I believe the answer is (drum roll please).....

Char Lee Thefatman

If Intel was selling the bundle at $25 and Atom only at $35 "previously" but then later jack it up to $45 for Atom only, then I think that is pretty unfair. If intel released the Atom only originally at $45, then that is fair

What part of the previous comments stating that 'dumping' is illegal don't you understand?

I'm no fan of Nvidia but they have a good case against Intel in the EU after the recent verdict. AMD will be going directly after Intel in the EU as well as a result.

What's the chinese word for FUCKWIT ?

Cry some more nvidia, you can't stick it to customers anymore so you come out and bash Intel for sticking it to you once again.

Intel should continue to stick it to nvidia just like they did with X58, weird how SLi works without nvidia worthless chipset.

Any thing that allows customers more choices on what mobo they want to buy i'm all for it, its about time someone forced nvidia to allow all mobo mfg to support SLi without having to pay a bs fee.

Just because Jen-Hsu says this doesn't mean it is true. I agree with several of the previous comments that he needs to cite where these numbers come from. My own simple search of the Intel site shows the N230 at $44 for the 2.5w version and $83 when couple with the 945GSE, not $25. Maybe he has some hearsay from one of his vendors of this but like the antitrust EU action this is just hearsay. How about an invoice/payment receipt? Something other than one comment in an interview.

He knows the Intel pricing.. But doesn’t know the pricing of his own chipsets. That itself gives out the truth about unfair competition.

Originally, privileges granted to a pope's "nephew" which was a euphemism for his bastard natural son, was known as nepotism.

But before we go down the church, the widow next door been married seven times before, and every one was an 'enry. She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam.

The beasts will tear thee piecemeal.

The truth is that all business is in league to impoverish England and utterly confuse it. Why should Ion be any different? What'd he ever do? If I passed him on the street, I'd swear, I wouldn't know him from Atom!

Or maybe I'll go the bender in all its knickerbocker glory, Heinz mean beans, and a half grilled tomato.

It all ends up in the bargain basement, eventually, eh? You bring the ducks!

you know he covering up a load of crap coming from nVidia.. What is it this time? the chips going in 285 cards blow up? or evaporate under stress?..

@Gerald

some of what you say might be true, about intel wallet being big. but believe me if intel can make a processor twice as fast and as efficient as you say, believe me they would.

Amd is coming out with bulldozer and i assure you it's going to be better than agenda.intel fanboys might under estimate Amd, but after what Amd did to them, intel surely is not going down that road again at any cost.

Intel Owns the chip world. Accept it fanboys. Intel can pay WAY more than a Billion to EU in fines. Intel can afford to "give away" combo chipset/proc and still make lots of cash. Nvidia will die due to its own greed (hope not). So they denied the right to use SLI in Intel chipset at that time. Remember? That was the reason for the 680i chipset failure.

If Intel creates (decides to crush) a new bread of processors that are as fast (of faster) as 2days i7 and as efficient as a VIA C-7 processor, AMD and the other CPU co. will be in deeper trouble. But I guess that Intel will keep them alive so that the "competition can continue". Who knows.

If he complains publicly, he also should become a bit more specific.

Intel might sell the Atom in small volumes to a small company and at the same time quote a not-yet-existing Atom/chipset bundle for the year 2011 in quantities of 40 million sets for a consumer electronics project.

And, if I rememeber correctly, I have heard about those USD 25 before.

You buy more, you get a discount.

without knowing what the chipset costs it's pretty hard to say exactly. If it's say, $20, then yeah, cpu+chipset for the same price as just the cpu would force nvidia out. And that's probably about how it really is. Could be a good thing for consumers considering how lousy nvidia chipsets are :-), but then considering how lousy the intel chipsets are that they bundle with atoms I think we're screwed either way. What everybody really wants is a low power intel chipset (if such a thing exists) with amd or nvidia graphics.... And to keep nvidia as far away from your hard disk controller and data as possible....

Too funny. You can't win for losing.

People accuse Intel of being monopolistic and driving up prices, then complain when the prices are too low.

Dumping is selling below cost. With the newer 45nm process, and even newer 32nm process, Intel produces a lot more ICs per wafer. The Atom is very small and specifically targets the low end (cheap) market.

You can believe Intel is not selling these below cost.

Where do these numbers come from? $45 for chip vs $25 for chip + chipset does not make sense. As noted above one could buy the bundle and toss the chipset. There has to be more to this.

Dan, in your analogy on the one trip, one airliner would have a (near) monopoly, while in the other direction there would be some competition.

Further more, no one would ever need actual one way trips (cpu without chipset or vice versa), peolpe would only buy one way trips so they can book the return flight elsewhere.

In that scenario, charging huge premium's for one way trips, only to exclude competition on the return would be considered abuse of monopoly.

Reading comprehension EPIC FAIL.

This is *not* the same thing airlines do. Sure the airlines sell you a return ticket cheaper than two singles. But since when did they - or anyone else, for that matter - sell you a return ticket cheaper than *one* single?

Its not bundling, its *dumping*, and dumping is illegal.

This is the same thing airlines do. They offer substantially lower rates for booking a round trip than purchasing two one-way tickets for the exact same flights. Nobody has hit them with a pillow for it yet, so why not semiconductors?

There is nothing wrong with Bundle discounts. It's only a problem when the discount is based on the purchase or sales of competitor's products.

As stated in the article, there is nothing that stops them from buying the bundle (assuming Intel doesn't require you buy the parts pre-integrated into a circuit board) and then throwing away the chipset to use a third party chipset instead.

They're not illegal by default but they are when the seller makes the unbundled product ridiculously expensive in order to deter its purchase. Which is obviously happening here. Since when are bundles cheaper than the cost of one of the components?

Reading comprehension FAIL.

At those prices, if they wanted to accuse Intel of dumping they would have a strong case.

Remember how, just a few short years ago, .us imposed massive tariffs because foreign DRAM manufs were "dumping" (ie, outcompeting them)?

Well that can work both ways.

He's just a moron and he said that because he had to say something. He said he won't file a case against Chipzilla because he CAN'T. There's nothing wrong with bundle discounts. I wish Intel would challenge him to sue them.