Is Intel too expensive?

[SiliconWars]

Its rebates with condition. Else you would see people punished with jail most likely.

Its the same as politicians gets political donations instead too. Or kickbacks in other cases.

It's a corporation. Individual profit without individual responsibility. Ottelini should have been jailed, ditto Dell, but it's a sad indictment of the world we live in that they basically got away with it.

Same as bankers getting away with all the crap they pull.

 

[dud]

You can philosophise all you want but Intel would be LESS expensive if there were more competition in the marketplace. Sure, Intel cannot raise prices as high as they would like ... this would hurt their bottom-line in a desktop market that is alreaty weak but if they had competion their prices (IMHO) would be anywhere from 10 to 25% less.

Are they too expensive ... not necessarily as people continue to buy. Are they more expensive without direct competion ... defintely yes. Intel is no benevolent, charitable organization. Their purpose is to survive by profiting and raising shareholder equity.

There are people in this thread who are coming across as either Intel employees or just plain fanboys. Give it up. Intel wants your money and without competion they are getting more of it ...

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's a corporation. Individual profit without individual responsibility. Ottelini should have been jailed, ditto Dell, but it's a sad indictment of the world we live in that they basically got away with it.

Same as bankers getting away with all the crap they pull.

In the views of average joe perhaps. But law is law and there is a difference. Same as Apple cheating the US for around 11billion$ a year in tax. But they still dont do anything wrong, even tho its unethical and average joe cant do the same.

Several AMD people also avoided jail for insider. Or AMDs blatant copy of Intel products. But law is law.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You can philosophise all you want but Intel would be LESS expensive if there were more competition in the marketplace. Sure, Intel cannot raise prices as high as they would like ... this would hurt their bottom-line in a desktop market that is alreaty weak but if they had competion their prices (IMHO) would be anywhere from 10 to 25% less.

Are they too expensive ... not necessarily as people continue to buy. Are they more expensive without direct competion ... defintely yes. Intel is no benevolent, charitable organization. Their purpose is to survive by profiting and raising shareholder equity.

There are people in this thread who are coming across as either Intel employees or just plain fanboys. Give it up. Intel wants your money and without competion they are getting more of it ...

I dont think so, the main problem is design cost. And an easy mistake is to compare this market with a relative static supply/demand market without much or any R&D.

Lower prices is nothing but a pee in the pants case. Because the lower prices can only be payed by future R&D reductions. AMD already sit in a position were they dont have enough money for designs on time.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You can philosophise all you want but Intel would be LESS expensive if there were more competition in the marketplace. Sure, Intel cannot raise prices as high as they would like ... this would hurt their bottom-line in a desktop market that is alreaty weak but if they had competion their prices (IMHO) would be anywhere from 10 to 25% less.

Are they too expensive ... not necessarily as people continue to buy. Are they more expensive without direct competion ... defintely yes. Intel is no benevolent, charitable organization. Their purpose is to survive by profiting and raising shareholder equity.

There are people in this thread who are coming across as either Intel employees or just plain fanboys. Give it up. Intel wants your money and without competion they are getting more of it ...

I answered "no" to the question if intel is too expensive. But really it depends on your viewpoint and the particular segment you are looking at. I have been buying computers for a long time, and historically the performance per dollar is at an all time high. The 3570k is a fantastic value, as are the lower end i5s if you dont overclock. For the basic use consumer market, dual core intels are a fantastic value. Prices could also be cheaper in some segments, but after all, it is business, and companies are out to make a profit. In the desktop market the only chips that seem overpriced to me are the 3770k and the hex cores. The 3770k seems the most "overpriced", basically adding 100.00 to enable hyperthreading.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I guess you missed the part where both intel and Dell were fined for this?

Dell wasn't fined for being part of the rebate scheme, they were fined for not adequately declaring that they were involved.

Go ahead and read it for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Lawsuits

The only case of a meaningful penalty imposed against Intel there was by the EU, in a process their own Ombudsman criticised.

As the EU tribunal wasn't a court, Intel were not allowed to cross examine anyone or call witnesses in their defence. As it currently stands, Intel is appealing the decision.

No I haven't forgotten it, it was only a few days ago that intels profits were down on weak demand. Consumers won't be buying Haswell for the same reasons I have outlined.

LOL What nonsense.

Haswell will be a stellar seller, especially in laptops.

 

[guskline]

Honestly, the 2500k feels like a steal for the performance. Ever since the release of SB and now IB the Intel chips for the performance are a bargain. What I find funny about these type of threads is people moan that an Intel 3770k is @$330 yet they don't blink an eyelash about buying 2 7970s or 2 GTX670!

