As AMD struggles, Intel chip prices stagnate
Competition is the cornerstone of a free market. Without healthy competition, unchallenged incumbents grow complacent, the pace of innovation slows, and prices either stagnate or rise. Those ill effects can be witnessed across a number of industries, but over the past few years, they've become increasingly apparent in the x86 processor market.
To be fair, Intel can hardly be faulted for not innovating. Year after year, the behemoth from Santa Clara manages to churn out new generations of chips with better performance and power efficiency than their predecessors. But Intel has been spoiled this past little while by a relatively placid competitive landscape. AMD, for all of its hard work, has largely failed to outdo its chief rival. Lately, it's had a hard time just keeping up.
You might have already noticed the resulting price stagnation. We've seen it first-hand when putting together our system guides. No matter how many chips AMD throws into the ring or how often it slashes prices, Intel CPUs always seem to stay put at roughly the same price points until the next generation comes along. There are exceptions in the bargain-basement realm of sub-$100 processors, but they're few and far between.
We were interested in quantifying the phenomenon, so we called on the lovely folks at Camelegg, who provided us with a treasure trove of historical CPU pricing data. That data covers Newegg pricing for budget and mid-range CPUs across the past three years or so. We stuck the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, worked our famous graphing magic, and unearthed clear evidence of how dire the situation has become.
In the chart below, you'll see the difference between peak and minimum prices during the first 50 weeks of availability for a broad range of AMD and Intel processors, both new and old. Why 50 weeks? That happens to be roughly the amount of time AMD's FX-series CPUs have been available, and we wanted to see how they stacked up against other offerings, historically speaking.
Note that the numbers below account for occasional dips and hikes as well as permanent price cuts. Also, if you notice some chips missing from the list below, there's a good reason for that. Camelegg only tracks price changes. Its data for discontinued processors only shows the last price change before discontinuation, so large stretches of data between the last price cut and the product's end of life are missing. Since we weren't always sure when a processor dropped out of stock for good, we've cut off the data for discontinued items at the last price change. Older, already-retired CPUs for which we lacked a full 50 weeks of Camelegg data were kept out of the chart below.
Based on the data, it appears Intel's most substantial price cuts have applied to budget offerings—the Core i3-540, Core i3-530, and Core i3-2120. That's no coincidence, because the budget market happens to be AMD's last great stronghold in this competitive battle. Among Intel's more upscale mid-range chips, which have few to no challengers from AMD, price drops of more than 10% are very uncommon. Some chips, like the Core i5-2400, saw virtually no discounts during their first 50 weeks of availability. Compare that to AMD's FX-8150, whose price has tumbled almost 38% since launch.
We can illustrate the stagnation of Intel prices even better by plotting them over time. Here, the incompleteness of Camelegg's data for discontinued offerings is no great obstacle. We can still see where old processors used to reside on the pricing scale—and how new arrivals and price cuts affected the competition. You can click the buttons below the graph to switch between AMD and Intel CPUs.
Going as far back as 2009, it's clear AMD's mid-range processors have consistently followed a downward pricing slope. Their plots make me think of rainwater trickling down a mossy bluff. That bluff has only been getting steeper since the debut of Intel's Sandy Bridge processors in early 2011. For the most part, Sandy Bridge's arrival forced AMD to compete on price rather than performance in this segment. Ivy Bridge only made matters worse. The deep cuts to the FX series after the Ivy Bridge debut earlier this year are clear evidence of that.
By contrast, Intel's mid-range offerings have hardly budged over the days, weeks, and months. While we see occasional dips here and there, they're usually followed by rapid returns to the status quo. The only exceptions we can see here are the Core i7-2600K and the Core i5-3570K. The former saw its price decline only after being supplanted by the Core i7-3770K, and the latter was simply marked up by Newegg at launch. Intel's official bulk price for the i5-3570K was $225 from the start.
Intel's ability to maintain prices is also visible in the budget market—albeit to a lesser extent, likely due to AMD's stronger presence there.
Throughout 2010 and much of 2011, AMD had an ace in the hole in the budget game: its $100 quad-core Athlon IIs and Phenom IIs, which offered excellent performance for the money. Intel's dual-core, Core i3-500-series chips could manage superior single-threaded performance, but they weren't quite as compelling, especially in the eyes of enthusiasts. Nevertheless, Intel had no qualms about charging a premium. The Core i5-540 only slipped to $100 after its replacements in the Core i3-2100 series had already arrived.
Around the same time, AMD made the unfortunate decision to replace the Phenom II X4 840 with its A-series APUs, which were priced somewhat ambitiously. Intel prices remained stationary, and in light of the A series' somewhat underwhelming performance, we had to switch our recommendation for the system guide's budget build to the Core i3-2100.
Since then, and despite subsequent AMD price cuts, Intel has held the Core i3-2100 steady at around $120. The marginally quicker Core i3-2120 has fallen to within a few dollars of that, yet Intel seems uninterested in offering the slower model for less. Similarly, the Core i3-2105—a variant of the i3-2100 with faster integrated graphics that's a more direct competitor to AMD's offerings—remains at $135 despite AMD's continued cuts to the A series.
