|
|
|
Core 2 Quad = $266
|
Original Message
|
Name: Sabertooth
Date: March 20, 2007 at 17:46:43 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 OS: Vista RTM + XP Pro + KuCPU/Ram: A64 3400+ S754 / 768MBModel/Manufacturer: DIY |
Comment: I can't help but feel for AMD ;-( "Culver City (CA) - The Internet is abuzz with rumors of a massive price cut in Intel's Core 2 Quad processor later this year. According to HKEPC.com, the price of the 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Quad will plunge 70% from its current price of $851 to $266 in the third quarter. Such a massive price drop would make the quad-core chip cost less than what most dual-core chips are selling for now, but are the rumors true? Intel's Public Relations Manager Dan Snyder gave us the standard corporate answer that we expected to hear. On the phone, Snyder told TG Daily, "I cannot confirm nor deny any price cuts, but price cuts are a normal part of this industry." He added that prices generally trend lower as time goes on." http://74.52.174.180/content/view/3...
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Report Offensive Message For Removal
|
|
Response Number 1
|
Name: Cobra_R
Date: March 20, 2007 at 17:54:49 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 |
Reply: (edit)Well this is great news for consumors. This is one of the reasons why I don't buy something as soon as it comes out anymore. I mean I can't imagine hearing this news if you just bought an Intel Quad Processor within the last couple of months. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI
 Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 2
|
Name: AdamNelson
Date: March 22, 2007 at 09:48:24 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 |
Reply: (edit)This is NOT good news for consumErs. AMD is falling farther and farther behind Intel in the processor race. At this rate, AMD will be too far behind to catch up to Intel, especially with silly, ungainly solutions at playing catch-up like the Quad FX. AMD is also less well-equipped than Intel in their manufacturing lines. They only have three fab lines that they have to rent for themselves, whereas Intel has over twenty, and also have several 65nm fabs up and running (AMD is completing testing on it first one... a year and a half too late). If AMD kicks the bucket, there will be no strong competition for Intel, which means they have no reason to structure their prices competitively. Hence, their products will steadily get more expensive. Hopefully, though, this is just a low point for AMD (like nVidia's FX cards being trounced by ATI), and that they will rebound soon. Unfortunately, this looks like the beginning of the same route that 3DFX took, and look where they are now... I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 4
|
Name: AdamNelson
Date: March 22, 2007 at 12:42:16 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 |
Reply: (edit)Why would it be a pyrrhic victory for Intel? They are in a very dominating position; they don't need to take any risks or slash their prices to stay competitive, like AMD's radical price cuts for the AM2 platform, or their patchwork quad-core solution (two AMD CPUs slower than one Intel CPU? Not good press for AMD). Basically, AMD is fighting tooth and nail to catch up to what Intel has been doing for more than a year now. They STILL haven't moved past the 90nm process yet, and are just now testing their first 65nm fab. Meanwhile, Intel is getting ready to move to 45nm next year. And if AMD kicks the bucket, that's the best news Intel could hope to hear. They wouldn't have to race AMD for the fastest, smallest cores, could set their own prices free from competition, and set their R&D to a more comfortable pace. This means consumers like you and me get $h!t on, of course, but a pyrrhic victory for Intel it is not. I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself.
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 5
|
Name: Cobra_R
Date: March 22, 2007 at 13:08:17 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 |
Reply: (edit)You are over analyzing this. People said the same thing about Intel when AMD was surging over Intel for a 3 1/2 year stretch. Intel came roaring back in both their desktop cpu's and server cpu's last year and AMD will do the same. AMD has a brand new series of chips on the horizon that will heavily compete against what Intel has or will have out on the market. So it's not like AMD is up the creek without a paddle. What both companies have gone through is called slumps and just like Intel, AMD will bounce back. If you don't think that dropping the prices to stay competitive with each other isn't a benefit to consumers then I’d sure like to know what is. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 6
|
Name: Sabertooth
Date: March 22, 2007 at 14:18:53 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 |
Reply: (edit)"Why would it be a pyrrhic victory for Intel?" Because if they succeed in pushing AMD out the door & I don't think they ever admitted to that as a motive - the cost of that campaign is going to be deeply felt by them. Remember they are selling their CPUs significantly below market too. How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 8
|
Name: AMDdude
Date: April 7, 2007 at 07:47:15 Pacific
Subject: Core 2 Quad = $266 |
Reply: (edit)AMD is not out of the game yet, they're operon pros will kick the butts of intels core 2 anything. And seeing as AMD is about to open a new plant that they can call their own, I doubt that their done! AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 1MB L2 per core
2GB Dual Channel ECC 333MHZ
320GB SATA 7,200RPM
10/100/1000 Gigabit Networking
7.1 surround sound
ATI XGE X1300 512MB VC 600MHZ
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
Use following form to reply to current message:
|
|
|
