Strawberrymom
Banned
just because Intel switches to DDR memory prices skyrocket.
they should look into monopoly practices with memory makers
they should look into monopoly practices with memory makers
-
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.
man memory makers are ripping us off
- Thread starter Strawberrymom
- Start date
All I heard is give me ddr boards now you have them.Why by ddr when rdram is not that much more and alot more band width,and faster with the northwood.BTW I read that AMD will be useing the SSE2 with there new chip,That is if it dosen't come toasted LOL.Damn when can AMD do something with out Intels help lol.What happen to the all mighty 3DNOW of AMD.
Lord Evermore
Diamond Member
sharkmeat: you have to turn it into an AMD/Intel debate?
AMD has to follow Intel's lead because Intel has a near monopoly on processors for mainstream systems. When Intel says "we're doing this", all the other manufacturers say "okay" and start developing complimentary products. (Itanium being a special case where they're completely starting from scratch, and even Intel admits it's not that good and doesn't expect many people to use it.) When AMD says "we're doing this" they then have to follow up with marketing and push it on people to show how good it is, and even then it's not always going to take off because Intel has their own name to tell people "we're Intel, we are the best" and people believe it. So, SSE gets used in a lot more software optimizations, so AMD adds SSE so that you can use it if your software doesn't support 3DNow!. Same happens with SSE2. Does it mean SSE/2 is better than 3DNow!? No. 3DNow! is actually better than SSE in a lot of things, but since developers often have to pick one and run with it in order to get products out the door, they choose the one that's going to get the most user coverage, meaning Intel-compatible (and no small amount of pressure from Intel to use only SSE helps too).
As for RAM pricing: in another post (like yesterday, people the search function does work, as does the link to take you to previous pages with earlier posts), someone detailed an average DRAM maker's costs to come up with the lowest price just to break even. It came out to 2 bucks per chip. That's for a single chip. Most modules have 8 or even 16 chips on them. And that price is just for the cost of the fab plant, the materials, and salaries for workers to make the chips. It didn't include R&D costs. So for an 8 chip module, the chips themselves cost 16 dollars at a minimum. Add on the price of the PCB and the workers to put it together and the testing, packaging, sales and then factor in R&D, and the price has gone up quite a bit (and of course if the module is being made by someone other than the chip maker, you have to add even more costs). Then assume that you're buying it from a middle-man, and they've got to make a profit on it too (and don't forget shipping from the DRAM maker to the middle-man and all THEIR marketing).
The last several months, DRAM was so low because they had way too much of it in stock, and the demand for it was very low. They have to pay terrible amounts of tax on any stock they have at the end of the financial year (depending on the country they're in I assume), plus if they're just not selling, they're not making any money. So rather than not sell any memory at all, they started selling it below cost so they'd at least make back part of the cost. (You didn't really think there was a profit on a 6 dollar 128MB module did you?) At the same time they cut production, and now they've reached a point with low stocks of memory, and an increasing demand. So they're able to raise prices and start making a profit again. Prices are still well below what they were before they dropped so low (I forget the timeframe). I mean, I bought a 256MB module of PC133 for 145 dollars about a year ago I think, and I thought that was a good deal at the time because it had been DOUBLE that for a long time. Now that can be had for 40 bucks or less. And DDR can be had for under 60 dollars.
AMD has to follow Intel's lead because Intel has a near monopoly on processors for mainstream systems. When Intel says "we're doing this", all the other manufacturers say "okay" and start developing complimentary products. (Itanium being a special case where they're completely starting from scratch, and even Intel admits it's not that good and doesn't expect many people to use it.) When AMD says "we're doing this" they then have to follow up with marketing and push it on people to show how good it is, and even then it's not always going to take off because Intel has their own name to tell people "we're Intel, we are the best" and people believe it. So, SSE gets used in a lot more software optimizations, so AMD adds SSE so that you can use it if your software doesn't support 3DNow!. Same happens with SSE2. Does it mean SSE/2 is better than 3DNow!? No. 3DNow! is actually better than SSE in a lot of things, but since developers often have to pick one and run with it in order to get products out the door, they choose the one that's going to get the most user coverage, meaning Intel-compatible (and no small amount of pressure from Intel to use only SSE helps too).
As for RAM pricing: in another post (like yesterday, people the search function does work, as does the link to take you to previous pages with earlier posts), someone detailed an average DRAM maker's costs to come up with the lowest price just to break even. It came out to 2 bucks per chip. That's for a single chip. Most modules have 8 or even 16 chips on them. And that price is just for the cost of the fab plant, the materials, and salaries for workers to make the chips. It didn't include R&D costs. So for an 8 chip module, the chips themselves cost 16 dollars at a minimum. Add on the price of the PCB and the workers to put it together and the testing, packaging, sales and then factor in R&D, and the price has gone up quite a bit (and of course if the module is being made by someone other than the chip maker, you have to add even more costs). Then assume that you're buying it from a middle-man, and they've got to make a profit on it too (and don't forget shipping from the DRAM maker to the middle-man and all THEIR marketing).
The last several months, DRAM was so low because they had way too much of it in stock, and the demand for it was very low. They have to pay terrible amounts of tax on any stock they have at the end of the financial year (depending on the country they're in I assume), plus if they're just not selling, they're not making any money. So rather than not sell any memory at all, they started selling it below cost so they'd at least make back part of the cost. (You didn't really think there was a profit on a 6 dollar 128MB module did you?) At the same time they cut production, and now they've reached a point with low stocks of memory, and an increasing demand. So they're able to raise prices and start making a profit again. Prices are still well below what they were before they dropped so low (I forget the timeframe). I mean, I bought a 256MB module of PC133 for 145 dollars about a year ago I think, and I thought that was a good deal at the time because it had been DOUBLE that for a long time. Now that can be had for 40 bucks or less. And DDR can be had for under 60 dollars.
Willoughbyva
Diamond Member
All I know is back about 5 years ago 32 megs was like 2 or 3 hundered dollars. I think I was getting ripped off before the past year or so. 🙁 🙂
rbV5
Lifer
<< they should look into monopoly practices with memory makers >>
Yea right, as if the memory chip manufacturing isn't one of the most cutthroat businesses to be in....Puleeeese! I mean, maybe they should just include a crisp new $50 bill in that 256MB DDR you got for $25 a couple weeks ago, would you be happy then? It wouldn't suprise me if thats what they were losing just to get those inventories down.
booo hooo 256 megs costs $80 or whatever. big deal. back in 1999 i paid $130 for 128 megs and i thought $1/meg was a bargain. late last year ram was the cheapest part of your computer. think about it. a half gig was cheaper than your hard drive, your tnt vanta, your winmodem... well. maybe not that. still. something had to give, and a bunch of makers have left the business. now its micron, samsung, hyundai, and infineon.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