None of this bodes terribly well for consumers.
AMD's recent missteps have, it seems, given Intel very little incentive to cut prices—even when it doesn't always have the clear upper hand. The only way Intel offers substantially better value over time is with yearly generational refreshes, and those refreshes raise performance per dollar not by lowering prices, but by delivering higher performance for the same money. Consider that, almost two years after the release of the Core i5-2500K, Intel still doesn't offer an unlocked quad-core processor for less than $200. Meanwhile, Intel's gross margin has climbed to an eye-popping 63.4%, nearly 20 points higher than AMD's.
This, folks, is why a healthier AMD is absolutely vital to this industry. The underdog needs to score a home run (or something close to it) and upset the status quo, or else prices will continue to stagnate. In a couple of years, perhaps the pace of innovation will begin to slow, as well. Maybe AMD's new Trinity A-series and upcoming Vishera FX-series processors are the answer. Or perhaps AMD is going to need third-party help to succeed, through either an investment or a takeover. There's been talk of Qualcomm or Samsung possibly making a bid.
In any case, it's clear we're already feeling the effects of sluggish competition in the x86 CPU market. Let's hope things don't get any worse.
Read more...To be fair, Intel can hardly be faulted for not innovating. Year after year, the behemoth from Santa Clara manages to churn out new generations of chips with better performance and power efficiency than their predecessors. But Intel has been spoiled this past little while by a relatively placid competitive landscape. AMD, for all of its hard work, has largely failed to outdo its chief rival. Lately, it's had a hard time just keeping up.
You might have already noticed the resulting price stagnation. We've seen it first-hand when putting together our system guides. No matter how many chips AMD throws into the ring or how often it slashes prices, Intel CPUs always seem to stay put at roughly the same price points until the next generation comes along. There are exceptions in the bargain-basement realm of sub-$100 processors, but they're few and far between.
We were interested in quantifying the phenomenon, so we called on the lovely folks at Camelegg, who provided us with a treasure trove of historical CPU pricing data. That data covers Newegg pricing for budget and mid-range CPUs across the past three years or so. We stuck the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, worked our famous graphing magic, and unearthed clear evidence of how dire the situation has become.
In the chart below, you'll see the difference between peak and minimum prices during the first 50 weeks of availability for a broad range of AMD and Intel processors, both new and old. Why 50 weeks? That happens to be roughly the amount of time AMD's FX-series CPUs have been available, and we wanted to see how they stacked up against other offerings, historically speaking.
Note that the numbers below account for occasional dips and hikes as well as permanent price cuts. Also, if you notice some chips missing from the list below, there's a good reason for that. Camelegg only tracks price changes. Its data for discontinued processors only shows the last price change before discontinuation, so large stretches of data between the last price cut and the product's end of life are missing. Since we weren't always sure when a processor dropped out of stock for good, we've cut off the data for discontinued items at the last price change. Older, already-retired CPUs for which we lacked a full 50 weeks of Camelegg data were kept out of the chart below.
We can illustrate the stagnation of Intel prices even better by plotting them over time. Here, the incompleteness of Camelegg's data for discontinued offerings is no great obstacle. We can still see where old processors used to reside on the pricing scale—and how new arrivals and price cuts affected the competition. You can click the buttons below the graph to switch between AMD and Intel CPUs.
By contrast, Intel's mid-range offerings have hardly budged over the days, weeks, and months. While we see occasional dips here and there, they're usually followed by rapid returns to the status quo. The only exceptions we can see here are the Core i7-2600K and the Core i5-3570K. The former saw its price decline only after being supplanted by the Core i7-3770K, and the latter was simply marked up by Newegg at launch. Intel's official bulk price for the i5-3570K was $225 from the start.
Intel's ability to maintain prices is also visible in the budget market—albeit to a lesser extent, likely due to AMD's stronger presence there.
Around the same time, AMD made the unfortunate decision to replace the Phenom II X4 840 with its A-series APUs, which were priced somewhat ambitiously. Intel prices remained stationary, and in light of the A series' somewhat underwhelming performance, we had to switch our recommendation for the system guide's budget build to the Core i3-2100.
Since then, and despite subsequent AMD price cuts, Intel has held the Core i3-2100 steady at around $120. The marginally quicker Core i3-2120 has fallen to within a few dollars of that, yet Intel seems uninterested in offering the slower model for less. Similarly, the Core i3-2105—a variant of the i3-2100 with faster integrated graphics that's a more direct competitor to AMD's offerings—remains at $135 despite AMD's continued cuts to the A series.
None of this bodes terribly well for consumers.
AMD's recent missteps have, it seems, given Intel very little incentive to cut prices—even when it doesn't always have the clear upper hand. The only way Intel offers substantially better value over time is with yearly generational refreshes, and those refreshes raise performance per dollar not by lowering prices, but by delivering higher performance for the same money. Consider that, almost two years after the release of the Core i5-2500K, Intel still doesn't offer an unlocked quad-core processor for less than $200. Meanwhile, Intel's gross margin has climbed to an eye-popping 63.4%, nearly 20 points higher than AMD's.
