Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost?

[Markfw]

all .... This is a warning. I won't take sides, but the personal references need to stop or i will lock this thread, and give infractions to all parties, not just scali.

Markfw900
anandtech moderator.

 

[stevech]

With the recent news that there are seriously supported ports of Android to x86 (Atom, others), plus the insane movement to "cloud" computing (back to mainframes), maybe if AMD failed Intel would not exploit, to consumers' disadvantage), their market placement.

We need an AMD or other counterpoise for Intel.

 

[Scali]

What you claim to value doesn't seem to correspond with what you've achieved. By disregarding the low end you're squarely biased.

Not biased towards any brand though.
I'm biased towards good performance and future proofing, as I already said (which I think isn't a proper use of the word 'bias', it's merely a personal preference, not a slanted view on how the world works, as 'bias' would indicate).
Not saying $100 CPUs can't be good. They're just not for me. Usually $100 buys me the performance that I've already had for 2 years or so. So why would I consider it as an upgrade?

 

[Chiropteran]

Not biased towards any brand though.
I'm biased towards good performance and future proofing, as I already said (which I think isn't a proper use of the word 'bias', it's merely a personal preference, not a slanted view on how the world works, as 'bias' would indicate).
Not saying $100 CPUs can't be good. They're just not for me. Usually $100 buys me the performance that I've already had for 2 years or so. So why would I consider it as an upgrade?

3 a : bent, tendency b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Yes, you are biased.

Next personal comment about bias, or anything else gets time off. You all can clearly see the moderator warning a few posts above this one. This applies to everyone.
Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr

 

[Scali]

systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Yes, you are biased.

Erm, no... what systematic error?
I'm just talking about what CPUs *I* buy, not saying they're the best for everyone.
For me it's not an 'error', it's a sampling that gives me the required results based on the criteria I look for.

 

[alkemyst]

I'm pretty sure those prices don't include a monitor. I'm also pretty sure those were among the cheapest bottom of the line computers you could buy. Further, NONE of those were x86 computers, which is what Scali claimed to have bought. They certainly weren't the "mainstream performance" computers Scali was talking about.




Then you were not buying "mainstream performance" PCs back in the 80s. Not unless you define "mainstream performance" as budget low-end

Commodore 64's were never 'mainstream' they were the 'console' of the day.

In the early 90's there were some deals on these kinds of things. My Apple //e was $2500 complete in about 1986 at the same time an IBM PS/2 Model 80 was $25000 with VGA and a supporting monitor.

 

[Obsoleet]

Cpus would be cheaper because the goverment would break up Intel into many fragments without AMD around. AMD is a godsend for Intel. Fends off most serious cricism of a monopoly while remaining relatively harmless. AMD = Intel

 

[ydnas7]

ARM is just as useful for Intel, ARM's the only risc that didn't make it to 64bit, if the early 32bit MIPS or SPARC had exploited the handphone market, their 64bit siblings would be more competitive for it. Same goes for PowerPC, Alpha and AMD 29000. Of all those processors, ARM was the weakest, and least competitive vs Intel. During the 80's and 90's AMD were a rarely used second source Intel X86. the real market competitors were 680X0 then PowerPC with top end performance coming from MIPS then SPARC then ALPHA (and some would include Itanium also).

AMD providing real competition to intel is a relatively new thing.

 

[SickBeast]

It has been shown time and time again that amd makes cheap 6 core cpus that overclock to 4ghz and pwn just about anything intel makes. I don't see why you would spend more ghan $300 when it's not necessary, scali.

 

[Scali]

I don't see why you would spend more ghan $300 when it's not necessary, scali.

Neither do I...
But as I said, my last CPU was an E6600, slightly over $300...
What else was there? An Athlon 5000+ was $400 and was actually slower across the board.
And the E6600 was the cheapest to have the 1066 FSB and 4 MB cache, which I thought would be a good investment for the future. That made the E6600 the sweet spot.
I think everyone will agree, as the E6600 generally was the star of the Core2 Duo reviews at introduction. It was well worth the $316 for me.

 

[SickBeast]

If amd had a competetive part at that time, the e6600 would not have cost so much.

 

[Anarchist420]

Let me point out that Intel HAD a monopoly on x86 CPUs until AMD's release of the Am386DX in 1991 (okay, there were the NEC V20/V30 clones, and some even more obscure ones, but no meaningful marketshare).
So we don't have to ask ourselves 'what would happen', we can just look at history and see what actually DID happen.

CPU prices never changed really. They are completely determined by what people are willing to pay for a CPU.
CPU development also never froze. Before AMD, Intel had already developed the 4004, 8008, 8080, 8086/8088, 80186, 80286, 80386 and 80486. Moore's law in full effect, with no competition (yes, that Moore in Moore's law is Gordon Moore, one of Intel's founders).

So can we please drop all the crackpot theories? Nothing bad happened when AMD wasn't around to compete. Know your history.
Likewise, we know that when AMD was around to compete, eg with the Athlon/Athlon64, the result was not Intel prices going down, but AMD prices going up... with AMD introducing their Athlon FX series at $1000+ prices and such.
Know your history.

My first three PCs were bought in the pre-AMD era (8088, 80386SX and 80486DX2), I've always paid pretty much the same price for a new PC, and always had pretty much a 'mainstream' performer.

Agreed. Monopolies aren't what most people think they are.

When AMD barely made anything PCs were the same prices they were today.

Also, I believe that Operating systems are so expensive because the state has granted microsoft patents. I could be wrong about that, but I still think ripping off of windows would be a lot easier and more successful if it weren't for patents.

