Intel lowers pricies.

[Nemesis 1]

Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

 

[OCGuy]

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2266877&enterthread=y

 

[soonerproud]

A thread with this conversation already exist HERE.

 

[LoneNinja]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

By that logic C2Q's are over priced since the PII perform very competitively against the same priced C2Q's.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

By that logic C2Q's are over priced since the PII perform very competitively against the same priced C2Q's.

PII is the only one that is going to suffer from Intel cutting prices.


That Q9650 is tempting to anyone without an AMD mobo already.....

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

By that logic C2Q's are over priced since the PII perform very competitively against the same priced C2Q's.

Actually the are faster than PH11 by a sizeable margin. Second best should be lower priced . Intel is going to push PHII into the price braket it belongs in. Besides For 2 weeks I been hereing nothing but intels same clocked cpus were 2 expensive so the better buy was smart move. That being PHII according to many. So now the reverse is going to be true. So the story changes. Come on . Intel will have both best product and pricies from top to bottom . AMD made PHII good enough to get Intels attention . So now what I feared will happen . To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

By that logic C2Q's are over priced since the PII perform very competitively against the same priced C2Q's.

Actually the are fster than PH11 by a sizeable margin. Second best should be lower priced . Intel is going to push PHII into the price braket it belongs in. Besides For 2 weeks I been hereing nothing but intels same clocked cpus were 2 expensive so the better buy was smart move. That being PHII according to many. So now the revirse is going to be true. So the story changes. Come on . Intel will have both best product and pricies from top to bottom . AMD made PHII good enough to get Intels attention . So now what I feared will happen . To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

I don't always understand your logic. AMD had the PhII priced where it competed with Intel's prices. If Intel cuts prices, then AMD will have no choice but to follow if they want to sell their chips. I don't see how AMD overpriced their chips.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

By that logic C2Q's are over priced since the PII perform very competitively against the same priced C2Q's.

Actually the are fster than PH11 by a sizeable margin. Second best should be lower priced . Intel is going to push PHII into the price braket it belongs in. Besides For 2 weeks I been hereing nothing but intels same clocked cpus were 2 expensive so the better buy was smart move. That being PHII according to many. So now the revirse is going to be true. So the story changes. Come on . Intel will have both best product and pricies from top to bottom . AMD made PHII good enough to get Intels attention . So now what I feared will happen . To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

I don't always understand your logic. AMD had the PhII priced where it competed with Intel's prices. If Intel cuts prices, then AMD will have no choice but to follow if they want to sell their chips. I don't see how AMD overpriced their chips.

I believe the price AMD set PHII was to high . AMD knowing full well that Intel cuts pricies in January. Check tick tock history . Intel cuts pricies after ever tick and tock . Ya see thats AMDs problem and I hate it. They need to look ahead so as not to get run over.

I fear its to late and I threw 20 grand out the window on their stock. But made a hell of alot when I shorted the stock . So I give back alittle to people that lost their asses. Alls fare.

 

[SunnyD]

While dollar for dollar, it's a nice sight to see prices go down, since I have a 790GX AM2+ platform, I'm still not going to buy similar performing Intel CPU to only save be gross ~$10 when it means I'm also going to have to buy a new motherboard in the process. If I was putting together a brand new machine, I'd skip Core 2 all together anyway and sink the money into i7.

 

[garritynet]

Nemesis 1- I like how you have a dictionary entry for a sig but some of the worst spelling on this forum. AMD can lower their prices next week when Intel dose and stay competitive. No one lowers their prices in anticipation of a competitors price cut.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

What do you base this assessment on?

Q6600 eventually came to be priced under $200 as well.

Does that mean the Q6600 was never worth more than $200 and when folks bought them at the $850, $550, and $300 pricepoints Intel was just ripping them off?

http://www.nextag.com/Intel-Co...706/price-history-html

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks like Intel is forcing AMD to cut pricies on the over priced PHII. I lust love Inrels Jan . Price cuts . There always great in jan . Following the tick tock patern

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10...sse-quad-intel-18.html

By that logic C2Q's are over priced since the PII perform very competitively against the same priced C2Q's.

Actually the are fster than PH11 by a sizeable margin. Second best should be lower priced . Intel is going to push PHII into the price braket it belongs in. Besides For 2 weeks I been hereing nothing but intels same clocked cpus were 2 expensive so the better buy was smart move. That being PHII according to many. So now the revirse is going to be true. So the story changes. Come on . Intel will have both best product and pricies from top to bottom . AMD made PHII good enough to get Intels attention . So now what I feared will happen . To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

I don't always understand your logic. AMD had the PhII priced where it competed with Intel's prices. If Intel cuts prices, then AMD will have no choice but to follow if they want to sell their chips. I don't see how AMD overpriced their chips.

I believe the price AMD set PHII was to high . AMD knowing full well that Intel cuts pricies in January. Check tick tock history . Intel cuts pricies after ever tick and tock . Ya see thats AMDs problem and I hate it. They need to look ahead so as not to get run over.

