Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because we remember what Intel prices were like before AMD arose. When AMD created the K5, it was a piece of junk compared to Intel. If you think Intel out performs AMD now, the K5's were far worse back then. Then again, Intel wanted $1k for a middle of the road CPU, while the K5 was dirt cheap.
When the K6-2 was introduced, they brought 3DNow which gave it good competition again Intel chips. Given the application made good use of 3DNow.
If history isn't a good enough reason, then basic economics will do. If Intel is the only X86 chip you can get, then they can gouge the prices. Who's to stop them? They're run by good samaritan's?
AMD did good with the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64, but after that it all went down hill. The Bulldozer chip killed them, but it's not like they can't recover. Just hope that Apple or Microsoft doesn't end up buying them up. If they do, I hope Nvidia makes a desktop Tegra chip and motherboards.
Apple wants an SOC that is highly efficient, specifically in the graphics dept. where they seem to care the most about.
Oh plus it could be Apple Magical Devices (AMD) lol.
Because we remember what Intel prices were like before AMD arose. When AMD created the K5, it was a piece of junk compared to Intel. If you think Intel out performs AMD now, the K5's were far worse back then. Then again, Intel wanted $1k for a middle of the road CPU, while the K5 was dirt cheap.
When the K6-2 was introduced, they brought 3DNow which gave it good competition again Intel chips. Given the application made good use of 3DNow.
If history isn't a good enough reason, then basic economics will do. If Intel is the only X86 chip you can get, then they can gouge the prices. Who's to stop them? They're run by good samaritan's?
AMD did good with the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64, but after that it all went down hill. The Bulldozer chip killed them, but it's not like they can't recover. Just hope that Apple or Microsoft doesn't end up buying them up. If they do, I hope Nvidia makes a desktop Tegra chip and motherboards.
What is this nonsense about Intel not raising prices? They already have been.
Check entry level prices for the last few years, and you'll see prices flat line. Any company beholden to share holders does this, and it's par for the course. They are not some kind hearted old man who somehow looks at all the angles. They're a money making machine, and that is their sole priority.
Prices are stagnated because there is no competition, and will continue to be so.
But AMD just isn't big enough, and I guess it's been a long time coming. My next CPU will still be an FX 6XXXX series though.
And yea, as we learned with VIA, once AMD is done for, that's it. There is no one else ever coming to the X86 market. Intel is too far ahead, and the cost to entry barrier to high for the amount of profit to be gained. ARM is the future, unfortunately.
You might have already noticed the resulting price stagnation. We've seen it first-hand when putting together our system guides. No matter how many chips AMD throws into the ring or how often it slashes prices, Intel CPUs always seem to stay put at roughly the same price points until the next generation comes along. There are exceptions in the bargain-basement realm of sub-$100 processors, but they're few and far between.
We were interested in quantifying the phenomenon, so we called on the lovely folks at Camelegg, who provided us with a treasure trove of historical CPU pricing data. That data covers Newegg pricing for budget and mid-range CPUs across the past three years or so. We stuck the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, worked our famous graphing magic, and unearthed clear evidence of how dire the situation has become.
In the chart below, you'll see the difference between peak and minimum prices during the first 50 weeks of availability for a broad range of AMD and Intel processors, both new and old. Why 50 weeks? That happens to be roughly the amount of time AMD's FX-series CPUs have been available, and we wanted to see how they stacked up against other offerings, historically speaking.
Throughout 2010 and much of 2011, AMD had an ace in the hole in the budget game: its $100 quad-core Athlon IIs and Phenom IIs, which offered excellent performance for the money. Intel's dual-core, Core i3-500-series chips could manage superior single-threaded performance, but they weren't quite as compelling, especially in the eyes of enthusiasts. Nevertheless, Intel had no qualms about charging a premium. The Core i5-540 only slipped to $100 after its replacements in the Core i3-2100 series had already arrived.
Around the same time, AMD made the unfortunate decision to replace the Phenom II X4 840 with its A-series APUs, which were priced somewhat ambitiously. Intel prices remained stationary, and in light of the A series' somewhat underwhelming performance, we had to switch our recommendation for the system guide's budget build to the Core i3-2100.
Since then, and despite subsequent AMD price cuts, Intel has held the Core i3-2100 steady at around $120. The marginally quicker Core i3-2120 has fallen to within a few dollars of that, yet Intel seems uninterested in offering the slower model for less. Similarly, the Core i3-2105a variant of the i3-2100 with faster integrated graphics that's a more direct competitor to AMD's offeringsremains at $135 despite AMD's continued cuts to the A series.
