Intel Reacts To AMD Ryzen Apparently Cutting Prices On Core i7 And i5 Processors (hothardware.com)

Less than a week after AMD announced the first line up of Ryzen processors, Intel is apparently fighting back by dropping the price of several of its processors. Rob Williams, writing for HotHardware: So, what we're seeing now are a bunch of Intel processors dropping in price, perhaps as a bit of a preemptive strike against AMD's chips shipping later this week -- though admittedly it's still a bit too early to tell. Over at Amazon, the prices have been slower to fall, but we'd highly recommend that you keep an eye on the following pages, if you are looking for a good deal this week. So far, at Micro Center we've seen the beefy six-core Intel Core i7-6850K (3.60GHz) drop from $700 to $550, and the i7-6800K (3.40GHz) drop down to $360, from $500. Also, some mid-range chips are receiving price cuts as well. Those include the i7-6700K, a 4.0GHz chip dropping from $400 to $260, and the i7-6600K, a 3.50GHz quad-core part dropping from $270 to $180. Even Intel's latest and greatest Kaby Lake-based i7-7700K has experienced a drop, from $380 to $299, with places like Amazon and NewEgg retailing for $349.

Comments

No surprise...

[thegreatbob]

But, it's a direct admission that they were basically gouging for want of competition.

Re:No surprise...

[alvinrod]

Every company does this, and a lot of people (you don't see many people offering to lower their salary) do as well. Hell, you could probably argue that the new prices for both companies are still gouging for want of competition as I expect that both companies will be making healthy profits which suggests there's still room for prices to come down.

Ultimately though many people still bought Intel processors at those prices because they found them to be worth the money. You still could have bought an AMD processor at that time, so it isn't as though you were forced to buy Intel. However, the Bulldozer architecture was garbage so most people gladly paid the extra money because they wanted the extra performance.

Re:No surprise...

[bill_mcgonigle]

But, it's a direct admission that they were basically gouging for want of competition.

How much are they gouging? What is the payback period on their R&D? What is the investment in the chip fab to make these things, and how far into the payback period are they now?

Will these price drops mean that they have to extend the payback period to recoup the costs of the smaller-feature fab? Will that delay the 7nm mass production they've announced for 2020?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know some of the questions to ask. Let's not jump to conclusions without understanding the data.

Re: No surprise...

[Ash-Fox]

Define the line where it is not price gorging, please.

Re:No surprise...

[Fire_Wraith]

The answer isn't to abolish corporations. You're right in that corporations who are left completely unchecked will act like the worst sorts of human beings, but that holds true for humans as well - if you leave them completely unchecked, a lot of people will do utterly horrible things too. That's why we invented things like laws, society, moral codes, etc, and more importantly, we enforce those (or we try to).

What we need is to have laws and regulations that are applied to corporations, with the purpose of protecting competition/competitive markets, and that are vigorously enforced. I'm talking about Adam Smith style regulations, mind you, not some right-wing fever dream of government drunk with power regulating every last detail (though areas that are natural monopolies are going to need more stringent regulation, by their very nature). Think instead of Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting, breaking up cartels and fighting for real competition and alternatives.

And we used to have that, too. The problem is that we grew complacent, and enforcement of those laws has grown lax - mostly because the worst among the corporations have lobbied heavily for it, and their wealthy owners have done the same. Part of the answer is probably to find ways to diminish the influence of money in politics (though I'm not aware of any easy solutions for that), but more realistically, people just need to start paying attention and voting with this in mind.

Re: No surprise...

[Tulsa_Time]

Its called a market. You don't have to buy.

If there is a monopoly then it is illegal and should be broken up. Otherwise this is how capitalism works. Competition works.

Re:No surprise...

[StikyPad]

I'm not saying I like it, or agree with it, but maximizing profits is different from gouging. Maximizing profits is a legal obligation to shareholders for publicly traded companies such Intel. Gouging is the exploitation of exigent circumstances such as a natural disaster in order to maximize profits. Gouging is unethical, and in some cases illegal, but it's not what Intel was doing.

Buy AMD & Support a Healthy CPU Marketplace

[supercell]

I suggest everyone buy AMD, until there is a sucessful compeitor to Intel they will continue to price gouge, as evidence by these overpriced chips.

Re:i7 8 Core 16 Thread = $299

[Rockoon]

maybe if they fired their 'diversity officer' (yes, that's a real job at intel) and hired based on skills and need rather than quota by race and gender (and h1b, of course) they'd be able to lower selling costs.

They may have selected some staff poorly but I think a far more important issue is that their 14nm process advantage technique had led to poor yields that they are still tock tock tocking on. Not saying that Intel made bad choices, but they are screwed because poor yields at 14nm means no yields at 10nm. They know it which is why they've just done massive layoffs and they keep talking up their new "cloud strategy."

AMD isnt Intels primary competitor. AMD "catching up" is a symptom of Intels real problem, which is that Intel's vertical branding strategy ultimately isnt competitive against the rant-a-fab conglomerates like TSMC which are being driven by the massive sales of ARM processors and accessory chips, and one by one these rent-a-fab's are beating Intel to 10nm. These Ryzen chips are still just on 14nm like Intel and being made by one of these rent-a-fab's. You ain't seen nuthin' yet. What the hell is Intel going to do when all the rent-a-fab's are shipping mostly 10nm product?

If you have Intel stock.. I highly recommend that you sell now before its too late. Double check your retirement accounts.