[Serious] If AMD went bankrupt tomorrow... what would happen to x86 CPUs?

[moonbogg]

i5's for $450.00, i7's for $600, 6 cores for $850 & $1,400.00, & 8 cores for $2,750.00.

Also, you need a new mobo for EVERY new CPU release, period. No forward or backward compatibility at all.

Also, GPU market would get trashed even worse, but that's another topic.

You couldnt be more wrong.

Oh really? Your statement is INCORRECT!

 

[Homeles]

Oh really? Your statement is INCORRECT!

We've already got monopoly pricing.

 

[moonbogg]

We've already got monopoly pricing.

Oh come on. You can pay a little more if you had to. You don't think prices would go up? They would go up without a doubt. Someone right now can always settle for an AMD rig. Many people do. If that option was gone, prices would go up.

 

[cubby1223]

Me thinks we need to look back at the original prices of the 486DX-2 cpus.

We should also point out that entire 3ghz Core2Duo systems with Windows 7 can be had for ~$120, which are sufficient for 99% of users out there. These new processors are a niche market. Hence higher price.

 

[aigomorla]

Oh come on. You can pay a little more if you had to. You don't think prices would go up? They would go up without a doubt. Someone right now can always settle for an AMD rig. Many people do. If that option was gone, prices would go up.

prices will go up regardless of competition or not.
As the cost of materials and labor increases so does the product.

Look at Coke for example...
The price for Coke at a vending machine 30+ yrs ago was probably .25 if not less.

Lets see u buy a can for that price even on a 12 pack deal.

And then Samsung, Apple and Google spend billions on ARM development and Intel dies a fast death from trying to abused its weak market position where most CPUs are already ARM based.

GG no re.

lolol lemme play this game with you...

Then ARM takes over the world, while intel has something called the quantum CPU getting ready to roll out which utterlly destroys ARM or any other processor which has ever surfaced the earth.

Quantum PC's become so smart, they start clouding with each other, and we got skynet rocking humans in the typical AI scenario!

 

[Lonyo]

prices will go up regardless of competition or not.
As the cost of materials and labor increases so does the product.

Look at Coke for example...
The price for Coke at a vending machine 30+ yrs ago was probably .25 if not less.

Lets see u buy a can for that price even on a 12 pack deal.



lolol lemme play this game with you...

Then ARM takes over the world, while intel has something called the quantum CPU getting ready to roll out which utterlly destroys ARM or any other processor which has ever surfaced the earth.

So you're saying Intel would be able to double their prices from CPUs without anything happening from the ARM side?
I know you're an Intel "fan", but get real. Intel is already trying to compete with ARM because they know that's their competition. Since we're already at a "good enough" performance level in many areas, if Intel decided to try and destroy themselves by raising prices, they would succeed.

 

[aigomorla]

So you're saying Intel would be able to double their prices from CPUs without anything happening from the ARM side?
I know you're an Intel "fan", but get real. Intel is already trying to compete with ARM because they know that's their competition. Since we're already at a "good enough" performance level in many areas, if Intel decided to try and destroy themselves by raising prices, they would succeed.

i have said this many many times, yet no one seems to care or listen.

Intels consumer market which u guys are fighting about is only a small niche compared to all the other things intel sells.

For every PC i7, there is at least 5 Xeon's to back it up.
Until they start rolling out servers which are ARM based, everything your ARM device connects to is typically linked to a Intel Server.
Even Apple PC's uses Intel processors, and wont change anytime soon.

when u compare the cost of a arm cpu vs a Xeon.. who cares if millions of ARM processors are sold, when it takes 20-100 of them to equal the profit of a single Xeon?

Look at the outragous price on a Enterprise class Part vs a Consumer class.
The price difference isnt even on the same level, nor will it ever become on the same level.

and yes intel wanted a piece of that pie which ARM was in too, and they failed horribly... however intel doesnt truely fail, they take whats good out of the failed product and try to introduce it in something innovating where it actually works.
They have shown us this many times... even with the failed P4 with which had hyper-threading.
Everyone said hyper threading = FAIL~ but the i7-920 completely blew that notion away to the point where it became end of discussion.

 

[Lonyo]

i have said this many many times, yet no one seems to care or listen.

Intels consumer market which u guys are fighting about is only a small niche compared to all the other things intel sells.

For every PC i7, there is at least 5 Xeon's to back it up.
Until they start rolling out servers which are ARM based, everything your ARM device connects to is typically linked to a Intel Server.
Even Apple PC's uses Intel processors, and wont change anytime soon.

when u compare the cost of a arm cpu vs a Xeon.. who cares if millions of ARM processors are sold, when it takes 20-100 of them to equal the profit of a single Xeon?

