AMD cuts prices - again

AMD cuts prices - again

Summary: I've written here several times that AMD would have to cut the prices of their CPUs in order for them to remain competitive in the face of Intel's Core 2 Duo range. Well, AMD have once again slashed the prices of its Turion 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 and a number of its Sempron chips by up to 35.8%.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors
6

I've written here several times that AMD would have to cut the prices of their CPUs in order for them to remain competitive in the face of Intel's Core 2 Duo range.  Well, AMD have once again slashed the prices of its Turion 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 and a number of its Sempron chips by up to 35.8%.

FX-62 - A big price drop but not enough to make it competitive against the higher-end Intel Core 2 Duo CPUsThe CPUs that saw the biggest price cuts were the Socket S1 Mobile Semprons, which saw prices cut by between by 19.6% and 35.8%.  AMD has also slashed the prices of the Socket 754 Mobile Semprons by between 26.5% and 31.2%, depending on the model.

AMD's flagship CPU, the Athlon 64 FX-62, sees the price cut by 13.8%.  This means that an FX-62 costs $713 (down from a lofty $827).  A big price drop but not enough to make it competitive against the higher-end Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs.

AMD logoAMD is certainly shifting gears to high volume, low markup sales in order to compete with Intel, and so far the strategy seems to be paying off.

Topic: Processors

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

6 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • You left out the qualifier

    All of those are desktop/mobile chips. AMD's major revenues are currently coming from server chips -- but no mention of cuts there.

    In fact, last I looked they were pretty much all on allocation. AMD's strategy may well be to keep their prices for desktop parts low enough to put a margin ceiling on Intel without having to ship enough quantity to cut into either server capacity or AMD's overall margins.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
  • Core 2 Duo is all hype

    Based on my personal experience, Core 2 Duo is very slow in responding to user interaction.

    Athlon64's IMC has a major advantage due to low latency.
    sharikou
    • Based on NUMBERS from many benchmarks

      Benchmarks:
      Graphics Applications (3D studio max)
      Games ( the most demanding)
      Video/audio compression codecs.
      A number of different static benchmarks.

      Performed by a number of different groups (Tom's hardware for one)

      Core Duo nails AMD decidedly. Your statements in the face of such overwhelming hard evidence is compromising your credibility (with me at least).
      DevGuy_z
      • True benchmarks, but product sales...

        Product placement and sales are a different beast. Most of us don't buy the fastest chip anyway. I actually deliberately avoid doing so...I play the price curve, getting the fastest chip after the big drop-off in the pricing chart. Usually still about 2/3 up the pricing chart, you can find a very good price/perf chip. Now...given these benchmarks and pricing, there can be some validity to saying that Core 2 Duo will beat AMD on that price/perf point as well. But Intel is still ridding itself of alot of inventory and getting the Core 2 Duo into the pipelines of products. Yes, the chip is in full production...but are consumers opting for it? As of now, AMD is still maintaining ground and with these further price cuts should continue to do so through this year. Remember...Q4 is usually the big quarter for tech. If Intel had gotten Core 2 Duo to market 6 months sooner, it might be a different story. But AMD will make it through the big quarter before Intel is able to completely flush out Netburst and fully pump in Core 2. We'll be watching Q1 with interest.
        Techboy_z
  • Correction

    "A big price drop but not enough to make it competitive against the higher-end Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs."

    The top of the line AMD FX-62 is still not competitive (performance and energy) against the mid-end Intel Core 2 which 1/3 the price. If we take over clocking in to consideration, the top of the line AMD FX-62 is not competitive with ANY Core 2.
    georgeou
    • The nice thing is....

      "If we take over clocking in to consideration, the top of the line AMD FX-62 is not competitive with ANY Core 2."

      You really meant to say "price/perf competitive". It's kinda nice that price/perf isn't the only thing we buy on. AMD is quite "market-competitive"...meaning that their products are still sought for other reasons:
      a) People may not like Intel business practices
      b) People may have had good experiences with AMD and practice loyalty for that reason (reliability, fewer chip design flaws, etc....whatever else constitutes their "good experience".)
      c) Many don't buy the fastest nor the cheapest CPU, they buy an overall product; product placement has gone well lately for AMD.

      So, I think you've oversimplified your definition of "competitive", George. You were talking price/perf-competitive. The real world is about market-competitiveness. AMD gets this. Intel gets it too, or they wouldn't have dropped prices today.
      Techboy_z