None of this bodes terribly well for consumers.
AMD's recent missteps have, it seems, given Intel very little incentive to cut priceseven when it doesn't always have the clear upper hand. The only way Intel offers substantially better value over time is with yearly generational refreshes, and those refreshes raise performance per dollar not by lowering prices, but by delivering higher performance for the same money. Consider that, almost two years after the release of the Core i5-2500K, Intel still doesn't offer an unlocked quad-core processor for less than $200. Meanwhile, Intel's gross margin has climbed to an eye-popping 63.4%, nearly 20 points higher than AMD's.
This, folks, is why a healthier AMD is absolutely vital to this industry. The underdog needs to score a home run (or something close to it) and upset the status quo, or else prices will continue to stagnate. In a couple of years, perhaps the pace of innovation will begin to slow, as well. Maybe AMD's new Trinity A-series and upcoming Vishera FX-series processors are the answer. Or perhaps AMD is going to need third-party help to succeed, through either an investment or a takeover. There's been talk of Qualcomm or Samsung possibly making a bid.
Rory Read said:Team,
Within the past couple of hours, a major media outlet wrote a piece speculating about the sale of AMD. As you know, articles such as this periodically surface in the media. I want you to know exactly how we are responding to this speculative piece, as we expect some additional media outlets to inquire. Our official response is below, along with the original news article.
But let me personally reinforce to you: we are not actively pursuing the sale of AMD or any of our significant assets. It's full steam ahead with our strategy we absolutely are on the right path.
Rory
Did anyone else first read that as..... "AMD Hi Res Bank"?
[citation required]Because we remember what Intel prices were like before AMD arose. When AMD created the K5, it was a piece of junk compared to Intel. If you think Intel out performs AMD now, the K5's were far worse back then. Then again, Intel wanted $1k for a middle of the road CPU
My first computer had a Pentium 90 in it, and the prices were nearly $1k in bulk.[citation required]
These ridiculous claims are just silly. As far back as I remember (mid-to late 1980s), Intel has priced flagship processors in the $500/$800/$1000 range. The volume processors retailed around $130, which was a lot more in today's dollars. CPUs which hung around past the current gen sold for $60-$80. "Mid-range" sold anywhere from $150-$300. This is what the company I worked at sold processors to customers and integrators in quantity one. And yes, this is in the absence of competition from AMD, which was still cranking out licensed clones a generation or two out of date, along with Harris, NEC and others making low end, and highly uncompetitive processors.
The only reason that AMD has become the budget provider they are is because they don't have any choice. If they had a competitive product like the original Athalon that outperformed Intel chips they would be charging a premium for that chip. But they don't and they are unlikely to in the near future.
Competition is always good for customers, cause companies are dicks when they own a segment of the market.
Would rather have AMD be more competitive with Intel then to default as the cheap alternative. That way both Intel and AMD will battle each other for price and performance supremacy.
Competition is always good for customers, cause companies are dicks when they own a segment of the market.
It is an indication that market is evolving. Consumer no longer wants to purcahse a desktop or laptop as smart phone or tablet is getting bigger and more powerful.
Even if AMD gets bought out and liquidated by an equity firm, and then Intel raises the price of desktop Celeron CPU to $500 per processor, consumer still has choice: tablet or desktop PC.
In corproate market, AMD's server division will be taken over by another company.
It is similar to Mexican drug war, when one drug lord gets killed, another one will take his place.
AMD hasn't been competitive with Intel for quite a while.
Just, don't remove the trademark red colours of AMD.
Not happening, according to their CEO.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/13/3642344/amd-rory-read-sale-rumors
I see IBM buying AMD. They have the cash and AMD has the technology they would need to compete with INTEL. It would be very cheap overall for IBM and they still produce chips, just at a low scale. They also would benefit with GPU part of AMD, and would use the fusion tech with servers in mind. I could be wrong, but that is what I see happening soon.
lol IBM left hardware on purpose, why would they do a 180 and try to get back into it.
They still make cpu's The Power processor. They have their own fabs, they make servers, AMD is used alot in servers. They also have worked together on tech as well. X86 Liscense would not be a problem for IBM. Plus when AMD was speculated to be bought years ago IBM and Nvidia were the top runners. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-merge,1774-6.html