In Q6600's case, Intel makes 79 bucks.

Does that consider selling below cost?

Baron, just let go of your biased point of view. You're embarrassing yourself.

Oh yeh, Barcelona just got spanked in SPEC. You want to take your biased spin on that?

12:00 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Scott said...

Fudrix,

So selling at a loss to gain market share is illegal, huh?

Now let's look at the facts:

1. Intel is not selling at a loss
2. AMD is selling at a loss in order to gain or retain market share

You lose fanboy. Just because AMD is no longer a competitive company doesn't mean that Intel is being monopolistic.

12:26 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Look at the fanbois trying to spin it.


1.) Intel currently holds the performance crown in Server, Desktop and laptop markets.

2.) Intel currently holds the market share crown in Server, Desktop and laptop markets.

3.) Intel can afford to reduce prices to reduce inventory and pave the way for the new processors being released in November.

4.) Intel is making profits, AMD is taking losses, MASSIVE losses.


5.) Intel is also part of the OLPC push. Unlike AMD, Intel can actually afford to produce low end chips and sell them very inexpensively if need be for the OLPC, its already been well proven AMD cannot.

6.) Hint to oneexpert. Good companies make money. AMD doesn't make money. Thus, regardless of the same old cut and paste nonsense, as you are unable to write your own words, either because Sharidouches's cock is too far down your throat, or too far up your ass, AMD is NOT a good company.

I bet you are one of those fucking drooling idiots in the helmets on the short busses that think its perfectly fine for a public company to lose money Q after Q...

Oneexpert, do us all a favor, learn for once to type instead of cutting and pasting (and yes, find & replace counts as cutting and pasting you moron).

I know its tough, between Sharidouche pimping you out to other unemployed bloggers claiming to be journalists, and the elecroshock treatments mommy and daddy have you scheduled for, but get a fucking above 3rd grade education.

12:37 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Christian M. Howell said...

Intel setting a processor price below a previous performance level price point is not illegal and they have every right to do that as long as they are not setting it below the cost of manufacturing the part. They are not doing that, no matter how hard you wish they were.

No matter how you phrase it, Barondumbtrix, you are still wrong. You were wrong at Tom's (repeatedly proven) you are wrong here.



Obviously you don't read much about Anti-Trust. If you are the monopoly, you CAN NOT lower prices to hurt the competition.

That's one of the definitions of a monopoly: being able to set prices.

No matter what you say, Intel is wrong and the EU is a few steps away from a big fine according to Forbes.

Forbes


I could see if nearly every major government hadn't called Intel to task ut that isn't the case.

I guess Korea, Japan and the EU are just AMD fanbois, huhn?

I'm surprised the FTC hasn't gotten involved. How can you say that selling two chips for the price of 1.2 chips isn't undercutting?

And what is it with the name-calling? If you know so much about me, you know that if you have that much of a problem, you can come see me and I'll fix it for you.

1:24 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Scott said...

Fudrix,

AMD is lowering prices because of their inferior product. So once again, it's AMD shooting itself in its own foot.

In Fudrix's mind Intel shouldn't be allowed to sell better product. The government should regulate Intel and force them to underclock their products so that AMD can be better.

Nice try fanboy.

1:28 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger S said...

"We wonder why AMD test systems are not running 64-bit Vista"

AMD has marketed 64bit as a great advancement about 4 years. People who believed and bought the CPUs then would have replaced them without ever running a single line of 64bit code. It also made Intel to follow suit conning more people.

Shame on AMD.

2:04 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger 13ringinheat said...

While you are reporting about AMD "ready" to push Intel into the ultra low end intel has already managed that with AMD being pushed to the super low end.

AMD's $1000 CPUs are selling for $220 when the price cuts happen hahahaha.

AMD to start selling AMD CPUs at Kmart you can purchase a CPU when you buy your underwear at the AMD yardsale.

2:09 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Spaztic Pizza said...

The name calling I do because you like to piss and moan about every little thing, especially when you're proven wrong, and this just adds to my fun. I find it amusing. My only problem with you is you're an ego-maniacal self-centered halfwit, much like sharipoop, who needs to get over himself. Get out more and find a real woman and not 18 year old crack-whores in NYC dance clubs and maybe you'll find there's more to life than you, your low IQ, and you're need to brag upon yourself.

Typical of most people with your personality disorder, you allude to violence in order to "cure me of *my* problem" with you. In reality, the here problem is you with yourself, you just haven't gotten the help you need.

All of the cases you cite were underway before AMD put itself in the situation they're in now. (Indeed Japan's was already settled) Didn't see you fanretards complaining about it then, nor making any mention of it then, now because AMD's at the bottom of the heap, Intel's the most evil company on the planet.