 

[IntelUser2000]

If amd had a competetive part at that time, the e6600 would not have cost so much.

That's funny. Should I need to remind you that they cut their prices on previous products by something like 60% when Core 2 came out? Meaning it was actually Intel that brought on price cuts.

Of course, Intel was massively behind at that time, but still.

 

[Scali]

If amd had a competetive part at that time, the e6600 would not have cost so much.

Well, they didn't.
If we look at the CPU I had before then... It was an Athlon XP 1800+.
I'm not sure what it cost when I bought it... but it was probably around the same price.
Same story really... Since I didn't go with one of the cheaper options (I bought the 1800+ just at the time of the 1900+ introduction, but I couldn't get one of those yet, and didn't want to wait any longer), it was quite a future-proof system.
It allowed me to skip the whole Athlon64/Pentium 4 generation... By the time I started to feel like upgrading, Core2 was only a few months away from introduction. And the previews were very promising, so I figured I'd wait it out. And my patience was rewarded.

I'm in a similar situation now... I could upgrade, but don't really have to yet... So I'm at least waiting to see what Sandy Bridge has to offer.

 

[GaiaHunter]

That's funny. Should I need to remind you that they cut their prices on previous products by something like 60% when Core 2 came out? Meaning it was actually Intel that brought on price cuts.

They did.

But that was because A64 and A64 X2 actually stole market share from Intel.

Competition and more production/productivity are good things for everyone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the splitting of Intel some people keep talking about and almost blame AMD for not happening.

In the long run would be good, if the economy can finance 2/whatever companies that would be formed after an eventual Intel splitting, into get the kind of advancements Intel as a whole can get.

But so it will be if AMD can become competitive. AMD can be somewhat competitive but not very profitable, although there is the point of how much the anti-competitive practices AMD claims Intel practised contributed to this situation. Since both companies signed a deal when they settled their differences, lets hope the competition between them happens in fair terms.

In the short run, AMD would disappear and Intel resources would be divided. That doesn't sound incredible good.

 

[SickBeast]

That's funny. Should I need to remind you that they cut their prices on previous products by something like 60% when Core 2 came out? Meaning it was actually Intel that brought on price cuts.

Of course, Intel was massively behind at that time, but still.

You're right, but because AMD did not have a product that could compete directly in terms of performance, intel had free reign to charge whatever they wanted on their high end offerings.

 

[Scali]

You're right, but because AMD did not have a product that could compete directly in terms of performance, intel had free reign to charge whatever they wanted on their high end offerings.

They had free reign yes.... and they chose to considerably undercut AMD's prices, rather than just milking the consumer market using the then-established price/performance ratios.
Which worked out pretty well for me... Just like Athlon XP worked out well for me the other way around, a few years before that.

 

[Phynaz]

Commodore 64's were never 'mainstream' they were the 'console' of the day.

In the early 90's there were some deals on these kinds of things. My Apple //e was $2500 complete in about 1986 at the same time an IBM PS/2 Model 80 was $25000 with VGA and a supporting monitor.

You're a little over-priced there. A Model 80 with 4MB of RAM and a 60MB DASD was about $8K. I had one.

 

[alkemyst]

You're a little over-priced there. A Model 80 with 4MB of RAM and a 60MB DASD was about $8K. I had one.

well I will leave out the fact that I was the IBM PS/2 FAQ maintainer (and some say really the creator) for about 10 years and the fact that almost all that I have met that 'had one' picked one up at a flea market or something a decade plus later and got giddy when they discovered the price originally.

The Model 80 came in 386/16, 386/20 and the uber 386/25 which offered other enhancements.

The Model 80 with the 386/25 with 8514/A card and monitor was $25k. 10x7 graphics for the win...The original model 80 in 1987 was just under $11,000 with the 16MHz processor.

 

[Phynaz]

well I will leave out the fact that I was the IBM PS/2 FAQ maintainer (and some say really the creator) for about 10 years and the fact that almost all that I have met that 'had one' picked one up at a flea market or something a decade plus later and got giddy when they discovered the price originally.

I sold IBM's in the 80's. I did not "pick one up at a flea market".

My first real business trip was when IBM required all their medallion holders to come to Chicago for PS/2 training.

It sounds like you have a lot of computer history under your belt. You and I could probably some really interesting discussions if you could modify your approach a bit and not talk down to people.

 

[alkemyst]

selling IBMs <> to owning them.

be careful who you correct then.

 

[Phynaz]

What part of bought one didn't you get?

Whatever.

 

[cbn]

Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost?

Well let me ask you a question: In what high profit area is AMD competing with Intel?

I'd imagine being able to eventually force Intel prices down would require a good accumulation of profit for R&D. But what is the best way for AMD to do this?

 

[busydude]

In what high profit area is AMD competing with Intel?

Did you check the difference in margins of the two companies?

Intel - 67&#37; vs AMD - 45%

There is no question Intel is a better one of the two, but AMD's margins are not bad either if you take into account a bigger picture and considering the fact that AMD is in the lower/main stream segment. Anand, said, and I quote this from their analysis of q4 2009, "What is surprising is that considering AMD&#8217;s financial situation, their processor gross margin is pretty good. At 45% they&#8217;re no Intel (64.7%) but it&#8217;s the kind of margin the company needs to pay for things like R&D, particularly since they don&#8217;t move massive volumes of chips like Intel does."

I am really surprised that AMD was able to maintain a healthy margin considering its products, the situation is improving for the better and we can hope they offer good products in coming months(fingers crossed).

 

[IntelUser2000]

Intel was at 51% GM last year. Clearly they improved their own execution.