• 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.

How can AMD make money come Apr 22?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Farmer
AMD has existed for about as long as Intel has: they've only been a major competitor since K7. I don't recall Intel encountering any antitrust issues in the pre-K7 days.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a major competitor to keep the only other company from being a monopoly, you just have to exist. And AMD has been selling processors since the 286, which Intel made for them, crazily enough.
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Farmer
AMD has existed for about as long as Intel has: they've only been a major competitor since K7. I don't recall Intel encountering any antitrust issues in the pre-K7 days.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a major competitor to keep the only other company from being a monopoly, you just have to exist. And AMD has been selling processors since the 286, which Intel made for them, crazily enough.
Click to expand...

Not quite right. AMD used to make CPUs for Intel. AMD was a second source fab for Intel chips. IBM wouldn't do business unless there was a second source for 8088s and upward. It wasn't until Intel broke their contract with AMD, that AMD started to make the CPUs themselves. There was some legal arrangement which allowed AMD to make all numbered series of Intel CPUs (after the courts got involved) and you could buy AMD 386's and 486's. This is why when it came time for the 568, Intel instead named it "Pentium" (not a numbered name) and AMD had to find their own way. Soon after, they bought Cyrix and released the K5 and later the K6 series.

The rest you probably already know.

Joe
 
Originally posted by: tallman45
Microsoft and its Monopoly lawsuits is the reason Intel is happy there is an AMD and the small market share it looses to AMD is a drop in the bucket compared to the legal fees it saves
Click to expand...

That's not even apples to oranges...thats like apples to car tires
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Farmer
AMD has existed for about as long as Intel has: they've only been a major competitor since K7. I don't recall Intel encountering any antitrust issues in the pre-K7 days.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a major competitor to keep the only other company from being a monopoly, you just have to exist. And AMD has been selling processors since the 286, which Intel made for them, crazily enough.
Click to expand...

1. A monopoly doesn't mean you are the only company, just the only dominant company. Quite often, companies with 50% of the market are considered a monopoly by law. For instance, Microsoft does not own 100% of the world's desktop OS market, but they are a legal monopoly.

2. Intel has been investigated on several occasions for anti-trust issues.

3. Intel has never ever made processers for AMD...AMD was a second source of CPUs for Intel.
 
Not to mention AMD has had offerings FAR before the K7's I can remember the AMD DX4 120MHz CPU's from a ways back.... That chip gave intel a run for it's money.
 
Originally posted by: locutus12
actually they would probably be something like 4 Ghz dual core, sloppy itanium chips with massive amounts of cache and giving off some 300 watts of heat. :/

there would be no conroe / core 2 if AMD did not exist, and our computers would not be as fast or as efficient as they are, that much is a simple fact. Hell if it wasnt for AMD going dual core 9 months before intel, who knows if we would even have dual core at all.
Click to expand...

FYI - Intel launched the Pentium D on May 26, 2005. AMD launched the A64 X2 on August 1, 2005. Just setting the record straight.
 
Originally posted by: Farmer
Honestly, I think AMD has rested on the success of the K7 and the failure of the Pentium D for far too long. They should've had to the foresight to start looking for a next-generation solution before K8 even came out.
Click to expand...

You think they didn't? How about Intel? Think that they were resting on their laurels with the P4 and were suddenly suprised to be beat out by the A64? No, both companies work on future gen products all the time. It's just that they both have to create things several years in advance without knowing if they have a winner or not.

Originally posted by: Farmer
PC OEMs use mostly Intel. They've been doing it since they started existing, and continued to do so for almost six years, when AMD obviously had a better architecture (K7, K8).
Click to expand...

And now that AMD aren't the best, Dell is offering them. Just goes to show that performance isn't everything once you go past the enthusiast market.

Originally posted by: locutus12
Originally posted by: Farmer
Hell, if AMD didn't exist we'd still be buying 400 MHz Pentium IIs for $1000 each.
Click to expand...
actually they would probably be something like 2 Ghz dual core, sloppy itanium chips with massive amounts of cache and giving off some 300 watts of heat.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

Originally posted by: Netopia
Soon after, they bought Cyrix and released the K5 and later the K6 series.
Click to expand...

VIA bought Cyrix. AMD bought NexGen. K5 was in-house. K6 was from NexGen.
 
Originally posted by: SexyK
Originally posted by: locutus12
actually they would probably be something like 4 Ghz dual core, sloppy itanium chips with massive amounts of cache and giving off some 300 watts of heat. :/

there would be no conroe / core 2 if AMD did not exist, and our computers would not be as fast or as efficient as they are, that much is a simple fact. Hell if it wasnt for AMD going dual core 9 months before intel, who knows if we would even have dual core at all.
Click to expand...

FYI - Intel launched the Pentium D on May 26, 2005. AMD launched the A64 X2 on August 1, 2005. Just setting the record straight.
Click to expand...

I think he meant dual cores that people actually wanted to buy.
 
I was just thinking...is it even possible for Intel to kill AMD? Sure, they can price war them into the ground using their existing warchest of cash, killing their own stock price in the process. But with an x86 license, high end fabs and a lot of other IP...some investor is going to come along and buy up those bargain resources from bankruptcy and have at it again. Hell, even cyrix isn't really gone...they just picked a niche market.