Intel lowered prices to do what it did, regain market share, and they did it while *still* turning a profit. This is *not* monopolistic behavior. AMD didn't have to lower their prices, but when you have a suddenly subpar product as compared to your competetion, you really don't have a choice. If they choose to sell *their* product at a loss to gain marketshare, then that *is* anti-competetive.

AMD's mess is their own doing, no one else's, the FTC isn't involved because by US law, Intel has done nothing wrong, otherwise they'd be all over it.

Personally, believe it or not, I really hope they pull out of this and get back on track, they do a fine job of keeping Intel in check, and we'll all enjoy low cost high powered CPU's from both manufacturer's if they do. But as I've stated in the past, Hector needs to go, along with the rest of the money grubbing dimwits who are running that company south.

AMD fucked themselves, no one else did it for them, get over it.

2:20 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Scott said...

"AMD fucked themselves, no one else did it for them, get over it."


Very true.

6:32 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Only AMD said...

SWEET!!

Sun Announces World's First Blade Server Uniquely Designed For Quad-Core AMD Opteron Processors.

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2007-09/sunflash.20070910.1.xml

6:34 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Only AMD said...

You gotta love OneExpert..One hell of a driving force.Keepem coming..

6:44 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger 13ringinheat said...

Yea oneexpert is like AMD. No matter how many positive articles he pulls up about AMD or how many power point presentations and websites AMD releases with delusions that fanbois can orgasm to at the end of the day its just a mediocre company at best and oneexpert will still be the drooling retard of this blog only surpassed by sharikou ofcourse.

7:03 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Giant said...

"Q6600 = $266, E6750 for $183. That's $83 difference. "

Actually E6550 at 2.33GHz would be much closer in speed to E6600. Price of that one is around $163, difference with Q6600 is around $103


You're right. 2.33Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz. The faster bus speed would make up for the minor clock speed difference. Thanks. :)

I'm surprised the FTC hasn't gotten involved. How can you say that selling two chips for the price of 1.2 chips isn't undercutting?

As was pointed out, the differnce is really $103. The Core 2 Duos with FSB of 1066MHZ are being phased out with high pricing so people will buy the 1333 FSB versions.

Example: E6300 is $163. 1.86Ghz/1066 FSB/2MB Cache. Why would anyone buy that when they can get the E6550 2.33Ghz/1333 FSB/4MB Cache for the same price?

Claiming that Intel can't reduce prices is ridiculous. They can't price below cost just to hurt AMD but they're not doing that at any rate. No one can argue that Intel isn't making a nice profit on each $266 Q6600 sold.

8:14 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Gee onlyamd, HP has been offering Intel quad core blades now for almost 10 months...

Nice to see AMD is finally able to offer quad cores, almost a year late...

8:16 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

The only thing oneexpert drives is his tounge up Sharidouche's rusty sherrif's badge...

8:24 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Axel said...

only amd

SWEET!!

Sun Announces World's First Blade Server Uniquely Designed For Quad-Core AMD Opteron Processors.


If you'd bothered to read farther down in your link, you'd have seen the following:

"The Sun Blade X8440 Server Module is available today with dual-core, Second-Generation AMD Opteron Model 8222 processors (3.0 GHz), and is scheduled to be available with Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8300 Series processors by the end of the year.

Lol you've been pwned. Even Sun, which was practically in bed with AMD until they announced their new relationship with Intel earlier this year, won't be releasing Barcelona servers until December. They're not wasting their time with the B1 stepping junk.

9:02 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Only AMD said...

@axel

So Sun was in bed with AMD because of their unbeatable Opteron's at the time, then Intel was brought on board to fill the gap. Now AMD Quads will be on board in Dec which i knew as i read the complete article.

Your next "Lol you've been pwned statement!

10:02 PM, October 08, 2007  
Blogger Tonus said...

Not taking sides here, but I want to address a couple of comments:

giant:
1) How in blazes does Intel make profit when selling CPUs below cost?!

They could do this by selling only some models below cost and making up the difference with higher-performing models. This would force their competitors to lower their own prices to keep up.

I'm not saying Intel is doing this, as I do not know what their per-CPU costs are. But it is an example of selling product below cost but not losing money as a whole. As I understand it, this would be a case of abusing their monopoly position and is actionable.

To be honest, it seems like something that would be so obvious and easy to verify in court that I don't think Intel would do this.

Christian M. Howell:
Obviously you don't read much about Anti-Trust. If you are the monopoly, you CAN NOT lower prices to hurt the competition.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the way you word it doesn't sound correct.

