Wow, Intel is finally showing some competitive prices...

[Valinos]

I never woulda thought it could happen. IMO, the P4 has been overpriced since it came out even with the introduction of the various Northwood cores, but I just checked Pricewatch and saw the new prices now that the P4 2.8 is out (or they're taking pre-orders at least) and I was shocked. $298 for a P4 2.53 isn't bad considering the Athlon XP 2600+ will be shipping at a very similar price, also considering the 2600+ and the 2.53 P4 are neck and neck in the benchmarks. The P4 2.8 is still way too expensive, but it is faster than any Athlon that is currently shipping so there's still a huge premium on the best performance, but I am surprised to see the other mid to high end P4s to be so cheap, for Intel.

Still, you can't beat an Athlon XP 1800+ for $71 compared to a P 1.8 for $148. But the mid to high end stuff ain't bad at all...

Just wanted to share my new discovery

 

[brunswickite]

supossedly 2.53 is gonna be ~240 bucks in a few more days
that will be best price/performance

 

[imgod2u]

Intel pricing have always been this way. It's just that now, even the mid-range model P4's (like the 2.53 now that the 2.8's are out) are quite competitive with the top-end Athlon models. Which is why it may seem as if it's fair pricing. But as you can see from this example, fairness is all relative. The top end 2.8 GHz model is still $550 and the second best 2.66 model is still gonna be somewhere around $350-400.

 

[Bluga]

Intel is always over priced. We all have to pay for their commercials

 

[Valinos]

Thing is, Intel's now mid-range processors (2.2, 2.4, and 2.53) all meet or beat the highest end Athlons(2200+, 2400+, and 2600+) in the majority of benchmarks rather than the Athlon beating them. And they're all similarly priced. I'd pay the extra $30 to know my processor has better thermal protection, higher overclockability, and a much easier HSF removal system

Plus, I haven't built an Intel system for myself since the Celeron 300A...Still, I'm not buying any new processors for awhile. I just put together a dual Athlon XP system that I need an AIW Radeon 8500 and a Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 for...and I need a Radeon 9700 PRO for my main rig...so it'll be awhile...and by then Clawhammer will be out and I'm sure I'll want to see how those are, especially considering the P4 will be crusty by then and Prescott probably won't be here until the second quarter or second half of 2003...

AND NOW I'M A BROKE COLLEGE STUDENT! WAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Markfw]

You people haven't been around for long. I paid $500 for a 486-DX2-66 in about 1992 (been a while, give or take a year). Untill a few years ago, when AMD started kicking their but with the Athlon, they were raping everyone. The last year or two has seen some real competition, and NOW prices are getting at least in the ballbark of reasonable, and they are (for the moment in availability) now back in the lead (soon to change ?? 2600+?????). Don't forget this soon.

Competition is EVERYONES friend.

 

[Wingznut]

Mark... I guess you weren't around when AMD was charging $1299 for their 1ghz Athlon?

Taken from AMD's press release...

"AMD is currently shipping its 1GHz AMD Athlon processors priced at $1,299 in 1,000 unit quantities."


While it's very true that competition helps lower prices for the end consumer... Let's not forget about the market conditions. Things were just as competitive back in the P3/Athlon days, and prices were still much higher than they are now.

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: Wingznut PEZ
Mark... I guess you weren't around when AMD was charging $1299 for their 1ghz Athlon?

Taken from AMD's press release...

"AMD is currently shipping its 1GHz AMD Athlon processors priced at $1,299 in 1,000 unit quantities."

WHOAH. Thanks Wingznut PEZ I feel better about my $138 XP1900+ from before the recent price drops. Heck I even feel better about my *gulp* $234 Tbird 1.1ghz and $222 Athlon 500mhz.

*sigh* progress.

edit:

*still remembers his $345 P233MMX and doesn't want to remember back any further *

 

[Markfw]

Wingznut PEZ: First, Yes, I was around in those days, right across the street from the Aloha Intel campus (still am). Its just that in 1992, Intel was all there was, and you paid the price, and there was only about one choice. I don't have the whole price history, and it would be boring to everyone (or would it?), but my point was, until AMD came around, there was no competition, and you paid the asking price. Now you have a choice, AMD or Intel, AND you can choose a speed. BTW Do you know what Intel was asking for their 1 ghz the first day ?? I don't know, but I will bet it was in the ballpark. And at that time most people I know didn't care about anything over about 700 mhz, because they didn't need it.

No flames please, only facts and constructive feedback.

BTW: My next door neighbor works for Intel, and retired after 5 years with all of the money he made. I know where that came from, and a lot was from me.

 

[smp]

I don't know if I'll ever be able to bring myself to buy the newest, fastest processor ... spend a million dollars just so I can have the fastest for a little while .. weird. I got better things to spend my money on .....................