This, folks, is why a healthier AMD is absolutely vital to this industry. The underdog needs to score a home run (or something close to it) and upset the status quo, or else prices will continue to stagnate. In a couple of years, perhaps the pace of innovation will begin to slow, as well. Maybe AMD's new Trinity A-series and upcoming Vishera FX-series processors are the answer. Or perhaps AMD is going to need third-party help to succeed, through either an investment or a takeover. There's been talk of Qualcomm or Samsung possibly making a bid.
In any case, it's clear we're already feeling the effects of sluggish competition in the x86 CPU market. Let's hope things don't get any worse.
Read More ...
HDD shipments rebound, exceed pre-flood levels
A little less than a year ago, devastating flooding in Thailand decimated the hard drive industry. Entire factory floors were submerged under several feet of water, drive production slowed to a crawl, and drive prices rose accordingly. The industry seems to have finally sorted out its production issues, though. IHS iSuppli predicts that hard drive makers will ship 524 million units this year, a modest increase from 502 million units in 2011.
Looking further ahead, IHS iSuppli expects moderate but continued shipment growth through 2016. By that time, HDD shipments will purportedly top 575 million units. These numbers refer only to drives shipped for the PC industry, by ...
Read more...
Read More ...
Desktop Trinity APUs available at Newegg
Want to buy one of AMD's new Trinity desktop APUs? Good news. Newegg has four different models in stock, and they all come with promotional $5 gift cards. The range-topping A10-5800K sells for $130, while its slower A8-5600K counterpart can be had for $110. Those quad-core models are complemented by a pair of duallies. The A6-5400K rings in at $75 and the A4-5300 costs just $60.
Newegg is charging a little more than the 1,000-unit prices quoted by AMD. The chip maker asks $122 and $101 for the A10-5800K and A8-5600K, respectively. The A6-5400K has a $67 list ...
Read more...
Read More ...
New Acer ultrabooks sport 1080p IPS panels, high prices
On the heels of IHS's doom-and-gloom report on the ultrabook market, Acer has unveiled a new series of ultrabooks geared toward Windows 8. These systems feature 1080p IPS touch screens, ultra-thin profiles, and unfortunately, rather formidable price tags: $1,199 for the 11.6" Aspire S7 and a whopping $1,399 for the 13.3" model.
...Read more...
Read More ...
IHS slashes ultrabook forecast for 2012, 2013
Ultrabooks are supposed to help breathe new life into the PC market, but they may be falling short, judging by the latest figures from IHS. The market research firm has cut its forecast for 2012 ultrabook shipments from 22 million units down to just 10.3 million. IHS also expects fewer ultrabooks to ship next year—only 44 million, down from the previously anticipated 61 million.IHS analyst Craig Stice sums ...
Read more...
Read More ...
Transformer Pad Jelly Bean update out, captured at 240 FPS
Owners of select Asus Transformer tablets are getting over-the-air updates to Android 4.1, better known as Jelly Bean. The Transformer Prime, Transformer Pad 300, and Transformer Pad Infinity are all eligible for an update to Google's latest OS. Our Infinity sample has just been upgraded, and we've captured some high-speed footage to illustrate the difference between Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean on the tablet. Here's a look at a few interface elements at 240 frames per second:
...
Read more...
Read More ...
Sharp starts making 1080p smartphone display
If you thought modern smartphones had high-density displays, get ready for even more pixels. Sharp has begun the production of a smartphone panel with a display resolution of 1920x1080. This 5" display boasts a pixel density of 443 PPI, an increase of nearly 36% over the iPhone 5. Unfortunately, the Japanese press release is short on other details, like whether the panel is of the IPS variety. The display will be, er, on display at the CEATEC Japan trade show this week, though.
Right now, most of the super-sized smartphones on the market offer display resolutions around 720p range. The smaller iPhone 5 has a resolution of 1136x640, making Sharp's new panel a big step up. Of course, ...
Read more...
Read More ...
Are more layoffs in the cards for AMD?
A year on from AMD's last round of mass layoffs, the rumor mill suggests AMD's staff could face further downsizing. News comes from the folks at VR-Zone, who quote "sources close to heart [sic] of the matter" as saying AMD's work force could soon shrink from around 11,000 to somewhere below 10,000—at least a 9% cut. (VR-Zone's headline only talks of a 5% reduction, though, oddly enough.)
VR-Zone adds that, according to its sources, "[AMD] has too many VPs and directors who slow things down. New hires cannot fulfill their targets due to amount of bureaucracy." Rumor has ...
Read more...
Read More ...
Rumor: Asus might snatch ASRock
Further consolidation may be afoot in the motherboard market. According to SemiAccurate's Charlie Demerjian, Asus has made a takeover bid for smaller mobo vendor ASRock. Word is that Pegatron, ASRock's parent company, is "fine with the terms"—but the news isn't yet official.ASRock is hardly a small player. In 2010, the company slipped ahead of MSI to become the world's third-biggest motherboard maker. Its shipments totaled eight million ...
Read more...
Read More ...
Available Tags:AMD , Intel , HDD , Acer , Sharp , smartphone , Asus , ASRock ,
No comments:
Post a Comment