• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD is $$$

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This should put to rest the romantic robin hood notions that some AMD fans have with the company, AMD is guilty of same behavior as Intel was when they owned. Jacking the price.

I'm not so sure I care if a company makes money or not. In fact I prefer them to be hanging on by a shoestring so i can get $44 processor.🙂 Now if only ATI would turn in some loses...
 
True, it doesn't cost $800-900 to manufactur a single processor... but I'm still curious why you're blaming AMD for Newegg jacking the price up $300 because of availability.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
True, it doesn't cost $800-900 to manufactur a single processor... but I'm still curious why you're blaming AMD for Newegg jacking the price up $300 because of availability.
Click to expand...

you answered you own question, availability who AMD is responsible for. Many weeks I've heard crying in forums about not even being able to find 55's let alone at retail.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
True, it doesn't cost $800-900 to manufactur a single processor... but I'm still curious why you're blaming AMD for Newegg jacking the price up $300 because of availability.
Click to expand...

you answered you own question, availability who AMD is responsible for. Many weeks I've heard crying in forums about not even being able to find 55's let alone at retail.
Click to expand...

So you think they're intentionally limiting the amount of FX-55's available when people are willing to pay $1200 a piece even though the MSRP is closer to 900?
 
yeah, but also remember, a good core that can handle that speed in amd testing will make it to market, the failers wont as fx55s, maybe 53s or something. still, the failure rate must be very high as this must be a hard to manufacture chip. so every batch, id give them at best 10-20% success rate. couple that with demand and it's obvious they cant sell them for only $44 a piece.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
True, it doesn't cost $800-900 to manufactur a single processor... but I'm still curious why you're blaming AMD for Newegg jacking the price up $300 because of availability.
Click to expand...

you answered you own question, availability who AMD is responsible for. Many weeks I've heard crying in forums about not even being able to find 55's let alone at retail.
Click to expand...

So you think they're intentionally limiting the amount of FX-55's available when people are willing to pay $1200 a piece even though the MSRP is closer to 900?
Click to expand...

No I think they can't deliver due to poor manufacturing capability and demand. Poor planning too. Make less 3000's maybeJust like thier dual core, dispite showing one over 8 months ago, Intel who did'nt even have product at the time, will beat them out with duallys, codenamed: Nuclear Sun.😀

Don't buy poor yeilds arguement, 55's are hitting 400Mhz OC on air, meaning there is a large margin and production is good. If people were only seeing 100Mhz OC then I think it would be true.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
This should put to rest the romantic robin hood notions that some AMD fans have with the company, AMD is guilty of same behavior as Intel was when they owned. Jacking the price.

I'm not so sure I care if a company makes money or not. In fact I prefer them to be hanging on by a shoestring so i can get $44 processor.🙂 Now if only ATI would turn in some loses...
Click to expand...

It's not a "behavior" it's called business. AMD operated in the red or with no profit margin, and no company can do that for the long haul. When you manufacture something as complicated as a microchip the overhead is huge. They'll charge what they can get. just like you would if you owned a business.

Personally I refuse to spend more than $200 for a processor, and don't like to spend more than $150. I generally go looking for the fastest/newest I can get for $150. If nothing looks good then I up it to $200.

Buy a 3000+, OC it to 2.5-2.6 and be happy knowing it doesn't get much faster than what you have.
 
Originally posted by: NewBlackDak
Originally posted by: Zebo
This should put to rest the romantic robin hood notions that some AMD fans have with the company, AMD is guilty of same behavior as Intel was when they owned. Jacking the price.

I'm not so sure I care if a company makes money or not. In fact I prefer them to be hanging on by a shoestring so i can get $44 processor.🙂 Now if only ATI would turn in some loses...
Click to expand...

It's not a "behavior" it's called business. AMD operated in the red or with no profit margin, and no company can do that for the long haul. When you manufacture something as complicated as a microchip the overhead is huge. They'll charge what they can get. just like you would if you owned a business.

Personally I refuse to spend more than $200 for a processor, and don't like to spend more than $150. I generally go looking for the fastest/newest I can get for $150. If nothing looks good then I up it to $200.

Buy a 3000+, OC it to 2.5-2.6 and be happy knowing it doesn't get much faster than what you have.
Click to expand...


You're not telling me anything I don't know..or agree with. I'm stating a point of fact to lay to rest AMD's so called benevolence. Plus illustrating thier piss poor planning. I know I'd rather sell more FX's than 3000's. Maybe they should have had them in distro stream the past 4 weeks instead. Or at least more.
 
i think they know that since the FX53 is so good, they can just wait till they are all gone or intel comes out with something better than the 3.8 to bring the 55 and higher speed a64 out to continue to compete.
 
does anyone remember when a 1GHz Tbird cost $1000?

Anyways, it's not like AMD is the only one ripping stupid people off - a P4EE has an MSRP $200 higher than the FX-55, and has lower performance. And the 3.8J's aren't exactly cheap, either. The fact is, there is no reason for AMD to take losses on its chips just because its AXP customers are used to it. AMD is not a charity - they are a business, and when your main competitor can't keep up, there is no reason to sell your product for any less than the competition - in fact, we are lucky AMD didn't decide to sell for more than P4s, since they are clearly better. Quite the contrary, most are actually cheaper than their competition, which i am happy for. Spending $155 on my 2.5GHz 3000+ was a freakin steal for me, and it's worth every penny.

As for the retailer price guaging, I don't really care when it happens to extravagant parts like the FX's. If Newegg is pricing them that high, then it's probably because someone will pay it, and anyone willing to shell out $1200 for a processor about 3% faster than my $150 processor is either too dumb to be trusted with $1200 or too rich to care about spending more on their processor than I did on my entire computer, and either way I'm glad newegg takes their money. Newegg has provided me with outstanding service and pricing on my computer purchases, and if they want to make money off morons who can't tell a bargain from a ripoff, then more power to them. I am not a moron, and so I have nothing to worry about.
 