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Vinny_N
WHOAH. Thanks Wingznut PEZ I feel better about my $138 XP1900+ from before the recent price drops. Heck I even feel better about my *gulp* $234 Tbird 1.1ghz and $222 Athlon 500mhz.

Heh, no kidding. People are fairly spoiled right now.

The tech market is very cyclic, and it will turn back up. And with the rise in demand, "up" is where the prices will go, as well.

Mark... Yeah, I'm sure Intel's P3-1ghz was a similar price. But that's my point. The crappy market also has something to do with the current low prices.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

Its just that in 1992, Intel was all there was

No it wasn't. AMD was offering quite good competition in the 486 days if I recall correctly.

 

[Markfw]

WingnutPez: OK. I see we agree, and yes the market is suppressed. BUT, shortly after the 1ghz race is when the price war really started, and that is when it really became competative.

NaughtyusMaximus:Yes, I still have a 486-DX5-133 from AMD(1993-1994), but in 1992, AMD had crap compared to Intel(and Cyrix was never really in the race IMHO). The first real competition Intel had was the K-6. That was OK, but until the Athlon, the race was still "in low gear". The 1ghz Athlon was the start of the race, and things have gotten only hotter since.

Edit: WingnutPez: Which campus do you work at ?(I don't need your name, just curious as to your location)

 

[Wingznut]

I work at Ronler Acres (Fab20), over on 229th & Cornell.

And no, I'm not (too) worried about my name, if you really care. I used to have it in my sig, but then I got two threats from members here, saying they were going to "report" me to my supervisors. What exactly they were going to report, I really don't know (unless they were to make something up).

 

[Markfw]

WingnutPez: Nope don't give a da$$ about your name or address, just wondering if you were an Oregonian or if you were someone I knew, or my son went to school with. I am right across from what ever the new fab at 198th and TV highway is called. Anyway, it is good to talk to an Oregonian.

 

[KickItTwice]

I just went to price watch and I see that the Athlon XP 2000 is going for $94. So I look over at the Intel chips to see what I can get for less than $100 and for $97 you can get a Pentium III 866. Thats competitive? Intel will lower there prices I'm sure, but so will AMD.

 

[Valinos]

For Intel, $200 is competitive. Much more so then they were a few years back, and MUCH better than they were as far back as I can remember (Late 486 days just as the Pentium was hitting stores). At least you have a choice now and the other choice competes very well with Intel in the performance department. As nice as the cheap processor prices are, they probably won't stay there as the others have said and I honestly hope AMD does start charging more. I'd hate to see Intel's only real competition go under because they're making 1% profit off of their processors. Then where does the R&D money for newer technology and processors come from? Thin air?

Honestly, it would be a little painful after experiencing hardware utpia over the past year with these ridiculously low prices, but I wouldn't hesitate to pay $300 for a mid-range processor and over $100 for a low end. As long as other components stay low in price, though

I'm still curious as to how much it actually costs Intel and AMD per chip. How much money are they really making? I know they make oogles of cash on their flagships, but what about the mid and low end? You'd think they would try to keep them a little higher considering those probably sell the most. Low demand or not, I feel like I'm robbing from AMD when I can get an 1800+ for $71 LOL

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: KickItTwice
I just went to price watch and I see that the Athlon XP 2000 is going for $94. So I look over at the Intel chips to see what I can get for less than $100 and for $97 you can get a Pentium III 866. Thats competitive? Intel will lower there prices I'm sure, but so will AMD.

Do you know why you can get AMD so much cheaper? Cause AMD caters to selling anything at any price point they can. That is great for us hobbyist who like the best for the least price. See Intel doesn't care much about us hobbyist and self builders. We are such a small percentage of their total sales, why would they lower their prices so far that they hurt themselves (a la AMD)? That's not smart business and Intel definitely has a good business sense. If AMD were selling the same number of chips to Dell, IBM, Gateway, HP/Compaq, do you really think they'd be cutting prices left and right and lowballing the prices of their processors? They are doing the smart (and stupid, its a catch 22) thing by trying to generate enough sales to keep producing good products and get their foot in the door.

Also realize that at Intel's price point they only need to probably sell half of the chips AMD does to equal the same revenue. We all know that Intel sells well more than half the chips to hobbyist and vendors than AMD does also. So all in all.....

It's all about profit. Intel has a boatload of it and AMD is playing serious catch-up and trying to get some name recognition

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
WingnutPez: Nope don't give a da$$ about your name or address, just wondering if you were an Oregonian or if you were someone I knew, or my son went to school with. I am right across from what ever the new fab at 198th and TV highway is called. Anyway, it is good to talk to an Oregonian.

