Is Intel too expensive?

[lehtv]

Are Intel CPUs too expensive?

The only way they can be too expensive is if the pricing undermines Intel's profits. So why are you asking us? Should be asking Intel, or some economist.

If I had to guess, I'd say Intel CPUs are pretty much just as expensive as they should be. Any cheaper and Intel would lose profits due to lower margins, and any more expensive and Intel would lose profits due to lower volume.

fwiw, did not read thread at all

 

[ShintaiDK]

Until they are making more than 17x AMD's revenues, nobody can have a go at AMD for paying Read $1 million while Intel is paying Otellini $17 million.

You again are confused with numbers and information you dont understand.

Rorys 1 million is a base salary, thats not what he gonna take home. Hector and Dirk both got 950000$ as base. Yet they could still pull double digit million dollar wages.

I think Otellini´s base is something around 1.1 million $.

 

[Phynaz]

And Eyefinity derails another thread.

 

[CHADBOGA]

This is a logical fallacy. Had Intel not unfairly abused their monopoly, AMD would have gained revenue while Intel lost revenue. AMD would have hired more workers that intel had laid off.

How much more would this capacity constrained AMD have made? :whiste:

 

[jhu]

Intel's P/E is currently 9.9 (as of 2013-01-28).

Compare with others such as:
TI (22.03)
ST Microelectronics (&#8734
AMD (&#8734
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (16.11)
United Microelectronics (19.45)
ARM Holdings (77.98)

I would say Intel is really cheap right now.

 

[biostud]

No, but you can only wonder if that will continue to be so. But as long as Intel has competition from AMD and ARM, they cannot push the prices too much.

 

[SiliconWars]

And Eyefinity derails another thread.

That was/is not my intention. I'm simply answering the questions that are being put to me.

Originally I had intended to prove that intel is overpriced, and the reasons for why this is the case. I had no intention of bringing AMD into this thread apart from using it to prove the case of a monopoly, which Intel certainly is, and uses to ours (consumers) disadvantage.

If you feel you are getting good value from Intel, that's great. I don't, because I realise what the situation would be like had Intel not abused it's position. We'd be getting real innovation and real value as two giants went against each other to give us their best. Instead you get 5% IPC a year and a toiling AMD.

Grats.

 

[Piroko]

How odd, reading discussions over the european bribery case from the US perspective :x
Back in 2000-2003 you were not able to find a single AMD system from the big OEMs in the shops or on their website. You could ask for one on the phone if you knew about it, but even then they would try to 'upsell' you to Intel systems.
AMD was forced to sell through brands with a weaker image and worse customer support. That lead to the general belief that AMD systems were not as reliable. Even today you can still find lots of people who consider Intel systems to be superior quality, no matter how cheap the actual innards are. Most people buy based on brands after all...

 

[Torn Mind]

yes intel is and always has been too expensive when compared to amd. This is why me being a poor person has only ever owned one intel pentium 75mhz and hundreds of amd processors over the years.

The FX-8150 disagrees.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The thing is... you can only go so far with blaming past abuses by your competitors for your current lack of success. At some point, you have to put it behind you, put your big boy pants on, and get to work.

Intel has been out-engineering AMD for the last several years. That's why they are ahead, not because of what happened ten years ago.

You can make some argument that had the antitrust stuff not happened, AMD might be in slightly better position to compete against Intel. The problem here is that AMD was competing against Intel better five years ago than they are now.

 

[Phynaz]

That was/is not my intention. I'm simply answering the questions that are being put to me.

Blaming somebody else for your actions.

 

[Ferzerp]

Blaming somebody else for your actions.

That ties in really well with: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...m-of-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image/

That study would suggest that one who is prone to blaming others for their own actions, would also blame another for the poor performance of their favored brand.

It is an interesting parallel that you draw (somewhat unintentionally).

 

[Torn Mind]

Tell that to the employees or owners of the 30+ shops closing per day in UK or the victims of the economic crisis in EU. Looks like some folks in these forums with Intel stock portfolios and 150.000$ per year income live in a bubble world.

Who the hell would invest in Intel and make that much money? Intel's stock price has been stuck in neutral for the past 10 years; breaking $30 per share would be an accomplishment in itself. .

 

[Torn Mind]

The thing is... you can only go so far with blaming past abuses by your competitors for your current lack of success. At some point, you have to put it behind you, put your big boy pants on, and get to work.

Intel has been out-engineering AMD for the last several years. That's why they are ahead, not because of what happened ten years ago.

You can make some argument that had the antitrust stuff not happened, AMD might be in slightly better position to compete against Intel. The problem here is that AMD was competing against Intel better five years ago than they are now.

I believe the critical question is, "if AMD had that extra revenue to spend, would they still have produced Bulldozer?"

 

[SiliconWars]

The thing is... you can only go so far with blaming past abuses by your competitors for your current lack of success. At some point, you have to put it behind you, put your big boy pants on, and get to work.

Intel has been out-engineering AMD for the last several years. That's why they are ahead, not because of what happened ten years ago.

You can make some argument that had the antitrust stuff not happened, AMD might be in slightly better position to compete against Intel. The problem here is that AMD was competing against Intel better five years ago than they are now.