:beer:
Originally posted by: gobucks
does anyone remember when a 1GHz Tbird cost $1000?

Anyways, it's not like AMD is the only one ripping stupid people off - a P4EE has an MSRP $200 higher than the FX-55, and has lower performance. And the 3.8J's aren't exactly cheap, either. The fact is, there is no reason for AMD to take losses on its chips just because its AXP customers are used to it. AMD is not a charity - they are a business, and when your main competitor can't keep up, there is no reason to sell your product for any less than the competition - in fact, we are lucky AMD didn't decide to sell for more than P4s, since they are clearly better. Quite the contrary, most are actually cheaper than their competition, which i am happy for. Spending $155 on my 2.5GHz 3000+ was a freakin steal for me, and it's worth every penny.

As for the retailer price guaging, I don't really care when it happens to extravagant parts like the FX's. If Newegg is pricing them that high, then it's probably because someone will pay it, and anyone willing to shell out $1200 for a processor about 3% faster than my $150 processor is either too dumb to be trusted with $1200 or too rich to care about spending more on their processor than I did on my entire computer, and either way I'm glad newegg takes their money. Newegg has provided me with outstanding service and pricing on my computer purchases, and if they want to make money off morons who can't tell a bargain from a ripoff, then more power to them. I am not a moron, and so I have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

 
newegg randomly changes their prices alot. my case, the day i got it, and that day only was $56 with $13 shipping. a week later it was $59 free shipping. a few days after that it was $57.50, $16 shipping. so the moral of the story is just watch frequently, eventually youll get a good deal on it.
 
AMD is currently shipping its 1GHz AMD Athlon processors priced at $1,299 in 1,000 unit quantities.
Click to expand...
Link from 2000

(Hope ElFenix doesn't still get irritated that I post this whenever the subject comes up. 😉 )



By the way, I hope you don't really believe that it costs $20 to make a cpu.
 
Competition is a very good thing, and the fact that AMD can charge over $1000 for a CPU is testament to the fact that they are now an extremely viable contender versus Intel. IMO this is a good thing; people with $1000 for a CPU typically aren't financially-challenged anyhow.

/opinion.
 
Originally posted by: Wingznut
AMD is currently shipping its 1GHz AMD Athlon processors priced at $1,299 in 1,000 unit quantities.
Click to expand...
Link from 2000

(Hope ElFenix doesn't still get irritated that I post this whenever the subject comes up. 😉 )



By the way, I hope you don't really believe that it costs $20 to make a cpu.
Click to expand...

read it in one of eds articles..unless amd is selling processors at a loss it's less than $46
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-104-159&depa=0
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Competition is a very good thing, and the fact that AMD can charge over $1000 for a CPU is testament to the fact that they are now an extremely viable contender versus Intel. IMO this is a good thing; people with $1000 for a CPU typically aren't financially-challenged anyhow.

/opinion.
Click to expand...

Please. Anyone with a job or CC can afford an FX. Point is it's price premium does'nt scale worth a shat..nevertheless fools still buy them.. WHERES AMD to capitalize?
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Wingznut
AMD is currently shipping its 1GHz AMD Athlon processors priced at $1,299 in 1,000 unit quantities.
Click to expand...
Link from 2000

(Hope ElFenix doesn't still get irritated that I post this whenever the subject comes up. 😉 )



By the way, I hope you don't really believe that it costs $20 to make a cpu.
Click to expand...
read it in one of eds articles..unless amd is selling processors at a loss it's less than $46
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-104-159&depa=0
Click to expand...
I'd love to read said article.

And yes, if AMD sold every one of it's cpu's for $50, they'd lose a ton of money.
 
If all you're concerned about is the wafer, the difference in cost, yields being equal (and AMD has said that's the case with Hammers) the difference in marginal cost (that means how much extra you have to pay to make an additional processor, not counting fixed costs like the cost of the equipment) between the 110 and the 190 is roughly $10-15 per CPU.

Once you get the equipment, CPUs don't cost a lot to make: a figure of $25 for each extra CPU about Barton size is roughly right.
Click to expand...
Take particular note of "all you're concerned about is the wafer." Unfortunatly, an unfabricated polished wafer isn't going to do much for you. 😉
 
Originally posted by: ShadowBlade
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Jeff7181


Supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Well of course..

Hey everybody AMD sux. Don't buy them.🙂
Click to expand...

youre an idiot, the amd a64 3200+, about $250 significantly outperforms the intel P4 EE 3.2GHz (abt $1025)
Click to expand...
Batting 0-2
Grow a sense of humor moron, plus your statement is false.
 
Originally posted by: Wingznut
If all you're concerned about is the wafer, the difference in cost, yields being equal (and AMD has said that's the case with Hammers) the difference in marginal cost (that means how much extra you have to pay to make an additional processor, not counting fixed costs like the cost of the equipment) between the 110 and the 190 is roughly $10-15 per CPU.

Once you get the equipment, CPUs don't cost a lot to make: a figure of $25 for each extra CPU about Barton size is roughly right.
Click to expand...
Take particular note of "all you're concerned about is the wafer." Unfortunatly, an unfabricated polished wafer isn't going to do much for you. 😉
Click to expand...

He also said the no cache 90nm asian celeron cost $10.. still looking for that one.

He goes on and on in just about every article how it's common knowledge it's $20 a CPU: here's anotherhttp://www.overclockers.com/articles812/index02.asp
Estimates of what it costs to make a CPU these days hovers around $20 a pop
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top