AMD cuts its prices

AMD cuts its prices

Summary: AMD has reduced the list prices of several of its desktop Athlon 64 X2 and Sempron processors

TOPICS: Processors

AMD lowered the list prices of several of its Athlon 64 X2 and Sempron processors for desktop PCs this morning, according to its processor pricing Web page.

Most of the chipmaker's price cuts--which involved all of its various processor permutations, including its latest 65 nanometer versions and its energy efficient models--were relatively small and dropped the chips' prices by between $11 and $27 each. However, AMD lowered the list price of its Athlon 64 X2 5200+ by a substantial $108. That chip's price moved $403 to $295. I'll note that AMD's list pricing for desktop chip reflects processor-in-box packages (a processor, a heat sink and a fan) sold in 1,000 unit quantities. That means street prices are likely to be different and, in most cases, higher as retailers mark them up slightly to turn a profit.

The remainder of the price cuts were as follows:

Processor                    Dollar reduction    New price

Athlon 64 X2 5000+        $16                    $285

Athlon 64 X2 4800+        $27                    $244

Athlon 64 X2 4600+        $25                    $215

Athlon 64 X2 4400+        $11                    $203

Athlon 64 X2 4200+        $14                    $173

Athlon 64 X2 4000+        $11                    $158

Athlon 64 X2 3800+        $14                    $138

Sempron 3200+             $16                    $51

Sempron 3000+             $15                    $41

AMD’s transition to 65 nanometer manufacturing is helping it to lower the prices on its desktop chips, which have been the first chips to begin the transition from 90-nanometers. The lower prices will make AMD's chips more affordable for the range of its customers, whether they are build-it-yourself enthusiasts or major PC makers such as Hewlett-Packard (who I am assuming got similar price reductions on the chips it purchased). The cuts also increase the chipmaker's price-performance equation when comparing its AMD Athlon 64 X2s to Intel Pentium Ds and Core 2 Duos. However, given the competitive pricing situation we saw during the fourth quarter--an intense battle between AMD and Intel in the desktop space--the chipmakers' official price lists are likely to be the lagging indicators.

Topic: Processors

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • This has got to be very paiful

    especially after their recent P&L sheets.
    • It's just a cycle

      AMD did this the last time Intel had the performance lead. If anything, it will make them work harder to get it back. It benefits the consumer either way.
    • I'd say don't be an idiot

      but it'd be wasted breath.

      Really, Don, read the article. "AMD's transition to 65 nm has reduced chip costs".

      Lower costs means you can sell a chip for a lower price and maintain the same margin.

      We'll know AMD is in trouble when they're laying off thousands of engineers like Intel.
      Robert Crocker
      • Intel isn't ditching people. It's killing and relocating...

        then trying to find "the real killers".

        In other words, all those US jobs lost will be touted in the Indian, Chinese, or Russian press.

        The one thing the offshoring supporters can't fathom is that while $2/day helps out the corporate execs in the short term, eventually nobody can buy what is being made. Our economic system is a symbiosis. Not purely supply-side. Worst of all, until globalization comes even remotely close to the purportedly implied condition (meaning cost for goods have to match the wages being doled out), it's an empty and petty pipe dream.

        The best thing one can do is become a corporation right now. Hmmm... :D
    • And you're loving it too, no doubt.

      Once AMD is obliterated, where will be the competition* to help Intel from sitting on it's big fat soft butt?

      Mind you, Microsoft's "real" competition is overpriced overrated overhaughty Apple - whose OS X is a gloss-ridden derivative of FreeBSD with bits added. Some mundane tweaking turns the GNOME interface into something that looks identical... didn't stop Microsoft from losing market share and their "innovations" are by and large from inventions everybody else already made. FWIW.

      * Competition that actually CAN compete and not be nominal (in name only). Transmeta, VIA, and those other kiddie firms who put out half-baked incompatible garbage sure as heck won't be getting anywhere... Even AMD was near-toast until they released the original Athlon and managed to get things right!
      • really?

        MSes main competition is not apple, but no one that knows anything about OSX
        will take you seriously as you proved you know nothing of OSX if you think its just
        a pretty GUI on top of BSD. Making anything, even Gnome, look the same, doesnt
        mean it is the same, or works the same. If your basing everything just off of
        looks, because you don't understand how it actually works, then I can see how you
        make that statement.

        On the server MS has competition, on the desktop it doesn't really. Thats why that
        Windows is the current piece of junk it is, and even Vista is a piece of crap. If
        AMD was dead, intel would improve over time, yes, but much much slower.