Slashdot Mirror
AMD Cuts X2 Processor Prices
BDPrime writes "AMD is cutting prices for its X2 processors, according to an update on its microprocessor pricing list. The cuts refer to AMD's Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 X2 chips. Some of the price cuts are almost in half."
The price cut is in a little less than 2 weeks(April 22nd). Shamelessly ripped from AnandTech:
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93GHz x 2 4MB x 2 $1199
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz x 2 4MB x 2 $999
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 4MB $999
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz x 2 4MB x 2 $530
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 4MB $316
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 4MB $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 2MB $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 2MB $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz 2MB $113
Itanic was a completely separate architecture. This is x86 with some extra stuff, more or less.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Huh? The Core 2 is based on technology used in the Pentium M which itself was based on technology from the original Pentium families (not P4). The Core 2 family in some ways has a more developed history then the Pentium 4 (NetBurst) family did. Also unlike the Itanium the Core 2 uses x86-32/64 ISA... just like current AMDs processors.
Anyway the Core 2 Duo (and Core Duo before it) have been out for a while now (around a year) and are used in a huge number of consumer, prosumer and workstation systems from many vendors. You think that would prove something...
So, where's that Free Software Intel wireless chipset driver, then? (Just sayin'...)
That would be right here. Everything non-binary is licensed under either GPLv2 or dual-license BSD/GPLv2, according to the documentation. The binaries are released in that form because they are prohibited by FCC regulations from releasing anything that could be modified by the end user to violate regulatory limits. Exactly the same thing applies to the MADWifi drivers for Atheros, who makes available a binary HAL to the developers.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I don't think this it was a question of IF... but WHEN.
Just to take a stupid guess... I think with the need for cash, AMD was hoping Microsoft releasing Vista (Biggest upgrade in 7 years) would create high demand for new PC's and they could sell product as demand exceeded supply. The demand for Vista didn't drive demand as expected.
Vista failing to launch put AMD in tight competition in a smaller market due the lack of demand for Vista. AMD didn't sell to Apple. Intel did. Mac's are selling where Vista is getting so-so response so Intel is selling the new chips into markets AMD is not in. If Intel didn't sell to Apple, and had to cut prices, AMD would be in an even worse position due to the low demand for new Vista machines.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual
Note that Apple has gone in revenue from 2004-2006 $8,279,000,000 to $19,315,000,000
Operating income has gone from $326,000,000 to $2,453,000,000. This is almost an order of magnitude growth in only 2 years. This isn't just from a few iPod sales. Vista's dead start and XP's malware flood is driving people away from Microsoft. The recent growth in Apple and Linux is not primarily new PC consumers. It's mostly ex-Microsoft consumers.
I'm wondering if AMD is selling chips at a loss instead of having to throw them out. I can't see them making money at that price, only cutting their loss.
Selling chips at half price is not profitable. I'm assuming most chips have only a 10-30% margin. Chopping the price in half is selling under the cost to manufacture.
The truth shall set you free!
Where's your proof?
2 097&page=12
You've already had someone respond with a link to benchmarks showing exactly the opposite of what you claim:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=
Where are the benchmarks that show what you claim?
Cheers,
Roger
Do you have any better hostages?