AMD vs Intel rattles the fanboys' cages

Sirs:

As you know, Mr. Barclay is talking through his hat when he says AMD is gouging him on an Athlon X2. His 2 Athlon MP 2000 pluses were $526 total at Newegg when they came out, vs $570 for an X2 4200 currently at Monarch, and the X2 is clocked nearly 30% higher.

I suppose 20 years ago, rather than being gouged on a Sony Walkman, he strapped 2 transitor radios to his head. Regards,
Joe Dolan

Subject: Your article

Just finished reading your article re- ID cards and Trafalgar day. Can I ask what is the link between the two?

And why quote two hymns/ballads regarding the hostility between the English and the Scots? -Don't see the link there either! Also its known as the BRITISH NAVY not the English Navy

I could go on to say that Napoleon was not an ‘enlightened' ruler and founder of the European Union but rather a dictator as you point out (and contradict yourself) pointing out the fact that being asked for your papers is rather a throwback to Napoleonic France.

But I can't be bothered because you wouldn't listen,… So can I just say - why don't you give up trying to write and go back to a job you're better qualified for, like serving pizza!

Regards
Steve

Subject: AMD sues Intel

It would be foolish for AMD to subpoena the inquirer jourkalist. I don't think their would try to harm their agents.

TS

Subject: Nathan's Opinion

The Letter You Published by Nathan is exactly How I feel about the Current X2 Technology.

AMD is Suing Intel for their Own Gain and they are charging more than Intel For X2 plus like Nathan said there isn't much if any Benefit from owning one unless You like throwing Money in the Ocean.Software is behind Software so there is some catching up to do.I have no doubt that Software one Day will allow ones with X2 something to be proud of.

Freddy Parker
U.S.A.

Subject: AMD is no choirboy, nor saintly

You said it Nathan.

The last thing now i want to do is get a dual core CPU, and the cause of this is that damn price!

AMD,INTEL I really dont believe that they cost tha much to make.

mantas

Subject: Intel has been caught red handed

This ain't AMD's first day on the job. You can bet your Azz they have plenty of evidence to support their case and in the end, if Intel is unable to buy the DOJ and FTC, Intel will be fined hundreds of millions and be forced to change their illegal Biz pracices just as the EU is forcing MICROSUCKS to do.

Since MICROSUCKS was able to BUY CAPITOL HILL there is no telling what Intel will be able to do, but you can be certain Sony, HP, et al won't be in any hurry to do Biz with Intel any time soon and that will cost Intel big time as they lose even more market share and revenues while fighting a techno war they have already lost and now litigation that they should lose in a fair court of law.

Randy

Subject: No Subject

Nathan A Barclay doesn't know what he's talking about. There is a good reason for the high prices of dual-core process and the higher frequencies and it's two-fold. First, dual core processors are much larger than single core processors. That means fewer per wafer and lower yeild. When the chips cover more area, they are more prone to defects that make the entire chip useless. So, yes they dual-core processore do cost more to make.

Secondly, because of low yeild, the price is elevated so that supplies don't run out. If AMD made the prices of their high-end, high-speed, low yeilding chips very low, noone would want what AMD makes the most of. This keeps their lower end, easier to make products still desirable. In time, today's high end processors will become the future's low-end processors, so stop whining and just wait.

The fabrication of processors isn't an overnight deal, it takes months and costs a lot of money. If Nathan thinks AMD is making such a huge profit from these chips, then he needs to take a look at AMD's financials. The higher margins on the X2 chips allow AMD to stay competitive with Intel on the lower end and provide you with those chips Sempron chips.

noone

Subject: Intel Inside

How can anyone get away with having a trademark on a word that can be found in any english dictionary (including translation dictionaries)?

Has Intel gone mad? Will they take every dictionary publisher to court? And surely lose.

Marcus Waller

Subject: AMD is no choirboy

Dear Nathan

Although the concept is strange to many people, the basis of capitalism is not to offer what you want at the price you want - indeed, neither AMD or Intel are in any way obligated - morally or otherwise - to fulfill your price/performance requirements. It may be a smart thing for them to do (generally speaking) but they dont "have to". Moving on the dual core pricing, as many benchmarks show, the performance increase is quite significant, particularly on AMD chips. Therefore they chose to price it as a premium product. That doesn't have to have any connection whatsoever with the added cost, and they are in no way obligated of increasing the prices correspondingly to the added cost. Indeed, premium products are based in price discrimination practices.

But sales and prices are made from demand an supply (the basis of capitalism...Economics 101) - therefore why doesn't AMD lower the prices of their dual core offerings in orther to increase sales and revenues? the answer (or part of it) may be in the economic cost of the dual core - while the R&D and material costs probably are low, the opportunity costs are high - AMD is reportedly capacity bound, and dual core CPUs "eat" twice the waffer realspace - simplifying, AMD can do one dual core or two single core. Therefore, for each dual core they sell, there is one single core the don't sell. That limits supply, and, due to the high performance and extensive instaled base of compatible systems, demand is probably high.

