AMD: It Won't Be About 'AMD vs. Intel' Anymore

[IlllI]

why can't intel jack up prices? It happens all the time with other things, and people still pay.


people still buy gas even though the prices have gone up and up and up

 

[Silverforce11]

because your gas runs out in a week, but our SB will last years.

intel aint getting my money with IvB or whatever unless its price competitive vs. SB. I'm sure the vast majority value their hard-earned $$ and think the same.

 

[sandorski]

because your gas runs out in a week, but our SB will last years.

intel aint getting my money with IvB or whatever unless its price competitive vs. SB. I'm sure the vast majority value their hard-earned $$ and think the same.

SB Prices could be hiked as well.

 

[Silverforce11]

Nehalem/PhIIs. If they hike SB a lot to compensate, those users don't need to upgrade.

They could do it a few years down the road, but nothing immediate.

 

[aigomorla]

u guys ultimately it means were going to be at the mercy of intel and microsoft pretty soon.

They can pull us whichever way they want, and were forced to go there.
And when they both pull each other, thats when were going to get screwed.

We need AMD somewhere in the middle to cut that rope and say hey were gonna sue your butts!

 

[Rifter]

Way to admit defeat to intel just to take on a stronger opponent with ARM.

Bust out the white flag AMD is going down.

 

[velis]

Intel can't just jack up the prices on IvB due to lack of AMD competition.

The reason is simple: A lot of people already are on SB or Nehalem. To get them to want to upgrade, intel has to offer amazing bang for buck in comparison. If IvB is ~20% faster than SB, they can't just charge 100% extra for it, few would buy, low sales = failure regardless.

This is very naive thinking. Intel already did that when it was in the lead. It will start with Ivy being late. Then Ivy will be double digit better than Sandy. Some people will already buy it at a higher price for this speed difference alone. The next iteration will be even later and yet more powerful while being even more expensive. At that point even you will buy it just because your glorious Sandy won't run the latest CoD well...

As for AMD entering ARM market: It is possible AMD to design a new decoder for ARM instruction set on their existing CPU designs. This would provide the market with desktop-level ARM CPUs, but the market for that is currently extremely thin. With upcoming 64 bit support this might open up some possibilities for them.

As for those yelling about AMD not being competitive right now: AMD CPUs are not the fastest, correct - but this doesn't mean they are not competitive. A llano is more than enough for joe sixpack's PC and phenom II is quite a capable core not trailing Sandy by THAT much. Hell, I'm still running an Athlon II on my main rig and it's just as fast as E8400 was before it. Not saying that second-gen Core is competitive with Sandy though.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Intel can't just jack up the prices on IvB due to lack of AMD competition.

The reason is simple: A lot of people already are on SB or Nehalem. To get them to want to upgrade, intel has to offer amazing bang for buck in comparison. If IvB is ~20% faster than SB, they can't just charge 100% extra for it, few would buy, low sales = failure regardless.

Back when the last time prevailed that Intel had a complete monopoly, they could get away with charging $1000 for 386s and comparable prices for chipsets. And there was massive performance headroom. Now, what everyone has is more than good enough and upgrading takes some incentive. I think Silverforce is right. There will be high-end CPUs but I think Intel will preserve the performance consumer segment, which is what most of us play in. Sure, I'll upgrade to Ivy (probably). But I don't really HAVE to. Photoshop already opens in two seconds. Would opening it in 1.5 seconds make my life better? Not a whole lot. Upgrading now is more for bragging rights or for those of us who have a really compelling application that justifies it, or because your current box is wheezing. Intel knows all this.

 

[exar333]

u guys ultimately it means were going to be at the mercy of intel and microsoft pretty soon.

They can pull us whichever way they want, and were forced to go there.
And when they both pull each other, thats when were going to get screwed.

We need AMD somewhere in the middle to cut that rope and say hey were gonna sue your butts!

I would rather AMD make a compelling and competitive product instead of legal meneauvering. That is assuming they are making $$$ and such with their products, so they stay solvent.

 

[voltronn]

Intel can't just jack up the prices on IvB due to lack of AMD competition.