Intel hasn't really lowered the 3570k/3770k much (other than UBER deals such as Microcenter) but why should they? AMD, even with the 8350 at @ $199 hasn't really put much pressure on them to do so.

 

[SiliconWars]

Dell wasn't fined for being part of the rebate scheme, they were fined for not adequately declaring that they were involved.

Involved in bribery.

The only case of a meaningful penalty imposed against Intel there was by the EU, in a process their own Ombudsman criticised.

Meaningful in that it cost intel $billions instead of $millions? The acts however were the same in every case - bribing OEM's not to use AMD. The only difference is the EU isn't weak against abusive monopoly corporations like the rest of the world is.

 

[mrmt]

Lower prices is nothing but a pee in the pants case. Because the lower prices can only be payed by future R&D reductions. AMD already sit in a position were they dont have enough money for designs on time.

If Intel had competition, they would obviously lower their prices or else the competitor would eat into its market share. But there is a floor for that. The ASP floor is the amount of money to fund R&D and give enough returns to keep shareholders on board.

As of now Intel can pursue a strategy of maximize profits without much trouble. Maximum profits strategy does not yields the highest price you can charge for a product, but does not yields the lowest either.

 

[SiliconWars]

Honestly, the 2500k feels like a steal for the performance. Ever since the release of SB and now IB the Intel chips for the performance are a bargain.

It only feels that way because the progress since then has stagnated. If Intel was (and they could be) offering 6C/12T 22nm for the same price, you probably wouldn't think the 2500K was a steal anymore.

What I find funny about these type of threads is people moan that an Intel 3770k is @$330 yet they don't blink an eyelash about buying 2 7970s or 2 GTX670!

That's because performance more than doubles with graphics cards every other generation.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Involved in bribery.

There was no penalty levied on Dell for being involved in bribery.

Meaningful in that it cost intel $billions instead of $millions? The acts however were the same in every case - bribing OEM's not to use AMD. The only difference is the EU isn't weak against abusive monopoly corporations like the rest of the world is.

AMD concocted these allegations to get out of their Cross Licensing Agreement with Intel.

Intel denied ever doing what AMD alleged, so chose to formally agree to not do what they weren't doing anyway.

Since that time, how have Intel and AMD done?

If AMD were being held back by these supposedly rigged rebates, then with that no longer the case, then they should have prospered and Intel suffered.

Instead, we have seen Intel take Market Share off AMD, hand over fist and AMD now on Life Support, unlikely to survive into the next decade.

AMD's problems have overwhelmingly been incompetent managers, who of course weren't going to accept the blame for their ineptness, so they just blamed Intel and the gullible lap it up.

 

[SiliconWars]

There was no penalty levied on Dell for being involved in bribery.


AMD concocted these allegations to get out of their Cross Licensing Agreement with Intel.

Intel denied ever doing what AMD alleged, so chose to formally agree to not do what they weren't doing anyway.

Since that time, how have Intel and AMD done?

If AMD were being held back by these supposedly rigged rebates, then with that no longer the case, then they should have prospered and Intel suffered.

Instead, we have seen Intel take Market Share off AMD, hand over fist and AMD now on Life Support, unlikely to survive into the next decade.

AMD's problems have overwhelmingly been incompetent managers, who of course weren't going to accept the blame for their ineptness, so they just blamed Intel and the gullible lap it up.

Yes sure, poor Intel being unfairly picked upon by the world's governments and big scary AMD. Ask yourself...really how likely is your scenario to be? Neither you or anyone else can actually believe it.

As for the second part, the damage was done at a time when AMD was most vulnerable (after overspending on ATI). It's a miracle they are still around.

 

[Lonbjerg]

has andandtech's forum become the homestead of rabid AMD fans?
Both here and in V&G somethings...not right.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Yes sure, poor Intel being unfairly picked upon by the world's governments and big scary AMD. Ask yourself...really how likely is your scenario to be? Neither you or anyone else can actually believe it.

Other than the EU(who loves to rort large amounts from American Companies), the rest of the world did nothing more than just wave a disapproving finger at Intel.

How do you explain why when Intel agreed to all of AMD's demands, that in the years that followed, Intel prospered and AMD went backwards?

It just shows that AMD managed to fool many people about why their state of affairs were so mediocre and that it was never about the rebates in the first place.

 

[SiliconWars]

has andandtech's forum become the homestead of rabid AMD fans?
Both here and in V&G somethings...not right.

Might have guessed you'd be one of the first with the personal attacks! Typical.

 

[SiliconWars]

How do you explain why when Intel agreed to all of AMD's demands, that in the years that followed, Intel prospered and AMD went backwards?

