🚀 go-pugleaf

I can see the point with the latest and greatest such as the 350, 400 and
the 450 being expensive, but why us an old P200MMX still cost more than a
K6? I don't think Intel even makes these chips anymore.


biggfredd@NOSPAMcomputech-online.net wrote in message
<6ppph2$mh5$1@news2.ee.net>...
>
> >  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.
>
>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.