Hurt By Intel, AMD Cuts Pricing
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 23 December 2006 - 13:24 · 14 comments & 7824 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by Maysky on 23 Dec 2006 - 17:44
- Too bad the same thing can't be said about windows OS, it would had been sweet to see a headline like "Hurt by rivals, Microsoft cut pricing for Vista and Office" ... a man can dream ....
--- -
#4.1 Posted by Galley on 23 Dec 2006 - 19:43
- Quote - Maysky said @ #4Too bad the same thing can't be said about windows OS, it would had been sweet to see a headline like "Hurt by rivals, Microsoft cut pricing for Vista and Office" ... a man can dream ....
---
Don't you think that the reason Microsoft came out with the Student and Teachers Edition of Office was due to increased competition? Surely you don't think they were simply being generous offering $400 software for $150, do ya? -
#4.2 Posted by Maysky on 24 Dec 2006 - 01:59
- Quote - Galley said @ #4.1Quote - Maysky said @ #4Too bad the same thing can't be said about windows OS, it would had been sweet to see a headline like "Hurt by rivals, Microsoft cut pricing for Vista and Office" ... a man can dream ....
---
Don't you think that the reason Microsoft came out with the Student and Teachers Edition of Office was due to increased competition? Surely you don't think they were simply being generous offering $400 software for $150, do ya?
The real competitions for Microsoft are their own older version of OS and Office.
---
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by treemonster on 23 Dec 2006 - 17:44
- damn. i bought my present cpu a year too soon it seems.
<3 competition. -
#5.1 Posted by +Octol on 24 Dec 2006 - 01:08
- Quote -I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the falling prices and wait for AMD to offer a better CPU then the Core2.
I'm afraid AMD is pretty much stuck playing catch-up to Intel for the foreseeable future. AMD caught Intel with its pants down on the 64-bit issue and cost them a lot of money; you can bet Intel will never let that happen again.
No matter what AMD comes up with, Intel will have something better and faster waiting in the wings. The good news here is that from now on, you'll be able to get damned good processors from either AMD or Intel at good prices. They may not be state-of-the-art, but they'll be better and faster than most people can use.
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by MightyJordan on 23 Dec 2006 - 17:47
- I'm glad for this. I have always been wanting to buy AMD products for my PC, but I always thought they costed too much, so I always went with Intel.
-
#6.1 Posted by RAID 0 on 23 Dec 2006 - 20:27
- Really, only in the past year has Intel had better price vs. performance over AMD. The 32 bit and 64 bit Athlon chips were priced well, even all the way back to the 486 DX4-133. Plus, they blew the doors off most of Intel's offerings. Pricing was one main reason AMD gained such a stance in CPU production, and why they have a "good" stance now.
I've always been very happy with my AMD chips..price and performance wise. Look at history, AMD gets beat on the benchmarks... they release a CPU that is faster. Only recently has Intel done this. I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the falling prices and wait for AMD to offer a better CPU then the Core2. -
#6.2 Posted by Unplugged on 25 Dec 2006 - 12:40
- lol just lol
Its always been the toher way round. Without AMD we will still be paying top bucks for your processors. -
#6.3 Posted by RAID 0 on 26 Dec 2006 - 07:21
- Quote - Unplugged said @ #6.2lol just lol
Its always been the toher way round. Without AMD we will still be paying top bucks for your processors.
I don't think you got my point. AMD (in the past) ALWAYS had a lower price for the same (or slightly better) CPU. I remember when you could buy a DX-4 133 (AMD) that could beat a P-75 for a lower price. The same was true for the 32 bit Athlons and previous CPUs. That's what I remember. Yes no?
-
#7 Posted by Betaz on 25 Dec 2006 - 23:03
- Very nice, I may finally upgrade this system to an X2 sometime soon with this news. Then I'll have everything I want in here for HD.
-
#8 Posted by +[deXter] on 28 Dec 2006 - 13:00
- Interesting. What remains to be seen is after reaching the customer which processor would turn out cheaper.
The cheapest Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz, 1MB) I could find was for $350 and after the 8% it comes to $322
On the other hand I was able to find a Core2Duo E6600 (2.4Ghz, 4MB) for only $316.99.
In this case, I'll still be getting a better processor at a cheaper price.
AMD is taking a number of steps to improve its position, including a plan to cut microprocessor prices by an average of 8 percent in the retail channels. ''We believe AMD has made the following decisions in order to move inventory: 1) A price cut to channel partners; we saw prices decline [about] 8 percent earlier this week, and 2) Favorable pricing to server customers that are in competitive situations,'' said Freedman. AMD has other problems as well. ''AMD has had a mismatch of product at Dell , with significant inventory being made available to channel partners. The dry channel issues are likely to resolve themselves fairly quickly,'' he said.