One things for sure though, Intel doesn't seem to be ignoring AMD like an annoying insect buzzing around their head anymore. The C2D and super aggressive pricing all seem like new moves from a company that had started to look like a lumbering dinosaur during the late P4 era.
 
As long as the consumer has a choice and is protected from unfair pricing there is no monopoly. Intel can cut prices as aggressively as they like, I guarantee they are not out to eliminate AMD, if they did it would be far more costly to them.

Observing the next few years / generations of chips should be very interesting.
 
Are these price cuts confirmed for Apr 22? For some reason I thought they were Apr 1, can anyone comment with a source?

Thanks
 
Pricing is being cut i response to demand. Sales of PC's must be sluggish for them to drastically cut prices. Look at Comp USA, closing almost 200 stores.
 
Originally posted by: tallman45
Pricing is being cut i response to demand. Sales of PC's must be sluggish for them to drastically cut prices. Look at Comp USA, closing almost 200 stores.
Click to expand...

I think it about time were due for our first Core 2 Duo desktop pricing cut, the Core 2 Duo has remain officially at exactly the same price since it's inception back in July 2006, thta's nearly 9 months before a price cut. That quite a long time for processor prices to remain at the same level.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I really think AMD will do better to break even by not making any chips at all.
Click to expand...
What an asinine comment. I guess they'll start making donuts instead?
Click to expand...

I agree; that was totally unnecessary.
AMD does need to get back on track, however. I'm not exactly sure what their plans are.. but they better be big ones come the end of this year with Penryn and what-not hitting the market.
 
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: tallman45
Pricing is being cut i response to demand. Sales of PC's must be sluggish for them to drastically cut prices. Look at Comp USA, closing almost 200 stores.
Click to expand...

I think it about time were due for our first Core 2 Duo desktop pricing cut, the Core 2 Duo has remain officially at exactly the same price since it's inception back in July 2006, thta's nearly 9 months before a price cut. That quite a long time for processor prices to remain at the same level.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Intel, that makes a good deal of sense...why lower prices when you don't have much competition?
I imagine that the upcoming price cut is in anticipation of
1. The K10 chips coming out (take as much marketshare as you can while the taking is good),
2. The upcoming EOL for Pentium D chips
 
Sorry, just going to ask again, is April 22 confirmed? I see it on a bunch of sites but nothing official. Trying to decide if I should wait to save $100 or not.
 
the pentium M e2000 series is supposed to be the dual core 1mb cache chips. basically an allendale 800bus with half the cache turned off. not much cheaper than e4000s though so no real point and they run at lik e1.6ghz
 
Originally posted by: gramboh
Sorry, just going to ask again, is April 22 confirmed? I see it on a bunch of sites but nothing official. Trying to decide if I should wait to save $100 or not.
Click to expand...

Put it this way, what can you do between now and 4/22 to earn an extra $100 tax free ?? If you can wait you just earned yourself an extra $100
 
Originally posted by: tallman45
Originally posted by: hardwareking
This is great.Intel is trying really hard to reduce AMD's profits.
I can't wait for the core 2 quad price to come down.It'll be the same price as the E6700 today.
Click to expand...

That is silly, so to spite AMD Intel will cut its own profits ?? That is not the way business runs especially when you are number 1, and number 2 is well behind you in sales and there is no number 3

Intel would have a nightmare on its hands if AMD did not exist
Click to expand...

What?

Intel's #1 goal is more market share - the profits will follow after. This move is done to gain market share and kill AMD. This is a classic barrier to entry type tactic that a large company with deep pockets can employ to bleed dry its smaller competition.

This makes perfect sense. And, I don't think anyone with Intel would feel their nightmare scenario is when their only real competition for the PC processor market dies.

If you think they're concerned about antitrust considerations, I think that's crazy. Every company endeavors to kill its competition. I don't think anyone at intel thinks to themselves "keep AMD alive so we can avoid lawsuits". I think the possibility of lawsuits decreases with AMD dying as they will most likely fund these lawsuits (should they arise).
 
Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: Farmer
Honestly, I think AMD has rested on the success of the K7 and the failure of the Pentium D for far too long. They should've had to the foresight to start looking for a next-generation solution before K8 even came out.
Click to expand...

You think they didn't? How about Intel? Think that they were resting on their laurels with the P4 and were suddenly suprised to be beat out by the A64? No, both companies work on future gen products all the time. It's just that they both have to create things several years in advance without knowing if they have a winner or not.
Click to expand...

Actually you're right. AMD is right on track with the Barcelona release, 4 years after K8 came out, but then again, Core 2 is little under three years after Prescott. Sure, Intel had two development teams working on two different architectures, but it's not like AMD didn't know that.

I understand Dell has started to carry AMD and many other OEMs, but the majority of the sales still goes to Intel. Intel has much more "inertia" than AMD in terms of losing market. In other words, given this reality, AMD suffers from Intel having the superior product far far more than Intel would suffer from AMD having the superior product. That is all I am trying to say.
 
Now that AMD has invested most of their product into retailers like Dell, it doesn't give them much wiggle room when the competition is ferce. It's easier to scale the price at newegg.com for a OEM part than it is inside a Dell system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top