Intel price cuts twist knife in AMD's back

Yep ... after stealing all of AMD's ideas and admittedly besting them on process, Intel will now undercut them to the point where AMD will finally go under.

If you have AMD stock now is the time to sell it because inside of 60 days the company will not exist as it is.

They will split the company ... at the least.

5 quarters of losses cannot be fixed.

Then Intel will jack their prices up to the pint where none of us can afford them.

Your Intel fanbois will then be thinking "Duh" ... mebbe the competition wasn't suck a bad thing.

If this isn't monopolistic practice then what is?


Intel has tons of shortages on the 45nm, they aren't letting any out until all the 65's are gone. And releasing a $1500 chip hardly counts as "releasing" a chip. Not only do you need $1500, you need 2 of them!

AT adds: Tonto speak with forked tongue.

I thought it was illegal for a monopoly to lower prices below what the competition can sustain. But then it is Intel.

It's perfectly okay to set the price where ever Intel wants the price to be so long as they aren't dumping the products on the market. If they are covering their costs (and I'm sure they are) then Intel can't be considered to be dumping their chips. 

The problem is that AMD can't seem to produce their CPUs for the same price that Intel can sell (and make a profit ) them. That's a real problem for AMD and one that won't be easy to fix. At least they should cut the poor results given that they are cutting a lot of employees. The question is will those employee cuts end up hurting the company long term? Only time will tell.

"Intel didn't have available 45nm ever" ?

Nice grammar. I'm pretty sure I just imaged 18 laptops and 10 desktops that had penryns in them. Not only that, but they came 2 weeks after ordering them.

Also, for all the whiners... this is no different from AMD and the gloating that ensued when they were ahead. If they had the fabrication, they would have done the same. I suggest you stick to your "green" benchmarks and think of other ways that AMD is so much better, than suggesting that intel has a monopoly over AMD or IBM. 

Nobody questioned AMD when they bought ATI, but then again... you're biased.

Well it's been a good ride and now that AMD is being beaten to death by it’s own ideas Intel “borrowed” Intel will heavily invest in the GFX market and attempt a very similar strategy to sink what’s left of AMD and Nvidia (and VIA -off subject).

Speaking of off subject did anyone notice the huge deployment in large scale computing, anyone notice all the new scientific discoveries we made thanks to affordable super computers? No? Well it’s all gonna our loss thanks to all of you who fed such a gready ass company!

Nice one jerks!

That's always been their strength...and they push the bleeding edge pretty quickly (even faster than IBM did in the old days).
They faltered when AMD launched the Athlon when Intel pushed their totally new 64-bit architecture but I doubt they'll make that mistake again...

This is competition at it's best, not monopoly AMD caught Intel sleeping on Netburst and woke up the huge R&D / fab departments that Intel has.

It's illeagal to abuse your market share / cash assets to sell products below cost - therefore, preventing competition from particpating.

intel has had 65nm products out for over a year and just wants to clear inventory before pushing 45nm. 

The only reason for AMD's trouble is their sloppy execution and questionable product quality (TLB errata)...

At the end of the day, the consumer benefits: great products, low prices and awesome performance per watt from BOTH companies.

cheers -

Intel has been cutting CPU prices EVERY April since the 386 days, if not earlier. That's since at least 1992.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DB1139F93AA35752C0A964958260

The reason 45nm chips are out of stock is because they were on sale. I remember Microcenter was selling Q9450 for $299. 

What do you mean Intel doesn't have a monopoly? 30% share constitutes a monopoly, which is why AMD is aiming for 30% share.

Maybe you should look up Sherman.

The key fact is that the price/performance curve is not linear. So the 50% price cut is nowhere near as impressive as it sounds. For example look at the Q6600/Q6700. All that has happened is that the Q6600 is gone and the Q6700 has taken its price point. So you have gone from 2.4GHz to 2.66GHz for the same price, an actual improvement of just over 10%. Now if the Q6600 was still there at $133, then there would be something exciting to write about.

Secret Weapon of Desktop Home Buyer, being Off Market So Long ATI: All n' Wonder TV Card/Graphics card might Make AMD Fortune. 10 million = 3.39Billion$$.
People don't understand 8 gb as 4+4= 32/64 system while true 8gb is 64 bit only, All they Want To Know: Does It Come On? I Think I Want: All In Wonder? 
Well Heck Yeah, Little Guy. All in Wonder could save Day, Make consumer Happy & thankfully theres been Rest of Sorts in AIW Dept.
Drashek

relax people, amd is not going anywhere, the market will not allow it, it took intel 3 years to surpass amd on performance, and yet we forget that, i think wall street is a joke, even when amd was doing good with there tech ,intel always made more money, it tells you a lot about consumers. we can rehash this all you want, but bottom line is. we should be thankful to amd. it will not matter how good amd executes in the future because intel controls the market. and why is it that this industry basically has 2 players. we need more for sure. i am always for the underdog. we really need amd to survive folks. my hope is that nvidia and amd merge. im sure something really exciting is in the works one way or the other. lets see how it pans out