The reason is simple: A lot of people already are on SB or Nehalem. To get them to want to upgrade, intel has to offer amazing bang for buck in comparison. If IvB is ~20% faster than SB, they can't just charge 100% extra for it, few would buy, low sales = failure regardless.

Then can just up the price on SB, which they've actually done.

Prices are up about 10% already (on high end intel chips) after the weak Bulldozer processors. Obviously I don't expect chips to double overnight but unfortunately for us we will be paying more with AMD out of the high-end game.

 

[Idontcare]

Then can just up the price on SB, which they've actually done.

Prices are up about 10% already (on high end intel chips) after the weak Bulldozer processors. Obviously I don't expect chips to double overnight but unfortunately for us we will be paying more with AMD out of the high-end game.

Are you confusing the prices that retailers charge end-users for the CPU's with the prices that Intel charges the retailers?

As far as I am aware, Intel has not raised prices at all. But Intel does not dictate resell prices to the retailers, and if the retailers wish to soak their customers then that is a problem you should have with the retailers.

There is too much chicken little, the sky is falling, fear and paranoia in this thread IMO. Just because you can imagine doing it doesn't mean that it makes any sense whatsoever in the business world to operate a $50B company like that.

If Intel doesn't keep competing with itself, both on price and performance, then it will cease to be a $50B company because sales will dry up. That is their reality.

So unless they want to become a $10B company with 90% margins, they are going to have to continue rolling out the new products at compelling price-points in order to generate the sales they require to fuel themselves at the $50B revenue point.

 

[Vesku]

Yeah, those same fabs that make them great also keep them on a pretty stiff volume forecast I would expect.

 

[Zor Prime]

Retailers are going to charge whatever it is they want after they weigh supply and demand.

Add in Intel selling chips for whatever it is they want according to their own supply and demand analysis, it can become a precarious situation for the consumer in a very short period of time.

It's not just Intel, it's the retailers, too. Prices can go up just as they go down.

"Intel prices won't go up," *cough* naive. Intel is driven by one thing only, profit, just as any other company.

They can skin a cat in two ways. One, by sheer volume, or two, slapping on a larger price tag. If you're a monopoly ... you can do both.

It's good fun seeing Intel fans trying to glorify turbulent times for AMD. It's simply not in a pro-Intel fan's best interests. Slice it all you want, it doesn't change what it is.

 

[Vesku]

Wouldn't doubt Intel adding some dollars to IB price if Trinity is a dog. But I'm more worried about a global depression than $500 mainstream CPU pricing returning.

 

[piesquared]

Doesn't anyone find it at all interesting how practically any post about AMD in various forums, almost without exception, automatically turns into a discussion about AMD's death as a company, or how any story no matter how positive is turned negative, or how their CPU's suck, etc. It's bizzare.

Who has the most to gain by flooding the net with negative sentiment? Investors, AMD shorts in particular. I've shown before on this forum an exact cross post from the cesspool over at Yahoo investor boards. I wonder how enthusiasts, if there are any real ones left, feel about that?

Here's a good example of how a story was manipulated and twisted, within minutes of hitting the net, into the death knoll of AMD.

AMD to attempt self-resurrection — but not with ARM

[edit]

And then there's this.

Here’s a tablet strategy for you: Android 4.0.1 optimized for AMD Brazos APU

 

[exar333]

Doesn't anyone find it at all interesting how practically any post about AMD in various forums, almost without exception, automatically turns into a discussion about AMD's death as a company, or how any story no matter how positive is turned negative, or how their CPU's suck, etc. It's bizzare.

Who has the most to gain by flooding the net with negative sentiment? Investors, AMD shorts in particular. I've shown before on this forum an exact cross post from the cesspool over at Yahoo investor boards. I wonder how enthusiasts, if there are any real ones left, feel about that?

Here's a good example of how a story was manipulated and twisted, within minutes of hitting the net, into the death knoll of AMD.

AMD to attempt self-resurrection — but not with ARM

[edit]

And then there's this.

Here’s a tablet strategy for you: Android 4.0.1 optimized for AMD Brazos APU

Thats what happens when you lack strong leadership and a proven track-record. There has been no clear vision conveyed from AMD so speculation abounds.

