Originally posted by: Greenman
Thats really a good idea, sell the cpu at a loss and make a ton on the chipset. I guess that form of marketing worked so well for printer companys that Intel decided to try it.
Originally posted by: Greenman
Thats really a good idea, sell the cpu at a loss and make a ton on the chipset. I guess that form of marketing worked so well for printer companys that Intel decided to try it.
Originally posted by: UsandThem
Originally posted by: Greenman
Thats really a good idea, sell the cpu at a loss and make a ton on the chipset. I guess that form of marketing worked so well for printer companys that Intel decided to try it.
That has really hurt AMD IMO. They sell the CPU's, but let others make the profits on the chipsets.
The last one they produced was a really fast and stable chipset. It is a shame they don't do it anymore. It was leaps and bounds better than the VIA chipset.
Agreed.Originally posted by: aka1nas
Another way to look at it is that AMD has taken away almost all the performance advantage of one chipset over another by integrating the memory controller. This leaves the 3rd party chipset developers to fight it out with each over what are essentially south bridges. This helps bring down overall system prices for AMD machines and you really won't go wrong performance-wise getting a VIA chipset, for example, rather than an Nvidia chipset.
On the Intel side, few of the 3rd party chipsets offer the same performance as Intel's offerings and most probably have less quality control, or at least less perception of quality in the marketplace.
Originally posted by: bobdelt
Why don't we wait til Conroe and most of the Conroe boards are released until we judge how much they cost? Ive seens 965 boards for like 160. Give it a few weeks and I'm sure the price will drop to 100 or below and ATI is also producing an intel chipset.