High demand and low supply... you can imagine why the prices are high - in this case its not really AMD "fault" - if you want to complain, complain about every other person that also covets those dual cores.

On a final note, I'm one of them... but the price of the offering still hasn't reached the amount I'm willing to part with, so my Barton 2800+ will have to struggle a bit more.

Best regards,
Rui

Subject: Re: Grokster Backlash Begins

As far as the other readers who went on rants about outlawing other technologies, they need to re-read the article again.

The Supreme Court specifically stated that this was NOT about the technology. That itself has been proven legal. What is at stake here is that Grokster was shown to promote the product based on the infringing use, and encouraging their end users to infringe.

It's a difference of:

"Buy the new Remington Colt .45! Nothing's better for holding up a corner grocer and blowing his head off!" -vs- "Enjoy a lazy Sunday at the range with your new Winchester revolver. Available now."

Under this ruling, firearms would still be legal, but Remington would be liable for every corner grocer who was killed in a robbery attempt, and Winchester would not. It's a matter of intent, not technology.

chad

Subject: The P2P case.

You know, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the likes of Grokster if they weren't explicitly pushing their products on the basis of illegal file trading. (This was one of the key reasons for the decision. There are clearly some real idiots running those P2P softcos.)

Grokster, Morpheus and the like don't actually help you download copyright-free material. If anything, they go out of their way to make it hard to do so: you have to know in advance what you want to download. Shockingly, the user interfaces these applications share seem to be suspiciously skewed in favour of looking for and downloading well-known, (i.e. copyrighted) material. What a surprise.

For those who really do want to distribute their material using a P2P network, BitTorrent is a much better choice. You can guide people to your material by hosting it on a website, instead of requiring people to stumble across it serendipitously while trying to download porn.

To be honest, I'd love to see the end of these networks. They're irresponsible, bandwidth-battering malware of the worst kind. If you don't like your country's IP laws, TELL YOUR POLITICIANS! They are supposed to be working for YOU, remember?

Sean Timarco Baggaley

Subject: Prices

Dear Nathan A. Barclay,

I worked for AMD, and I want to outline my personal opinion as to the cost of a dual-core product. I am by no means representing AMD here. I worked in the software department, so I really cannot even say how much more or less it costs to actually fabricate a dual-core chip. Hell I barely know how they work. But what I do know is that the software is tremendously more complicated. I'm talking hundreds of thousands or millions of man hours to write the code for these things. I'm also sure that the research, design, layout, and verication of dual-chips takes a large amount more time as well.

This is on top of the time and money that is spent on other upgrades that go into all chips. How can you possibly consider only the fabrication costs in setting the price of a processor? Furthermore, what the hell do you mean by "[going dual-core is] something that Intel proved clearly can be added at no significant cost with its Pentium and Pentium II"? Those ancient single-core chips are barely comparable to today's super-efficient pipelined processors. And if you want to talk about leading the charge on dual-core, AMD is the only company to consider. If Intel ever suggested that a dual-core chip is "easy" to produce, which they haven't, it would only be because their dual-core chips are nothing more than two single-core chips glued together. But I am not going to sit here and praise AMD's chips all day. The fact is, dual-core is NOT a minor upgrade in any sense, for AMD or Intel. Each company has spent tens of millions of additional investment to create a better product, and all you can do is whine that it costs you more.

rewguy

Subject: Deskstar 75GXP

I wish I had not read this article, I feel sick. I was employed at a day trading firm (stock brokerage). Around May of 2000 there was a need for 40 more workstations. At the time the GXP's were thought to be great drives, as history now shows, this was not true. Within three months over 20 of the drives had crashed, developed bad sectors, or made loud clicking noises. IBM had punished me for buying there drives, and I have not done so since. That was past history, and the company I worked for has since went out of business.

But the punishment never stops. Now five years later, without any access to the purchase order with all the drives on it, I learn $4000.00 is out of my reach. Talk about pain and suffering. If IBM wants to compensate for the emotional and mental damage from use of there products I will gladly accept a dual processor Opteron X2 with 4GB of ram and a terabyte of disk. :)

Peter Maas

P.S. I use Western Digital these days and have had good luck with them.

Subject: AMD is no choirboy, nor saintly

Re: There is a world of difference between charging however much you want for a product and not being allowed to do business with companies that are allegedly bullied by your only competitor.

Obviously AMD has its own financial interests in mind. But if their allegations are true, Intel is breaking a law that was put in place to protect consumers AND businesses. It doesn't always have to be about you.

As long as Intel and AMD don't form a cartel and engage in true price fixing, I don't see anything wrong with AMD's or Intel's pricing.

The fact that you're interested in AMD chips for your needs, I can only assume because of their superior performance to Intel's, is good enough reason for AMD to price their chips at a premium (Porsches cost more than Pontiacs).

If you don't like the price of their Dual core CPUs, AMD will happily sell you a single core Opteron for as little as $158 (Porsche 911s cost more than Porsche Boxters), which incidentally would blow the doors off of your MP2000 rig.

Right this minute dual core technology *IS* bleeding edge, no matter what clock speed it's at, and AMD's implementation of dual core is proven to be superior to Intel's. So what am I missing here?? A superior product at a premium price: That sounds like capitalism in all of its glory to me.

Add to the fact that there is a very limited supply of X2s, and extremely high demand for them, despite their high price, and it doesn't take a Nobel laureate to understand why they are priced so high, and rightfully so.

So stop whining that you can't afford the better things in life and either figure out a way of earning enough money to do so, or just be content to buy what is within your means and rejoice in a richer family or spiritual life.

Best regards.
-phil

Subject: Grokster case.

All these people flaming the Supreme Court decision allowing Grokster to be sued are missing the point. Their comparison of file sharing to gun and knife ownership are not fair comparisons because gun companies don't flog their products by advertising them as a means to shoot your cheating wife or your annoying neighbor. If they did and one of their customers used their product to do what they advertised they could do, they'd be sued into the ground.

The file sharing software companies advertised their software as a means to download movies and music from other users and as a replacement for Napster - which was put out of business for copyright infringement! So when their software (which CAN be used for legal purposes) is used in the manner for which it is marketed they should be sued. Yeah, they pay lip service by saying to please respect copyrights, but that is not the primary message they send. The primary message is get all your music and video for free INSTEAD OF paying for it. Would these companies be in existence to the extent they are if all the content they allowed to be shared were legal (i.e. home movies, non-copyrighted or non-royalty music, freeware, etc)??? I doubt it...

Everyone is just crying because their free ride may be coming to an end. However, I doubt it will ever end because technology always seems to find ways to get around these roadblocks. This will end up being just another round of tit-for-tat until the next file sharing technology comes along. In the meantime, everyone can either take the risk of file-sharing or (God forbid!) buy the friggin music or DVD.

Craig

Subject: wtf are you talkin about?

i didnt even read the whole thing, so sue me:

how is this person complaining about the supposed extorbetant price premiums of the dual core procs?

1. intel is clearly under-selling theirs in order to gain some positive light in the enthusiast community in comparison the price of the amd x2's

2. intel dual core cpu's REQUIRE the purchase of a new mobo (since they need a new chipset) / amd sual cores require bios update, or not.

3. what is this supposed price premium? they charge and HAVE been chargin 800 - 1000 for the extreme edition and FX cpu's? whats the problem now?

4. in my opinion and this is based on what i have read in a few places, amd needs to actually sell something for its worth/some kind of margin. lookin at the entire product line form top to bottom thru the segments, it makes most sense to charge that for hte FX line and now the x2 line. not until ALL cpu's transition to multi core does it really matter anyway. i mean come on, the way you write the article suggests that amd should not file a lawsuit cuz they obviously dont sell everything for what you must obviously want to be AT COST. that is ridiculous. you can buy a hyundai or a toyota or a bmw. and within each you can pay double what yu would for a lower model, thats how it works.

and while you are at it, look at it this way: walk into best buy and as about dual core cpu's see if the customers in the computer section or even the sales clerks know what you are talkin about.

you charge premiums for premium items/read:enthusiast items, especially since 90% of the computer public aint gonna even have a clue these things exist.

lastly: the prices will come down on amd's x2's by 2006 so whats the big deal anyways, didnt we all just buy a prescott or athlon64? you wanna go buy a new chip again, ANYWAYS? just like in the stock market, when yu doing an IPO, you find out what the interest is for actual sales then you figure out the worth (in this case - per wafer) and then from there you decide on the split up and therefore the price that results from the equation.

Subject: AMD is no choirboy

You forget in your rant to AMD that unlike the days of Pentium and Pentium II's, the level of technology required to multi-CPU has increased beyond that of a single CPU.

AMD's chips now do the function that the motherboard used to, with dedicated circuitry to connect chips together. Intel have no excuse because the complicated part that requires research, development and fabrication is still handled on the motherboards.

AMD should charge duallie users more for the Dual-capable chips because it is unfair to force the cost of Dual-CPU development and fabrication upon those that are buying for a single-CPU system.

Essentially, you're not comparing apples with apples when you prove that intel used to be able to add dual-operability at no extra cost.

Chrispy