I fear its to late and I threw 20 grand out the window on their stock. But made a hell of alot when I shorted the stock . So I give back alittle to people that lost their asses. Alls fare.

I'm sure AMD will adjust their price accodringly. In the mean time they had some early adopters pay a premium for their new tech (made more profit) and had their chips priced correctly for the competition. Intel is now going to change their prices and AMD will have to follow suit. This is just common business practice from what I've seen. It's not like AMD was gouging their customers with their launch prices, they set them based on where the competition priced their competitive processors.

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

What do you base this assessment on?

Q6600 eventually came to be priced under $200 as well.

Does that mean the Q6600 was never worth more than $200 and when folks bought them at the $850, $550, and $300 pricepoints Intel was just ripping them off?

http://www.nextag.com/Intel-Co...706/price-history-html

Yes, yes Intel was.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't know why Intel doesn't keep the Q6600 around, just to undercut AMD's quad-core prices. I bet they could price it as low as $120-140, and still make money on it.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: ghost recon88

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

What do you base this assessment on?

Q6600 eventually came to be priced under $200 as well.

Does that mean the Q6600 was never worth more than $200 and when folks bought them at the $850, $550, and $300 pricepoints Intel was just ripping them off?

http://www.nextag.com/Intel-Co...706/price-history-html

Yes, yes Intel was.

The way I thought it was, was that R&D was the big exspense, and after you have recovered that, a chip takes $5 to produce ? If so, they could realy reduce the price on the Q6600 now, and I wish they would.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

Ya my q6600 price did not change.... :->

 

[InfoTiger]

I saw Q6600 new at $159 on Microcenter for a brief time before it went OOS.

 

[Roy2001]

Phenom II would be officially sub $200 CPU after Intel price cut.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: ghost recon88

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
To be honest PHII is worth no more than $200 if that .

What do you base this assessment on?

Q6600 eventually came to be priced under $200 as well.

Does that mean the Q6600 was never worth more than $200 and when folks bought them at the $850, $550, and $300 pricepoints Intel was just ripping them off?

http://www.nextag.com/Intel-Co...706/price-history-html

Yes, yes Intel was.

The way I thought it was, was that R&D was the big expense, and after you have recovered that, a chip takes $5 to produce ? If so, they could really reduce the price on the Q6600 now, and I wish they would.

That was a number thrown around long times ago, but even then you need to realize it was a "incremental additional cost per nub" kind of number.

What this means is if you are Intel and you already own the chip design, the fab, the equipment, the mask set, the packaging equipment, and the staff exists to handle all of the above then the incremental cost to Intel to produce one more chip is $5. (using your number just for example, the actual number could be $10 or $20, etc)

It implies there is excess fab capacity, something that is occurring right now, and as such making an additional CPU will not entail the expansion (capex) of any additional fab space, tools, headcount, etc.

Basically what goes into the calc are consumables. Materials costs, salaries, tool maintenance, etc.

A typical 300mm wafer after production costs around $2.5k at 45nm. Conroe has a die size of 143mm^2 so you can get around 480 dies or so (underestimated intentionally)...assume 90% yield and you have 430 sellable die, resulting in 215 q6600 nubs (net units built) for a build cost of around $12 not including packaging and transport...so add a couple bucks and call it $15 per q6600.

 

[Denithor]

Intel gets more 45nm chips from the 300mm wafer than they do with the 65nm chips. Therefore their profit margin is higher if they sell at the same price point.

So, tell me, exactly why they should keep the Q6600 around any longer than they have to?

Their pricing makes perfect sense - the Q8300 @ 2.5GHz/4MB should be a direct/slightly better replacement at the same price point. The Q9400 @ $220 is a nice deal and the Q9550 @ $270 forces AMD to drop the price of their PII 940.

And for retailers it's better also - fewer models to inventory. As chips go EOL you will see some retailers clear out inventory (Q6600 @ $159, Q9300 @ $189, etc) while others will just sit on the chips at original prices and wait for people with no other choices to buy them (if your board doesn't support 45nm and you need a quad - guess what, you're paying $189 for a Q6600, even if a Q9550 is eventually available for $150 or something).

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Intel gets more 45nm chips from the 300mm wafer than they do with the 65nm chips. Therefore their profit margin is higher if they sell at the same price point.

So, tell me, exactly why they should keep the Q6600 around any longer than they have to?

Their pricing makes perfect sense - the Q8300 @ 2.5GHz/4MB should be a direct/slightly better replacement at the same price point. The Q9400 @ $220 is a nice deal and the Q9550 @ $270 forces AMD to drop the price of their PII 940.

And for retailers it's better also - fewer models to inventory. As chips go EOL you will see some retailers clear out inventory (Q6600 @ $159, Q9300 @ $189, etc) while others will just sit on the chips at original prices and wait for people with no other choices to buy them (if your board doesn't support 45nm and you need a quad - guess what, you're paying $189 for a Q6600, even if a Q9550 is eventually available for $150 or something).

