Has Intel Lost It's Mind?

[GhandiInstinct]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...ay/20040901064511.html

Scroll down and let your jaw drop.

To summarize, they're losing the performance battle, they still hold high in market share. But with their roadmaps being this pricey it seems they don't even want to try to offer consumers bargins.

The 3.73 EE boasts only a 266mhz bus over the normal Prescott line but costs $500 more?

Maybe they need to find a way to manufacture SRAM a lot cheaper. Because it doesn't boost their performance, only makes us quiver and look elsewhere.

 

[Acanthus]

Its the fastest chip intel sells... what do you expect?

The C and E chips are only about 5% higher than their AMD equivalents.

 

[oldfart]

Nothing new. High end performance has price to match. Same with AMD FX-53, 3800+, etc.

 

[pipsey]

The difference being there is no chip below the Opteron that sells at the price the most expensive of chips do, despite the fact that they will all most likely fall short of the FX51, 53, and 3800+. Something is very wrong here.

 

[Sonic587]

115W TDP? Good thing they have their new AAC technology.

Where is Intel going with this new chipset? They mentioned a 4GHz part coming down the line. What happened to lower power and less heat?

 

[T9D]

I don't see a problem. Thats the price of the newest top of the line and right out of the gate. Their other chips are way more reasonable.

 

[Corporate Thug]

how much did the FX 53 debut @?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: shady06
how much did the FX 53 debut @?

$780ish

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: shady06
how much did the FX 53 debut @?

$780ish

thanx, using that as a reference point, it doesnt seem like the new intel chips are too far off with the pricing

 

[voodoo1694]

they arent. fanboys like to think they are. it seems like these forums are extremely biased since most people only care about gaming benchmarks...

 

[Ackmed]

Because most people play games? The A64 is hands down the better CPU for gaming.

 

[caz67]

Its normal , for high end new tech

 

[carlosd]

Intel p`rocessors are always expensive, even if they are not the best performers. at least AMD can say that FX-53 and 3800+ are the best performers ot there.

 

[GhandiInstinct]

I believe if you can't offer good performance then lower your prices.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...ay/20040901064511.html

Scroll down and let your jaw drop.

To summarize, they're losing the performance battle, they still hold high in market share. But with their roadmaps being this pricey it seems they don't even want to try to offer consumers bargins.

The 3.73 EE boasts only a 266mhz bus over the normal Prescott line but costs $500 more?

Maybe they need to find a way to manufacture SRAM a lot cheaper. Because it doesn't boost their performance, only makes us quiver and look elsewhere.

Heh... mark of a newbie to the computer scene (reference price points from the "old glory days").

I believe if you can't offer good performance then lower your prices

Pricing is a function of numerous factors including market conditions, financials, and general business principles. Performance is secondary and adversely affects pricing only if it is truely noticeable. As bad as you may think Intel's processors perform, there really isn't anything significant enough to affect pricing to a noticeable degree. Intel x86 processors are still competitive with AMD x86 processors.
Before anyone starts listing numbers, please note an old adage in the processor industry. "MIPS = Meaningless Indicator of Performance Statistic." The actual phrase has probably changed a bit, but the spirit is the same. It's the first thing taught to anyone learning processor design. (Yes, the phrase was around before the MIPS architecture/RISC revolution)