Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Intel To Slash Prices Up To 60% 227

Chuan-kai Lin writes "According to Bloomberg, Intel will slash product prices by up to 60% in order to regain market share captured by AMD." From the article: "Intel said it will reduce prices of faster dual-core chips by about 15 percent, according to Alex Lin, a product marketing manager at Micro-Star, Taiwan's third-largest maker of motherboards, which connect electronic parts in computers ... Shares of Intel have fallen 33 percent since Otellini succeeded Craig Barrett in May last year. Advanced Micro's stock has gained 77 percent during the same period. Intel fell 31 cents to $17.08 at 12:06 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading. Advanced Micro dropped $1.55, or 5.5 percent, to $26.45 on concerns that Intel will lower prices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel To Slash Prices Up To 60%

Comments Filter:
  • Re:My god (Score:5, Informative)

    by cnettel ( 836611 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:18PM (#15497318)
    No, only 150 % more. (100 - 60 = 40, 100 / 40 = 2.5, (2.5 - 1) * 100 = 150)
  • by chrismcdirty ( 677039 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:24PM (#15497377) Homepage
    Not only gaming's monster chips, but servers' monster chips.
  • Re:Cheaper Macs? (Score:5, Informative)

    by anaesthetica ( 596507 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:28PM (#15497413) Homepage Journal
    Does this mean even cheaper macs are forthcoming?

    No, but it does mean that Apple's margin's will grow slightly larger. I'm sure that as a loyal Apple-user that will warm your heart. It warms mine. Yay!

  • by adam1101 ( 805240 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:31PM (#15497440)
    Begun these Price Wars [] have.
  • by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:39PM (#15497498)
    I'm sure that both Sun and IBM would disagree with you.
  • Re:I have to wonder (Score:5, Informative)

    by manno ( 848709 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:51PM (#15497604)
    Not everyone's a zealot some of us use AMD chips simply because they're faster, run cooler, and suck less juice than P4's. Conroe looks to have adressed these issues, I was going to buy a opty 165 last week, for $325, but then I saw that Intel was scheduled to relese the better performing Conroe next month at some highly competative prices.

    1.86GHz/2M for $183
    2.13GHz/2M for $224
    2.40GHz/4M for $316

    Those were the prices posted before this anouncement, I hope they have dropped further. Even if they havn't I'm eyeing that 2.4 with the 4MB cahce HARD. I would gladly pay an extra $80-$90(CPU+Mobo) next month, than get an opty 165 this month that will suck more juice, and be significantly slower. I'm not loyal to any corperation, I'm going to put my money where it will give me the best return on investment...
  • by DrDitto ( 962751 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @05:06PM (#15497709)
    2) Keep adding more cache so more synthetic benchmarks fit completely in high speed memory to inflate those SPEC scores

    LOL! Now we criticize Intel for their superior SRAM technology (Intel can fit twice as much cache capacity as AMD for the same chip area). Server workloads see much higher working sets than SPEC. Even assuming you have AMD's fast on-chip memory controller, every cache miss will result in the processor spending 50+ nanoseconds doing nothing (the instruction window will fill up in no time). With a 3-issue superscalar at 3GHz, this is ~ 450 lost opportunities to retire an instruction.

    So yeah Intel, keep adding more cache "to inflate those SPEC scores".
  • Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)

    by stinerman ( 812158 ) <nathan DOT stine AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @05:14PM (#15497796) Homepage
    To be philosophical, it depends if you believe in the labor theory of value [] or the subjective theory of value []. If the former, you're still being had; if the latter, then by definition you can never pay "more that what you should have".
  • Re:OK, that's nice (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sebastopol ( 189276 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @05:18PM (#15497831) Homepage
    Yes. There's something called, you can look up current websites discussing hot trends. Maybe you're new to this interweb thingy. So, look anywhere, or on any techie website (anandtech, tomshardware, cnet) and see that Core 2 Duo power requirements (to be released this month) is way below anything AMD has for then next 1~2 years.
  • Did you not know that Intel added 64-bit support to the Pentium lineup a while back?

    Did you not know that Core 2 Duo [] is the first intel dual-core with AMD64... er, I'm sorry, EM64T?

    Is it just me, or is EM64T a leet acronym for E4T M6? Just notice that for the first time.

  • Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)

    by stinerman ( 812158 ) <nathan DOT stine AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @06:21PM (#15498266) Homepage
    If I recall my political science classes correctly...

    I own a factory that makes widgets. At the end of the day, my labor costs are $100. I also sold all the widgets made that day, (assume they are made to order) for $1000. My profit (neglecting other overhead) is $900. Marx believed that any profit made was essentially labor (read: money) that was stolen from the worker. By his definition, profit is theft.

    The labor theory of value says that an item has an objective value. For Marx, the processor in your PC has an exact, objective value which can be derived by summing all labor costs directly involved in making the processor. If you sell it for more than that, you are essentially committing theft by underpaying the workers who made it (says Marx).

    This is only limited to value, not price. In this example, the widgets have an exact value -- labor costs divided by widgets made. They would be worth more or less depending on how much labor was involved in creating them. Whether or not you can sell them at that price isn't considered.
  • by ShapeGSX ( 865697 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @06:29PM (#15498334)
    Jeez, do a little research, or at least read my post.

    $119 Pentium D 805 at NewEgg []

    Intel Pentium D 805 Smithfield 533MHz FSB 2 x 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core,EM64T Processor - Retail

    Intel has had EMT64 in their Pentium 4 and Pentium D lineup for ages. Where have you been?

  • by MojoStan ( 776183 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @08:25PM (#15499018)
    From TFA:

    the world's biggest computer-chip maker plans to reduce prices on Pentium processors by as much as 60 percent...

    Intel officials told them the price cuts will start July 23...

    Intel said it will reduce prices of faster dual-core chips by about 15 percent... Intel also told him that it plans to lower Pentium prices by 60 percent.

    TFA doesn't say specifically which Intel CPUs will get the big price cuts ("as much as 60 percent"), but I think it's pretty obvious that they're talking about the Pentium D and Pentium 4 processors, which Apple does not and will not use in their Macs. The smaller price cuts ("about 15 percent") is probably Core Duo because Intel plans to introduce a faster model (2.33GHz) on June 25 [].

    The big price cuts will supposedly start on July 23, which is also the day Conroe (LGA775 Core 2 Duo for desktops) will be introduced. Conroe will be replacing the current Pentium D and Pentium 4 processors, and eventually Celeron D (Apple will not use any of these CPUs). Compared to Conroe, the current high-end Pentium D will look like a mid range CPU. The mid-range Pentium 4 will look like a low-end CPU. The big price cuts will look appropriate. Note that Pentium D, Pentium 4, and Celeron D will work in Core 2 Duo desktop motherboards.

    Apple so far has only used Yonah-based Core Duo and Core Solo, which don't use the same chipsets and sockets as Core 2 Duo for desktops. Core 2 Duo for notebooks will not be introduced until late August at the earliest, so I'm sure the big price cuts will not apply to Yonah CPUs. The smaller price cut mentioned in TFA (15 percent) makes sense because a 2.33GHz Core Duo will be introduced on June 25. This new fastest Core Duo should be priced about the same as the current fastest model (2.16GHz) and the second-fastest model is usually about 15 percent cheaper than the fastest.

  • Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)

    by samkass ( 174571 ) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @08:52PM (#15499175) Homepage Journal
    Which is, of course, completely and utterly anti-competitive in this case.

    Um, no, actually it's virtually the definition of competitive. You know, competition leading to lower prices. If AMD can compete, they will, and consumers will win.

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.