Intel can indeed lower prices, even if it puts pressure on their competition, and even if it forces them into losses (ie, it hurts them). As long as they aren't breaking the law in any other way (ie, selling at a loss, pressuring OEMs, etc), they are allowed to set pricing as they wish.

I don't think that AMD is accusing Intel of making its CPUs affordable! I think they're claiming unfair business practices, such as pressuring OEMs. I would be pretty upset if the government told Intel and AMD that they had to raise prices in order to be fair to AMD!

6:36 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Christian M. Howell said...

Obviously you don't read much about Anti-Trust. If you are the monopoly, you CAN NOT lower prices to hurt the competition.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the way you word it doesn't sound correct.

Intel can indeed lower prices, even if it puts pressure on their competition, and even if it forces them into losses (ie, it hurts them). As long as they aren't breaking the law in any other way (ie, selling at a loss, pressuring OEMs, etc), they are allowed to set pricing as they wish.



Let's try it another way. This pricing scheme has erected a HUGE BARRIER TO ENTRY for QUAD CORE CHIPS.

That is illegal for someone with a monopoly.

8:01 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Christian M. Howell said...

Personally, believe it or not, I really hope they pull out of this and get back on track, they do a fine job of keeping Intel in check, and we'll all enjoy low cost high powered CPU's from both manufacturer's if they do. But as I've stated in the past, Hector needs to go, along with the rest of the money grubbing dimwits who are running that company south.

AMD fucked themselves, no one else did it for them, get over it.



Notice how you said, KEEPING INTEL IN CHECK. That implies THAT YOU KNOW THEY NEED TO BE OR THEY'LL RUN ROUGHSHOD over even their customers.

I actually like it when you lower yourself to name-calling. It's your subconscious giving you a little kick and you saying f-off.

8:04 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Spaztic Pizza said...

I've never said that they didn't need to be kept in check, I remember all to well paying $500 for a Pentium 100 back in the day, and by "keeping them in check" I meant more from having good solid competetion, which is something even your narrowminded ass can't disagree with. The fact is that AMD isn't competing right now, no matter how you or sharidink spin it...

And my subconscious and I get along just fine, thanks. I sleep soundly at night knowing that mental midgets like yourself constantly open their virtual mouths and put their virtual feet in them on a daily basis. You've been owned on so many boards at this point, I'm surprised you even post, but then posting here really isn't much - I just do it to make fun of little fuckwits like you and sharifag.

8:43 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Scott said...

"Let's try it another way. This pricing scheme has erected a HUGE BARRIER TO ENTRY for QUAD CORE CHIPS."

ROFL ROFL ROFL


You know what's a huge barrier to entry? Insisting the quad core must be monolithic, there's your barrier to entry.

10:04 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Tonus said...

Christian M. Howell
Let's try it another way. This pricing scheme has erected a HUGE BARRIER TO ENTRY for QUAD CORE CHIPS.

That is illegal for someone with a monopoly.


I think you mean to say that Intel is guilty of creating an illegal barrier to entry. While this may be a component of AMD's legal claims against Intel, it doesn't apply to AMD. AMD is not being barred from entry into the CPU business or the market for quad-core CPUs, seeing as they are already a part of both.

Intel's pricing scheme cannot constitute an illegal barrier to entry unless they are selling items at a loss specifically to undercut their competition and force them to lose money. If they are doing this, then their position as a monopoly would come into play.

But I don't that the crux of AMD's case against Intel is about predatory pricing. AMD is accusing Intel of abusing its monopoly position in the way that it deals with OEMs, dealers, retailers... anyone who sells CPUs. Specifically, that Intel-- either directly or through implication-- threatens to limit or cut off supplies to those people if they work with or otherwise support AMD. This is a much harder charge to prove than predatory pricing, unless multiple OEMs/retailers/etc step forward and talk.

As long as Intel is making a profit on its CPUs, including the ones that are in the same performance range as AMD CPUs, it is extremely difficult to prove that they are engaging in predatory pricing. After all, in any industry, companies will keep profits high in areas where they are dominant, and low in areas where they have competition. IMO, it isn't the government's place to force us to pay more money for CPUs just so companies A, B, and C can compete. However, it *is* their place to make sure that Company D isn't playing dirty behind the scenes in order to harm AMD.

10:05 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Scott said...

burninator, you made me shoot chewed up cheeze its out my nose in the middle of work.

10:08 AM, October 09, 2007  
Blogger Spaztic Pizza said...

tonus - this has been explained to him countless times - mainly at THG, I'm sure other places, he's just to much of a selfcentered egomaniac to comprehend anything other than what he says is truth. Nice read, but ultimately, on him, a waste of typing.

10:16 AM, October 09, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home