Intel makes half-hearted price cuts

Intel makes half-hearted price cuts

Summary: Intel has just made a few half-hearted price cuts to their CPU range. Mostly these cuts affect the Celeron D lines. Why are the cuts half-hearted? Because Intel doesn't really have much in the way of serious competition from AMD right now.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors
18

Intel has just made a few half-hearted price cuts to their CPU range.  Mostly these cuts affect the Celeron D lines.  Why are the cuts half-hearted?  Because Intel doesn't really have much in the way of serious competition from AMD right now.

So, what do we have?

  • Celeron D down by between 8% and 22% (the cheapest of the Celeron Ds, the 326 (2.53GHz, 256k L2) and the 315 (2.26GHz, 256k L2) cost $34/1000 while the most expensive, the 360 (3.46GHz, 512k L2) now costs $69/1000)
  • The Intel Celeron M 420 (1.6GHz, 1M L2) is down by 20% to $86/1000 while the 430 (1.73GHz, 1M L2) is down 36%, also priced at $86
  • The Intel Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz, 2x1M L2) is down 18% to $93/1000 while the price of the 915 (2.8 GHz, 2 x 2M L2) is cut by 15%, down to $113/1000
  • The Core Duo L2400 (1,66GHz, 2M L2) down by 10%, down to $284/1000

Some notable new entries to the price list include:

  • The 65nm Celeron M 440 and 450 - clocked at 1.86GHz and 2.0GHz respectively (and priced at $107/1000 and $134/1000 respectively)
  • The Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile processors - T5500, T5600, T7200, T7400, and the T7600, ranging from 1.66GHz, 2M L2 to 2.33GHz, 4M L2.  Prices range from $209/1000 to a whopping $637/1000

Expect the next price cuts in November when the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 "Kentsfield" is released and then in January when Intel launches the Core 2 Quad Q6600.

[poll id=3]

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

18 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Poor analysis

    The Celeron chips have a lower margin to begin with. The real reason they weren't lowered more is that Intel can't afford to. They are under pressure from analysts to improve their revenues, not take market share back. They hope to do that by increasing volume in the higher margin server chips. Everything here is done by maximal equations, and going lower still for Celeron would have begun to diminish results.
    Techboy_z
    • Improving revenue

      "They are under pressure from analysts to improve their revenues, not take market share back"

      If that was the case, why drop the Celeron prices at all? They didn't need to to that. This is about market share.
      Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
      • Two, two benefits in one.

        Hmmm, keep prices up, and gain market share. Umm, what was your question?
        No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Exactly....

        If they are completely unconcerned about margins in the Celeron markets, and it is about market share, as you concede...why not drop them further? The answer is either a) they don't need to, or b) they can't afford to. Since the budget and mobile CPUs along with server chips are where AMD is currently stealing share, it's clearly not because they don't need to in order to get share back. It's that AMD won't let them and they can't afford to go lower. You posted the AMD price cuts just the other day:

        "AMD 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."

        So is it or isn't it? The numbers show that Intel is getting squeezed at the bottom end. The only conclusion is that they're ceding some portion of market share in the low end to maintain a certain margin there, and ceding margin room in the higher end (where they can better afford to) in order to attempt to grab the market share. They have decided to not go to negative margins over market share because it has become obvious that it is now a two horse race for good. And the analysts will no longer tolerate inprofitability for the sake of market share. They'd rather see a slightly smaller but more consistently profitable Intel.
        Techboy_z
    • oh Gee

      it took me 3 hours to think of something to say and im only disappinted that i was not the first post.


      lol
      not of this world
      • Stay tuned ... another post tomorrow!

        :-)

        Or you can try this one - no comments there yet!
        Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
  • naming conventions

    >quad-core Core 2 Extreme<

    if its really a (2 duel core and not 4 single cores) then why dont they call it;

    - duel 2 core Pair -


    because when AMD comes out with a 4 core, then amd should call it the - true quad-core.


    well, you know what i am saying anyway.
    not of this world
    • Explanation

      "..if its really a (2 duel core and not 4 single cores) then why dont they call it;- duel 2 core Pair?.."

      Ans: Because nobody cares how the 4 core sausage is made as long as it delivers results. Dual 2 core pair is the most rediculous a naming convention yet - congrats!

      "..because when AMD comes out with a 4 core, then amd should call it the - true quad-core.."

      Would that make their 4x4 the "no so true quad-core" ?
      Prognosticator
    • Don't you mean...

      *If* and when AMD does anything?
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • It's starting to look like that!

        "*If* and when AMD does anything?"

        Any day now they'll come out with an Intel-killer ...
        Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
        • Hope so, but doubtful.

          I really do hope your right, but just the fact they can't seem to get to 45 nanometers is going to be a huge problem for them. And, even if they do, they are still stuck playing "catch up" with Intel.
          No_Ax_to_Grind
          • Took Intel 8 years of playing catch up too

            So the way I see it AMD has lots of time to innovate. This how competition works.

            Just watch what happens though if AMD fails and gets crushed. I'd bet the price of processors would go up 10 times. Like before 1998.
            voska
          • Nothing to do but wait and see.

            What AMD does someday. (Or buy an Intel system now.)
            No_Ax_to_Grind
  • I chose AMD in the poll.

    Intel won't get money from me. :)
    Grayson Peddie
  • I'd never buy another Intel product - ever

    Intel's unscrupulous business practices have cost PC users countless billions of dollars over the past 20+ years. And since Intel doesn't have anything worth buying anyways, AMD will get my money from now on. Intel can go pound salt where the Sun don't shine.
    BeGoneFool
    • If you want to use lessor tech, good on ya.

      But as it stands, AMD has nothing to compare in price, performance, or eneryg use.
      No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Or good enough tech

        While it's tempting to go Intel, only way I'd do it is with a MAC.

        From my experience with building PCs Intel hasn't been a very good choice. A pre-built throw away system, Intel is fine for.
        voska
        • You nailed it...

          For too long, Intel has been in the pocket of the OEMs, and has thus gotten used to making things "standard enough" rather than truly open and able to plug and play...for those who want to build their own. It has taken AMD to make Intel get off their rump. It has taken AMD legal action to remove anti-competitive practices by Intel from OEMs. So no...there's no way I'd go Intel, if my priorities are to have a platform that I can build myself and easily modify/upgrade/etc, without using parts from manufacturers that are bought off by DRM-laden content/technology suppliers, and which curtail my abilities to do with my PC as I see fit. Remember who it is that is cooperating with M$ and the RIAA on TCP.
          Techboy_z