Because intel's wrongdoing was designed to harm AMD over a period of many years, if not to kill them off completely.

The question you really should be asking is this.

Just how bad a situation was Intel in that they had to bribe Dell $5.5 billion, and others how much(?) in order to keep themselves in the game.

That's the question you need to ask yourself. $Billions thrown on bribery, because in the long run that was cheaper than having AMD winning fairly.

There's your answer.

 

[Harabec]

If you think it is so unfair, why don't YOU make a better CPU for a cheaper price, instead of buying Intel?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Might have guessed you'd be one of the first with the personal attacks! Typical.

Seems you are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing someone else of, except that he made a general statement, instead of attacking one poster personally as you are doing.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Because intel's wrongdoing was designed to harm AMD over a period of many years, if not to kill them off completely.

The question you really should be asking is this.

Just how bad a situation was Intel in that they had to bribe Dell $5.5 billion, and others how much(?) in order to keep themselves in the game.

That's the question you need to ask yourself. $Billions thrown on bribery, because in the long run that was cheaper than having AMD winning fairly.

There's your answer.

In late 2006, Dell started selling AMD based systems.

This was at a time when Conroe was out, thus making an AMD system far less attractive than it would have been, pre-Conroe.

With AMD being less compelling than it would have been pre-Conroe, AMD still couldn't supply everyone in the retail channels, because AMD were capacity constrained, due to supplying Dell above them.

What this shows is that all during the time of the rebates, AMD were selling every processor they could make, so it is a nonsense to say they were crippled by not being able to get into Dell.

Dell wasn't the only company in town, AMD CPU'S were being sold by Blue Chip OEM's like HP, IBM & Sun.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Might have guessed you'd be one of the first with the personal attacks! Typical.

That wasn't a personnal attack I doubt the mods will see it that way . Its in fact true . But the something thats going on . I witnessed the exact same thing destroy XS forum . Same people involved.

Oh as for AMD lawsuite it was of no value . Intel did not hold amd back . AMDS fabs were running at full capicity , AMD was CAPITITY CONSTRAINED . . Bribes had nothing to do with anything. AMDS lack of taking more market share was doe to lack of capicity to make enough chips for the dells of the world . These are facts . The Bribery was never prooved and infact didn't matter .

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not to mention AMD delayed 65nm and milked customers all they could. Arrogance put AMD where it is today. It wasnt by chance that AMD products dropped ~80% in price in a year or so. With the first 35-50% cuts when Core 2 hit.

 

[SiliconWars]

In late 2006, Dell started selling AMD based systems.

At which time the bribery payments stopped.

With AMD being less compelling than it would have been pre-Conroe, AMD still couldn't supply everyone in the retail channels, because AMD were capacity constrained, due to supplying Dell above them.

If AMD was capacity constrained, why did Intel bribe Dell $6 billion to not use their cpu's?

What this shows is that all during the time of the rebates, AMD were selling every processor they could make, so it is a nonsense to say they were crippled by not being able to get into Dell.

See previous point.

Dell wasn't the only company in town, AMD CPU'S were being sold by Blue Chip OEM's like HP, IBM & Sun.

HP were bribed over $1 billion, IBM were bribed $130 million not to use AMD. I'm sure Sun were bribed as well.

 

[StrangerGuy]

In late 2006, Dell started selling AMD based systems.

This was at a time when Conroe was out, thus making an AMD system far less attractive than it would have been, pre-Conroe.

The $180 E6300 was practically much better and cheaper than the entire AMD lineup prelaunch but we know Intel always price gouges. *sarcasm*

 

[ShintaiDK]

It was pretty obvious that AMD was constrained. Everyone reported so as well. And you could see AMDs fab utilization.

Even AMD stated it themselves from the PR department:

The competitive performance and advantages of AMD’s current product offerings combined with our widening relationships with system builders and regional and global OEMs have hampered our ability to fully meet the demand of some customers, including regional OEM partners

 

[CHADBOGA]

At which time the bribery payments stopped.

And how did AMD fare?

If AMD was capacity constrained, why did Intel bribe Dell $6 billion to not use their cpu's?

If? So you were unaware of AMD's capacity supply problems at the time?

And you don't seem to understand that rebates aren't bribes and are in fact a common business practice in many industries.

So you question is no more than why was Intel engaging in a common business practice.

HP were bribed over $1 billion, IBM were bribed $130 million. I'm sure Sun were bribed as well.

Rebates aren't bribes and AMD tried to bribe HP by offering them a Million free CPU's.

Due to lack of customer demand, HP only took about 160,000 free CPU's from AMD.