They have excess 65nm capacity, so the incremental cost for producing Q6600 follows a rational outlined in the post above.

This is not the case for 45nm capacity. To build more 45nm chips they need to invest in more 45nm capacity (same situation AMD is in). So the cost structure is not incremental, it involves capex.

Originally posted by: Denithor
Intel gets more 45nm chips from the 300mm wafer than they do with the 65nm chips. Therefore their profit margin is higher if they sell at the same price point.

This is true if they do not own any 45nm or 65nm fabs/equipment or if they have excess capacity of both. It also assumes the yields and per-wafer production costs are such for both 65nm and 45nm that the result is that 45nm mm^2 costs less than 65nm mm^2.

This is not a given as yields take time to reach maturity (likely pass that point for Intel) and successive process nodes always cost more per wafer to produce than prior nodes (more metal levels, more process steps, etc).

At any rate the Q6600 is an EOL product to be discontinued this summer. So the timeline is such that their numbers agree with your expectations.

 

[OnePingOnly]

The Q6600 has been around since January 8, 2007. It's still a beast CPU today and I consider it one of Intel's best CPUs ever released - it's legendary.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Denithor
Intel gets more 45nm chips from the 300mm wafer than they do with the 65nm chips. Therefore their profit margin is higher if they sell at the same price point.

So, tell me, exactly why they should keep the Q6600 around any longer than they have to?

Their pricing makes perfect sense - the Q8300 @ 2.5GHz/4MB should be a direct/slightly better replacement at the same price point. The Q9400 @ $220 is a nice deal and the Q9550 @ $270 forces AMD to drop the price of their PII 940.

And for retailers it's better also - fewer models to inventory. As chips go EOL you will see some retailers clear out inventory (Q6600 @ $159, Q9300 @ $189, etc) while others will just sit on the chips at original prices and wait for people with no other choices to buy them (if your board doesn't support 45nm and you need a quad - guess what, you're paying $189 for a Q6600, even if a Q9550 is eventually available for $150 or something).

They have excess 65nm capacity, so the incremental cost for producing Q6600 follows a rational outlined in the post above.

This is not the case for 45nm capacity. To build more 45nm chips they need to invest in more 45nm capacity (same situation AMD is in). So the cost structure is not incremental, it involves capex.

To add to what IDC is saying, remember also that by extending the usefullness of the 65nm lines, Intel is garnering revenue from assets that are already written off. So while 45nm saves Intel money in wafers, it costs them money in both equipment and labour.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: JRussellDMD
The Q6600 has been around since January 8, 2007. It's still a beast CPU today and I consider it one of Intel's best CPUs ever released - it's legendary.

I have to say, if you bought a Q6600 (or really other C2D's) at launch and a 8800GTX you certainly got your moneys worth out of that hardware combo. Even today with some overclocking that's a capable combo.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Denithor
Intel gets more 45nm chips from the 300mm wafer than they do with the 65nm chips. Therefore their profit margin is higher if they sell at the same price point.

So, tell me, exactly why they should keep the Q6600 around any longer than they have to?

Their pricing makes perfect sense - the Q8300 @ 2.5GHz/4MB should be a direct/slightly better replacement at the same price point. The Q9400 @ $220 is a nice deal and the Q9550 @ $270 forces AMD to drop the price of their PII 940.

And for retailers it's better also - fewer models to inventory. As chips go EOL you will see some retailers clear out inventory (Q6600 @ $159, Q9300 @ $189, etc) while others will just sit on the chips at original prices and wait for people with no other choices to buy them (if your board doesn't support 45nm and you need a quad - guess what, you're paying $189 for a Q6600, even if a Q9550 is eventually available for $150 or something).

They have excess 65nm capacity, so the incremental cost for producing Q6600 follows a rational outlined in the post above.

This is not the case for 45nm capacity. To build more 45nm chips they need to invest in more 45nm capacity (same situation AMD is in). So the cost structure is not incremental, it involves capex.

Originally posted by: Denithor
Intel gets more 45nm chips from the 300mm wafer than they do with the 65nm chips. Therefore their profit margin is higher if they sell at the same price point.

This is true if they do not own any 45nm or 65nm fabs/equipment or if they have excess capacity of both. It also assumes the yields and per-wafer production costs are such for both 65nm and 45nm that the result is that 45nm mm^2 costs less than 65nm mm^2.

This is not a given as yields take time to reach maturity (likely pass that point for Intel) and successive process nodes always cost more per wafer to produce than prior nodes (more metal levels, more process steps, etc).

At any rate the Q6600 is an EOL product to be discontinued this summer. So the timeline is such that their numbers agree with your expectations.

Interesting. Intel built a new 45nm. Plant in Israel. Another somewhere else if memory serves me correct. Which is really failing fast(MY Memory) . Not sure what process Larrabee will be built on .

But those Intel 65nm fabs . The ones with excess capacity. Isn't Intel converting those to Emersion for the 32NM process as we speak? Also doesn't Intel build Nb on older tech . Like Ipeak for I5? Intel has excess capacity only because of the hard times at present?