🚀 go-pugleaf

biggfredd@NOSPAMcomputech-online.net wrote:

:  >  It's surprising how Intel and all of the dough that they have still sell
:  > their processors at outrageously high prices. They could probably sell a
:  > most of their chips for far less that AMD or Cyrix sells their and still
:  > make a profit. A PII 233 costs more than a K6-2 300 and with the new
: 3DNow
:  > instructions the K6-2 smokes a PII-233, and as an added bonus is faster
: in
:  > most other stuff too. At the way Intel prices their processors, a 500
: might
:  > cost about $900 to $1100 if not more. An AMD K6-2 might cost about $300
: at
:  > 350Mhz, $430 at 400, and $552 at 450Mhz, but as we all know AMD does not
:  > exponentially overprice their new processors as Intel does.

: Once the design costs are taken out, a CPU probably costs less than 50 cents
: to make.  By asking the big bucks for the "latest greatest" chips, Intel is
: recovering the design costs from the people who insist on having the current
: top of the line.

I can assure you that a microprocessor costs quite a bit more than 50 cents
to make. Some of them even cost a couple of hundred bucks to make.

: It's correct to say that Intel could still make a profit at lower prices,
: but the fact of the matter is that it's doubtful that they'd sell twice as
: many chips at half the price.  Since chips are almost 100% profit, that's
: what would have to happen to justify lowering the price.

: Intel probably has a pretty good grasp on the economics of the situation. 
: AMD, Cyrix (etc) also have their own "take" on the market, and the next year
: or two will show us who guessed right.

: One thing to remember is that history has shown us that companies who
: compete on price generally go out of business fairly quickly.  The best
: thing Joe Consumer can do is to financially support whoever he feels will be
: best for him in the long run.  The forces of the marketplace will take it
: from there.