Look at the outragous price on a Enterprise class Part vs a Consumer class.
The price difference isnt even on the same level, nor will it ever become on the same level.

and yes intel wanted a piece of that pie which ARM was in too, and they failed horribly... however intel doesnt truely fail, they take whats good out of the failed product and try to introduce it in something innovating where it actually works.
They have shown us this many times... even with the failed P4 with which had hyper-threading.
Everyone said hyper threading = FAIL~ but the i7-920 completely blew that notion away to the point where it became end of discussion.

Maybe you missed the part where I said that people with ARM licenses would throw money at developing CPUs for those markets, and while we might have a dark age of a few years, Intel wouldn't be able to do what it wanted for long.

PC Client Group. Includes platforms designed for the notebook (including Ultrabook™ devices and 2 in 1 systems), desktop (including all-in-ones and high-end enthusiast PCs), and certain tablet market segments; and wireless and wired connectivity products.

$33b

Data Center Group. Includes platforms designed for the server, workstation, and storage computing market segments; and wired network connectivity products.

$11b

Now they may make $5b from those sales, but they make $11b from the PCCG.
They have more gross profit from PCCG than revenue in DCG.
So yeah, who and what's talking crap now?

And you think if Intel doubled their prices that Apple would keep using Intel for long?

 

[moonbogg]

lolol lemme play this game with you...

Then ARM takes over the world, while intel has something called the quantum CPU getting ready to roll out which utterlly destroys ARM or any other processor which has ever surfaced the earth.

Quantum PC's become so smart, they start clouding with each other, and we got skynet rocking humans in the typical AI scenario!

Stop. You're turning me on!

 

[ShintaiDK]

We've already got monopoly pricing.

Exactly. And funny enough CPUs have never been cheaper relative to our buying power.

 

[moonbogg]

Half the PCs in Best Buy have AMD CPUs in them. That's not a monopoly. As far as overclocking enthusiasts are concerned, there is only 1 real option. The guy who goes into Best Buy to purchase a PC? There are other options = no monopoly.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Remember there is no static demand. And there is a fixed price/volume point that delivers maximum profit. And its not 500$ CPUs. Its actually around where it is today.

And again, CPUs have never in history been so cheap relative to buying power.

 

[moonbogg]

Remember there is no static demand. And there is a fixed price/volume point that delivers maximum profit. And its not 500$ CPUs. Its actually around where it is today.

And again, CPUs have never in history been so cheap relative to buying power.

Fine, but the OP asks about what would happen if AMD went under suddenly. I am confident that CPU prices would increase. I can't know by how much, but they would increase. You don't think even the enthusiast CPUs would increase by a little?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Fine, but the OP asks about what would happen if AMD went under suddenly. I am confident that CPU prices would increase. I can't know by how much, but they would increase. You don't think even the enthusiast CPUs would increase by a little?

Looking at AMDs prices. I would say the average CPU price may even drop a tiny bit. They got terrible performance/$ for almost all products. And Intel wont raise prices because it would impact profit negatively.

 

[Lepton87]

They have shown us this many times... even with the failed P4 with which had hyper-threading.
Everyone said hyper threading = FAIL~ but the i7-920 completely blew that notion away to the point where it became end of discussion.

I can't agree here, during the P 3.06GHz HT up until dual core CPU started to show up there were a lot of people who said that Intel CPUs were better even though benchmarks didn't agree with that, they said that P4s provided smoothness that was unmatched by single-core K8s and they were adamant that P4 were the better CPUs.

ps. I made a similar thread 3 years ago
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2161938&highlight=

 

[DrMrLordX]

I think what is being said here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Intel is at least as much in competition with themself as they are with AMD right now. Take a look at how many people griped about Haswell not being a big enough upgrade for them to want to buy it, and so forth and so on. It has taken Devil's Canyon to really get people pumped up about an Intel release (for now).

AMD leaving the market might help Intel sell some CPUs to people that otherwise would have purchased AMD CPUs, but if they raise prices while doing so, then they might cause some current Intel (or even AMD) owners to stick with older chips for longer periods of time, slowing sales and bloating inventories.

However, that would be a short-term effect.

In the long term, it could enable them to slow down their update cycle and maintain prices on older products for longer . . . IF their process shrink schedule allows for such a strategy to be optimal. The constant push to shrink process might make it difficult for Intel to change their cadence dramatically.

 

[shady28]

This is what a monopoly means to market - any market, not just x86.