Yep, I live over by Tanasbourne. And there are quite a few Oregonians on this board. I was quite surprised when I found out just how many.

 

[ElFenix]

actually there were somewhere around 5 486 manufacturers back in the day... all of them performed pretty much the same except the cyrix SLC line (which was supposed to be for notebooks i think). intel didn't really start getting a hold until it came up with brand and a marketing push for the 586. no one cared who the manufacturer of their processor was, they cared it was a 486.

 

[dullard]

I'm still curious as to how much it actually costs Intel and AMD per chip. How much money are they really making? I know they make oogles of cash on their flagships, but what about the mid and low end? You'd think they would try to keep them a little higher considering those probably sell the most. Low demand or not, I feel like I'm robbing from AMD when I can get an 1800+ for $71 LOL

I don't have exact numbers for the cost of each CPU - it depends on wafer size, chip complexity, yield, etc. However a rough estimate is that it costs $30-$50 for the low end processors and $50-$75 for the high end processors (desktop processors). AMD tends to be on the lower end of that range, and Intel on the higher end (AMD thus has a bit more room to play with prices). Note this is just for materials and manufacturing of the chips. Someone has to be paid for R&D and this isn't in those rough numbers. Basically when AMD has 1600+ XPs selling for $55 or Durons for $28, they are making virtually no profit on the chips. These are just to keep the volume high enough (economy of scale). The money for R&D and profit come mostly from the top few processors.

I suppose someone could come along with better numbers as mine are pretty rough.

Wow, Intel is finally showing some competitive prices

Intel really hasn't changed a thing with the P4 pricing in a year and a half. The top processor is always near $600, the next down is always near $400, then $240, etc, the bottom P4 is always near $140. The thing that has changed is that AMD's top chip used to be competitive with the top P4, but now AMD's top chip is competitive with the 3rd best P4. We all know the street price for the 2.53 GHz will be in the lower $200s if the 1000 lot price is $243. However AMD's 2600+ has a 1000 lot price of $297 meaning that street prices will likely be in the upper $100s/lower $200s. Basically if you want that speed, you will get nearly identical price/performance levels from both the 2600+ and the 2.53 GHz P4.

 

[dexvx]

The problem with the low end pricing is because of supply and demand. People are stupid enough to pay $130 for a new Pentium4 1.6a or $100 for a P3-866. Those models are discountinued and Intel has no control over their market price, and if it werent for their demand, they'd just be as low in price.

The fact is that Intel's flagship line of procssors (Pentium2, pentium3, pentium4) have all hovered slightly below the $100 mark for a processor UNTIL they become obselete.

 

[FishTankX]

Wingznut Pez, correct me if i'm wrong. But I was under the impression that...

Williamette manufacturing costs:70$ per core
Northwood manufacturing costs:35$ per core
AthlonXP:I'm not sure, i'd guess 25$ for the thoroughbreds, maybe less!

 

[Gstanfor]

I'm glad people in the US think intels pricing is reasonable. I can assure you that in Australia thier pricing is a bit more outrageous.

Lets do 3 comparisons: highest end of each company, 1.8gig cpu and 2.2gig cpu.
all prices in Australian dollars. $1AU = $0.544 according to xe.com

Highest end chips
Intel P4 2.53B (533 FSB) $1299
AMD XP2200 $384

1.8 gig
Celeron 1.8 $235
P4 1.8A $372
AMD XP1800 $195

2.2 gig
P4 2.2A GHZ $558
AMD XP2200 $384

all prices used in this post were sourced from C W Supplies

I'll let you decide for yourself who is offering the better value across the board (and this is no new situation - I noticed wingznut's post about the athlon's price - I may still have price lists from back then. If I find one I'll post the price of Intels closest chip for comparison).

Greg

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I'm glad people in the US think intels pricing is reasonable. I can assure you that in Australia thier pricing is a bit more outrageous.

Remember that the P4 pricing doesn't drop until Sept. 1st (while AMD's price drop was two weeks ago). A few places have lowered them before the price drop to gain marketshare, to reduce inventories, and then to replace them once the price drop kicks in with low priced chips. If your Australian stores decide to wait until they buy cheaper chips to pass on the price, then you must wait until after Sept. 1st.

Yes, foreign customers are always hit with huge import taxes and fees that are frustrating. Complain to your politicians and hope for the best - I wish you luck.

Until Sept. 1st the official 2.53 GHz price in 1000 lot quantities is $637 which translates into $1171AU using your 0.544 number. This isn't too far off from your $1299AU price (especially when you consider the store needs a profit, extra shipping, extra import taxes etc.) After the price cut this same chip will be $243 which translates into $447AU. Of course you need to add shipping, import taxes, etc so maybe you might be able to get the chip for around $540 AU (just a guess on my part).