This isn't really true.

AMD has far superior perf/watt than Intels graphics. Bobcat was superior to the 45nm Atom in cpu perf/watt, now it's close even with Atom at 32nm (difficult to tell because of Bobcat's vastly superior IGP increasing it's TDP).

What Intel has is a process lead and that is causing a pretty easy victory at the high end consumer and server markets because of Bulldozer being so damn bad on top of the older process. Elsewhere AMD either has a clear lead (graphics) or is doing ok (bobcat)...even with the process disadvantages.

Just where would AMD be if all their stuff was on 22nm? The thought of that must be making intel shareholders shudder.

 

[SPBHM]

I would love to see some cheaper overclockable dual cores or quad cores,
cheapest unlocked is what, $230? cheapest quad core $179?

I kind of miss the days of the 1700+ JIUHB (under $100, and could perform 100% like a 5x higher priced CPU when overclocked, like the 2800+), or the e5200 (same performance as stock e8xxx when overclocked, for less than half the price), same probably applies to other old CPUs,

but overall, if you forget about OC, prices are good... for $50 you can buy a good enough CPU for many uses (based on the same architecture, same motherboards as the $300 CPU), for $100 you give another step, and for $200 you are really close to the best possible today... now things start getting more expensive for the gain, but if you need it makes sense $300 for some i7, or $600 for a 6 core i7... I don't even consider "extreme CPUs".

now if you go a few years back, the big difference was locking OC. :|


well, let's not forget, around 2005:

(Intel dual cores were cheaper, but slower)

 

[Ferzerp]

Why are you still telling us how great AMD when that is completely off topic?

On the one hand you claim that Intel is a monopoly with no competition when it suits you.

I had no intention of bringing AMD into this thread apart from using it to prove the case of a monopoly, which Intel certainly is, and uses to ours (consumers) disadvantage.

Now you are trying to argue that AMD has superior products now that that particular direction suits you.

Elsewhere AMD either has a clear lead (graphics) or is doing ok (bobcat)...even with the process disadvantages.

IDC's comment of:

If it can be justified then it must be ethical. Now I understand what this is really all about.

Apparently applies to more than ethics for you.

 

[SiliconWars]

That ties in really well with: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...m-of-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image/

That study would suggest that one who is prone to blaming others for their own actions, would also blame another for the poor performance of their favored brand.

It is an interesting parallel that you draw (somewhat unintentionally).

Or you can just go back through the thread and see how many posts I've quoted before answering. No need for kindergarten psychology class.

 

[SiliconWars]

Why are you still telling us how great AMD when that is completely off topic?

Like i said, I was responding to another posters comment. Isn't that what happens on forums? Hey look smartguy, I'm doing it again! Go find another junior level psychology article to impress yourself with.

On the one hand you claim that Intel is a monopoly with no competition when it suits you.


Now you are trying to argue that AMD has superior products now that that particular direction suits you.

Are you actually trying to tell me that Intel has better perf/w in gpu, and that Atom is better than Bobcat? Really?

 

[CHADBOGA]

Why are you still telling us how great AMD when that is completely off topic?

On the one hand you claim that Intel is a monopoly with no competition when it suits you.


Now you are trying to argue that AMD has superior products now that that particular direction suits you.

Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing to behold.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Are you actually trying to tell me that Intel has better perf/w in gpu, and that Atom is better than Bobcat? Really?

No, he is simply asking how on one hand you can state that Intel is a monopoly with no competition, then make your claim about AMD's superiority in certain areas.

Is this AMD superiority, not competition?

 

[SiliconWars]

No, he is simply asking how on one hand you can state that Intel is a monopoly with no competition, then make your claim about AMD's superiority in certain areas.

Is this AMD superiority, not competition?

You can be a monopoly and still have competition. You just have to make sure that the competition is treated unfairly through bribes and other misdemeanors and you'll be ok.

AMD is competiton that isn't getting what they deserve because of this. We've been over this before in the thread, and yes...Intel was still guilty of this and yes AMD is still suffering from it even now.

 

[SiliconWars]

Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing to behold.

Yes I've often wondered how people who claim to be "enthusiasts" can cope in the knowledge that they are zealots for a monopoly company who has been fined for harming innovation.

Maybe you can shed some light on it for me? No wait don't bother, it's all a conspiracy between AMD and the world's governments...you already told us. Right.

 

[CHADBOGA]

AMD is competiton that isn't getting what they deserve because of this.

How is Intel stopping AMD from profiting from their GPU's and Bobcat?

We've been over this before in the thread, and yes...Intel was still guilty of this and yes AMD is still suffering from it even now.

You have been unable or unwilling to suggest how much more money a capacity constrained AMD would have made, without any Intel rebate schemes?

Instead all you do is constantly insist that poor ol' AMD is a victim of Big Bad Intel.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Yes I've often wondered how people who claim to be "enthusiasts" can cope in the knowledge that they are zealots for a monopoly company who has been fined for harming innovation.

The trivial fines reflect the trivial offences.

The inescapable fact about AMD is that their problems are overwhelmingly due to inept management over the years who used AMD as their personal fiefdom to enrich themselves and build a cult of irrational supporters to act as their apologists all over the Internet.