This is the part about lower demand capping what price can be demanded :

"Demand expands or contracts according to the price he demands, and he has to reckon with this like any other seller. "

This is the part that keeps being ignored - that the monopoly will opt for doing less work and making more money on their work - the optimal point on the supply/demand curve will move to a higher price point :

"The one and only peculiarity of monopoly is that, assuming a certain shape for the demand curve, the maximum net profit lies at a higher price than would have been the case in competition between sellers.[4] If we assume these conditions and if the monopolist cannot so discriminate as to exploit the purchasing power of each class of buyers, it pays him better to sell at the higher monopoly price than at the lower competitive price, even though sales are thereby diminished. Therefore, monopoly under such conditions has three results: the market price is higher, the profit is greater, both the quantity sold and the consumption are smaller than they would have been under free competition."

Yes you would definitely have higher prices.

Quotes are from Ludwig von Mises

 

[Homeles]

Yes you would definitely have higher prices.

That's not what people are arguing against; the argument is that we're close enough to a monopoly, that there isn't much of a difference from where we're at now, and from where we'd be if AMD ceased to exist. I.e., we've already got monopoly pricing.

In the long term, it could enable them to slow down their update cycle and maintain prices on older products for longer . . . IF their process shrink schedule allows for such a strategy to be optimal. The constant push to shrink process might make it difficult for Intel to change their cadence dramatically.

Long term, ARM starts to encroach on Intel's territory.

 

[Lonyo]

This is what a monopoly means to market - any market, not just x86.

This is the part about lower demand capping what price can be demanded :

"Demand expands or contracts according to the price he demands, and he has to reckon with this like any other seller. "

This is the part that keeps being ignored - that the monopoly will opt for doing less work and making more money on their work - the optimal point on the supply/demand curve will move to a higher price point :

"The one and only peculiarity of monopoly is that, assuming a certain shape for the demand curve, the maximum net profit lies at a higher price than would have been the case in competition between sellers.[4] If we assume these conditions and if the monopolist cannot so discriminate as to exploit the purchasing power of each class of buyers, it pays him better to sell at the higher monopoly price than at the lower competitive price, even though sales are thereby diminished. Therefore, monopoly under such conditions has three results: the market price is higher, the profit is greater, both the quantity sold and the consumption are smaller than they would have been under free competition."

Yes you would definitely have higher prices.

Quotes are from Ludwig von Mises

Intel's revenues are currently declining.
If they raise prices, would they stop declining?
People already say they have "fast enough" computers. If you have fast enough now, and Intel increase prices, would you upgrade?
If you see a Chromebook as being "fast enough" or Windows RT system, would you pay a ridiculous amount for an Intel computer, or go with ARM?

Any significant price increase, potentially _any_ price increases would just push a substantial part of the market even harder into "good enough" devices, especially in developing countries.
Intel would be committing suicide if they raised prices. They would keep prices flat, and just have 100% market instead of 90%, and make lots of profit from the additional marketshare.

Whether you like it or not, Intel ARE in competition with ARM. Anything Intel did to make prices higher would 100% play into ARM manufacturers hands.
Intel might have a monopoly on x86, but they don't have a monopoly on computers.

 

[AtenRa]

Since there are AMD CPUs/APUs from Entry level up to mainstream ($100+), the Intel Higher-End CPU prices are also affected by them. So, if Intel was the sole x86 provider it would raise the Entry-Level CPU prices and that would have an effect in the Higher-End SKUs as well.
Just because we have little to none competition in the High-End doesnt mean that we have near monopoly prices today.

Scenario, AMD doesnt exists tomorrow,

Intel would most probable start to EOL its Haswell Celeron and Pentiums and only provide ATOM based Celerons/Pentiums in the Entry (value and Legacy) market segment at current or higher prices. ATOM based CPUs are cheaper than Haswell (both to design and manufacture), Intel would sell an ATOM based Pentium in Legacy segment where now are selling Haswell Pentiums and thus Intel would make more profit.

They would also decrease their marketing spending making even more profits.

Core i3 would not have any competition from AMDs A8 and A10 APUs and thus its price would be increased. You dont have to maintain the same total shipments in the market of both AMD and Intel, now you only have a single company and thus you raise the Price of the product in order to maximize profits and sustain the same shipments as before.
Less Total customers worldwide will buy $100-150 CPUs but you will retain the same shipments you had before. Combine that with higher margins and less marketing spending and you raise your profit.

Edit: now you can start selling the smaller 2+2 dies (Core i3) at higher prices, no need to have unlocked 4+2 CPUs when you can sell the smaller dies at higher price. You provide Unlocked Core i3 CPUs to replace the Core i5K at the $200 segment. Core i5 are locked only CPUs at $250+ with Core i7 starting at $350 and above.

Since the demand will be higher than your supply, you raise the prices so the demand of the market decrease .