 

[aigomorla]

Retailers are going to charge whatever it is they want after they weigh supply and demand.

Your not looking at it from this perspective..

Intel A: Hey AMD is gone in consumers.. what should we do?

Intel B: Well then lets hold off on RnD until someone decides they can compete.

Intel A: Wont that piss the people off?

Intel B: Who cares what other choice do they have? mobile? ARM? Via? They will get sad and come back...

Intel A: Brilliant! lets delay everything so we can save money and milk the already matured products, and the consumers cant do squat!

:whiste:


Welcome to the dark ages...
I feel AMD is going like IBM did with cyrix...

 

[piesquared]

Thats what happens when you lack strong leadership and a proven track-record. There has been no clear vision conveyed from AMD so speculation abounds.

It's what happens when the news is exaggerated beyond reality by those who have something to gain by it. Fusion is AMD's vision and it has been for a number of years and it's doing very well and has tons of room for growth. AMD expects 70% of their processors shipped in 2012 to be APU's.

 

[aigomorla]

AMD expects 70% of their processors shipped in 2012 to be APU's.

sorry but lately amd's expectations have all been fail.
someone in the corp keeps rounding the decimal point up by a factor of 100x to appeal to the public.
And when truth comes out, well, i dont think i need to say much more about when truth comes out...

 

[IntelUser2000]

AMD expects 70% of their processors shipped in 2012 to be APU's.

Uhh, well this is already true. Most of the CPUs AMD ships are in fact integrated graphics, whether in CPU or chipset. But that's true of all the markets.

 

[Targus]

Hey all, first time AT user; although I have been reading AT for a long time.

Was just wondering if Intel does become a full blown monopoly in the desktop area wouldn't the department of justice have to intervene?

 

[piesquared]

sorry but lately amd's expectations have all been fail.
someone in the corp keeps rounding the decimal point up by a factor of 100x to appeal to the public.
And when truth comes out, well, i dont think i need to say much more about when truth comes out...

Uh huh. Would you like me to list the half truths and failures of intel over the years? Believe me i'd love to do it...

 

[piesquared]

Uhh, well this is already true. Most of the CPUs AMD ships are in fact integrated graphics, whether in CPU or chipset. But that's true of all the markets.

You may be right, it might have been 90% expected. So clearly they have a strategy.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Retailers are going to charge whatever it is they want after they weigh supply and demand.

Add in Intel selling chips for whatever it is they want according to their own supply and demand analysis, it can become a precarious situation for the consumer in a very short period of time.

It's not just Intel, it's the retailers, too. Prices can go up just as they go down.

"Intel prices won't go up," *cough* naive. Intel is driven by one thing only, profit, just as any other company.

They can skin a cat in two ways. One, by sheer volume, or two, slapping on a larger price tag. If you're a monopoly ... you can do both.It's good fun seeing Intel fans trying to glorify turbulent times for AMD. It's simply not in a pro-Intel fan's best interests. Slice it all you want, it doesn't change what it is.

Actually, even if you are a monopoly, you cannot do both. There is an inverse relationship between price and demand, particularly in a product that has a somewhat mature market, and a lot of people dont really have to upgrade. So if Intel were to raise prices too high, demand would plummet.

I dont doubt that prices may go up slightly, and the performance increases may be delayed because of lack of competition somewhat, but I dont think the situation is as dire as some people are making it.

I also would like to let it be known that I have no stock in Intel or AMD, and could care less what their stock prices are. I do care about getting a good CPU, and that is why I criticize AMD a lot. That is because first, I think they are not producing competitive products, and secondly I also get tired of people endlessly defending AMD and not admitting that they have serious problems as a company, and insinuating that those who do criticize AMD have some sort of sinister ulterior motive.

 

[ikachu]

Hey all, first time AT user; although I have been reading AT for a long time.

Was just wondering if Intel does become a full blown monopoly in the desktop area wouldn't the department of justice have to intervene?

From what I know there's technically no law against being a monopoly; just against using your monopoly powers to do things like charge unfair prices to consumers and to stifle competition.

From wikipedia:
Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions.