AMD Still Committed To x86 - But Not In High End Desktop

[TRWOV]

In related news......



Sounds like the high end desktop (client) is going to be SoC. Is that really a surprise?

At this stage the only thing left outside the CPU is the south-bridge so, no.

 

[xenocide]

Let me make something clear, Intel having a majority stake or even a monopoly on high-end desktop CPU's will NOT make Intel CPU's cost a bazillion dollars as everyone is implying. Let me explain why.

By having a Monopoly in something like Oil or Power, you have a commodity that people will always need, and in regular intervals. That means if you increase the price, they probably are required to continue paying that increased price, and since Oil and Power are consumable goods, you need to keep paying for the same thing. Since the company controls the entirety of supply will always exist, they control the entire market and the price causing the consumer to lose out.

CPU's are NOT NOT NOT the same. Intel cannot force you to buy a new CPU every 6 months, they have to entice you to, or the demand needs to be there. People are claiming a monopoly will mean Intel can keep selling the same product for very high prices, but that's just not true. People will need more performance, and if they can't get it from a "newer" CPU, then they have no reason to buy it unless their current CPU dies, but in that scenario they would have to get a new CPU regardless.

There's also the fact that AMD will continue to offer better products, so if Intel continued to sell the same exact product for a high price, eventually AMD's mid-level products for substantially cheaper would be equal to or close enough in performance to justify buying them. Then there's the part where if Intel doesn't offer better products continually, nobody would have a reason to upgrade their computers\CPU's, and Intel's revenue would tank.

All of this talk of Intel having a "monopoly" (still not sure it really constitutes one) on the High-End Desktop CPU market causing huge increases in Price and Innovation is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[cdawall]

Iintel lready charges $1000+ for highend chips that's pretty damn steep IMO I see that only going up. No they can't force you to upgrade every 6 months but people do constantly hell I was popping new chips in once a month not to long ago.

 

[Wile E]

Iintel lready charges $1000+ for highend chips that's pretty damn steep IMO I see that only going up. No they can't force you to upgrade every 6 months but people do constantly hell I was popping new chips in once a month not to long ago.

AMD also charges $1000 for high end chips when they can. Intel didn't raise the prices to $1000 when AMD couldn't compete anymore. Top end chips have always been right around the $1000 mark from both camps.

Seeing as AMD cannot compete up top, but Intel still charges the same for the top end as it did when there was competition up there, I'd say your assessment in incorrect.

 

[cdawall]

AMD also charges $1000 for high end chips when they can. Intel didn't raise the prices to $1000 when AMD couldn't compete anymore. Top end chips have always been right around the $1000 mark from both camps.

Seeing as AMD cannot compete up top, but Intel still charges the same for the top end as it did when there was competition up there, I'd say your assessment in incorrect.

They have been slowly sneaking up originally we were seeing around $999 on release for a 990X. They are now $1199 on release day and still haven't dropped to $999 for a 3960X. While $200 in the scheme of things doesn't seem like much it does happen to be the cost of an entire Phenom X6. So they have gone up 20% in fact. Albiet intel's ARK lists $999 for both chips right now :/ who knows maybe they will stay the same. I honestly don't care anymore they don't offer enough performance benefits worth more than double the price of an average CPU.

 

[mediasorcerer]

WTF with taking sides? intel or amd=all good for the consumer= us, anyone get that?

Worst thing that could happen is one company having a total monopoly on chips.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

+1 n amen and all that bang for buck and anyway both companys have the ability to shine or suck asss i expect more shine from amd soon as trinity looks promising and thats still x86 and BD is selling out their not ,not going to make more are they.

 

[twilyth]

What no one is taking into account is the fact that there are several billion people in India, China, Brazil etc. who have no interest whatsoever in enthusiast hardware. They want basic access to information and smart phones only get you so far.

Here are some charts from Barclays and intel.

 

[Wile E]

They have been slowly sneaking up originally we were seeing around $999 on release for a 990X. They are now $1199 on release day and still haven't dropped to $999 for a 3960X. While $200 in the scheme of things doesn't seem like much it does happen to be the cost of an entire Phenom X6. So they have gone up 20% in fact. Albiet intel's ARK lists $999 for both chips right now :/ who knows maybe they will stay the same. I honestly don't care anymore they don't offer enough performance benefits worth more than double the price of an average CPU.

Retailers marking up the CPU has absolutely nothing to do with Intel raising prices. The MSRP is still $999. Intel has not changed what they charge. Retailers are just taking advantage of consumers. Car dealers do the same bullshit with in demand cars as well, but nobody blames the car maker when a car sells for $10k over sticker.

Some FX chips were going for $1200 or more back when AMD was on top, but the MSRP was still $1000.

Short version = you have not made a valid point.

 

[cdawall]

Retailers marking up the CPU has absolutely nothing to do with Intel raising prices. The MSRP is still $999. Intel has not changed what they charge. Retailers are just taking advantage of consumers. Car dealers do the same bullshit with in demand cars as well, but nobody blames the car maker when a car sells for $10k over sticker.

Some FX chips were going for $1200 or more back when AMD was on top, but the MSRP was still $1000.

Short version = you have not made a valid point.

And I admitted that.

 

[mastrdrver]

Let me make something clear, Intel having a majority stake or even a monopoly on high-end desktop CPU's will NOT make Intel CPU's cost a bazillion dollars as everyone is implying. Let me explain why.

By having a Monopoly in something like Oil or Power, you have a commodity that people will always need, and in regular intervals. That means if you increase the price, they probably are required to continue paying that increased price, and since Oil and Power are consumable goods, you need to keep paying for the same thing. Since the company controls the entirety of supply will always exist, they control the entire market and the price causing the consumer to lose out.

CPU's are NOT NOT NOT the same. Intel cannot force you to buy a new CPU every 6 months, they have to entice you to, or the demand needs to be there. People are claiming a monopoly will mean Intel can keep selling the same product for very high prices, but that's just not true. People will need more performance, and if they can't get it from a "newer" CPU, then they have no reason to buy it unless their current CPU dies, but in that scenario they would have to get a new CPU regardless.

There's also the fact that AMD will continue to offer better products, so if Intel continued to sell the same exact product for a high price, eventually AMD's mid-level products for substantially cheaper would be equal to or close enough in performance to justify buying them. Then there's the part where if Intel doesn't offer better products continually, nobody would have a reason to upgrade their computers\CPU's, and Intel's revenue would tank.

All of this talk of Intel having a "monopoly" (still not sure it really constitutes one) on the High-End Desktop CPU market causing huge increases in Price and Innovation is absolutely ridiculous.

There is another monopoly that happens outside of the one you listed. It happens when entrance in to the market is so high that it is out of the realm of any business to enter the market.

 

[qubit]

Let me make something clear, Intel having a majority stake or even a monopoly on high-end desktop CPU's will NOT make Intel CPU's cost a bazillion dollars as everyone is implying. Let me explain why.

By having a Monopoly in something like Oil or Power, you have a commodity that people will always need, and in regular intervals. That means if you increase the price, they probably are required to continue paying that increased price, and since Oil and Power are consumable goods, you need to keep paying for the same thing. Since the company controls the entirety of supply will always exist, they control the entire market and the price causing the consumer to lose out.

CPU's are NOT NOT NOT the same. Intel cannot force you to buy a new CPU every 6 months, they have to entice you to, or the demand needs to be there. People are claiming a monopoly will mean Intel can keep selling the same product for very high prices, but that's just not true. People will need more performance, and if they can't get it from a "newer" CPU, then they have no reason to buy it unless their current CPU dies, but in that scenario they would have to get a new CPU regardless.

There's also the fact that AMD will continue to offer better products, so if Intel continued to sell the same exact product for a high price, eventually AMD's mid-level products for substantially cheaper would be equal to or close enough in performance to justify buying them. Then there's the part where if Intel doesn't offer better products continually, nobody would have a reason to upgrade their computers\CPU's, and Intel's revenue would tank.

All of this talk of Intel having a "monopoly" (still not sure it really constitutes one) on the High-End Desktop CPU market causing huge increases in Price and Innovation is absolutely ridiculous.

I think that's a really good explanation for why Intel needs to keep inovating, even without any competition and prices can't just keep shooting up. However, a monopoly would still allow them to price their products appreciably higher, even though tempered somewhat. I reckon they could get away with a 50% hike, quite easily.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

there are other fronts in this war, nvidia is pulling a 5core with gpu arm chip from somewhere soon and AMD has its APU,s allready in place with trinity on the way on die gpu assisted processing could easily make up the gap between what appears a low performance part into compareing against intels finest its about the software and optimisations these days and intel are doing nothing to assist their future leverage in an arm equiped world and with arm 64 on the way with hpc capabillities hmm interesting times