Core i5/i7 would see a price increase, same people that bought or thinking of buying $200 CPU, they will spend $50 more for Core i5 or $60-70 more for Core i7.

You can even prolong the release of new products (already happening with Haswell Refresh vs Broadwell). 22nm now is on a three year cadence, and 10nm could easily become a four year cadence.

And now since you decrease your spending (OPEX) and raising your ASPs (higher Margins) you make more profit even if your Total shipments fall a little. That makes you able to be even more aggressive in the Mobile market (Phones and Tablets).
You can now concentrate all your efforts raising the resources and spending's only in that segment in order to dominate that market.

 

[Lonyo]

And what about the Chromebooks etc?
They just disappear instead of growing and taking all of the low end market?
People don't start releasing WindowsRT and Linux based ARM machines?

Oh wait, they do, and Intel lose all their low end sales from trying to force people to pay higher prices.

 

[AtenRa]

And what about the Chromebooks etc?
They just disappear instead of growing and taking all of the low end market?
People don't start releasing WindowsRT and Linux based ARM machines?

Oh wait, they do, and Intel lose all their low end sales from trying to force people to pay higher prices.

You can "treat" Chromebooks as the Mobile segment (Phones/Tablets). Those Chromebooks dont compete against x86 Windows products but against ARM products, you keep selling them at low prices.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This is what a monopoly means to market - any market, not just x86.

This is the part about lower demand capping what price can be demanded :

"Demand expands or contracts according to the price he demands, and he has to reckon with this like any other seller. "

This is the part that keeps being ignored - that the monopoly will opt for doing less work and making more money on their work - the optimal point on the supply/demand curve will move to a higher price point :

"The one and only peculiarity of monopoly is that, assuming a certain shape for the demand curve, the maximum net profit lies at a higher price than would have been the case in competition between sellers.[4] If we assume these conditions and if the monopolist cannot so discriminate as to exploit the purchasing power of each class of buyers, it pays him better to sell at the higher monopoly price than at the lower competitive price, even though sales are thereby diminished. Therefore, monopoly under such conditions has three results: the market price is higher, the profit is greater, both the quantity sold and the consumption are smaller than they would have been under free competition."

Yes you would definitely have higher prices.

Quotes are from Ludwig von Mises

That may work in a business segment with low entry cost and/or static demand. This segment is none of those.

 

[Lonyo]

You can "treat" Chromebooks as the Mobile segment (Phones/Tablets). Those Chromebooks dont compete against x86 Windows products but against ARM products, you keep selling them at low prices.

The whole [redacted] point is that they would compete. Come on man, think a little.
Suddenly the lowest cost x86 computers increase in price, and then no one thinks to make some more development investment in ARM software? Really?

All it would do is give fuel to Google's fire, as well as Samsung etc, and also Windows on ARM.
It's not like Intel can do whatever the hell they want, we are already moving away from needing x86, Intel raising prices would just make it happen faster, hence THEY CAN'T.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
-ViRGE

 

[blackened23]

You can "treat" Chromebooks as the Mobile segment (Phones/Tablets). Those Chromebooks dont compete against x86 Windows products but against ARM products, you keep selling them at low prices.

This has to be the most naive statement i've ever seen here. Every day people buy chromebooks for general use, and this includes students and every day joes who just want a computing device for email, web, youtube, basic productivity (think google docs, etc), and video. For which a chromebook does fine. Oh yeah, some of those chromebooks use Haswell celeron CPUs.

You're nuts if you don't think chromebooks compete with notebooks. Believe it or not, new computing users do not give a crap about Windows or x86. What they care about is applications that do what they need to do. And, Android and chrome OS both have apps that do 99.9% of what the "average" users need to do. There is NO windows loyalty in the new era of computing. I know plenty of people personally that use a chromebook as their primary and only computing device in the home and at school. Could they have gotten a windows notebook instead? Yeah, they could have gotten a truly piece of garbage notebook for 300-400$ but they got a chromebook instead . You wouldn't believe the number of students who use chromebooks. This is a very real competitor to low end x86 notebooks, whether you realize it or not. X86 and windows means JACK nowadays.

The market boils down to computing device or not a computing device. That's where chromebooks fit in, and like I said, there are so many students and regular people who buy those things for their ONLY computing device. It will do everything they need so where does a need for x86 fit in? X86 doesn't mean crap, nor does windows. If AMD wants to compete they should get chips in chromebooks just like intel has. But AMD doesn't have as good of a mobile CPU as intel does in PPW. They can cling to graphics performance all they want but they don't have balanced performance. It's always, generally speaking, decent graphics with questionable CPU performance or okay cpu performance with terrible battery life/performance per watt. And balanced performance with great performance per watt is what is needed for low end notebooks and chromebooks.