Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 07:19:30 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 09:45:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 01:52:34, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>If you can sell a million 3GHz processors today for $600, and another million >>3.2GHz processors next month for $600 (plus n 3GHz ones for $400 now), and then >>a month later you sell a million 3.4GHz processors for $600, etc., why in the >>world would you want to sell 1.2 million 4GHz processors today at $600, and lose >>out on ALL those intervening speed grades? Do the math, and it just doesn't add >>up. The chip companies make a lot of money by trickling out clock speed >>advances, because they can charge more for the highest clocked parts. Releasing >>something 2x faster today than what has previously been released is NOT going to >>net them more money in the long run. Basically, it amounts to bleeding the >>customers for all they're worth - and it works. > > >I don't buy that. Because if I can widen the game between me and my >competitor significantly, I am going to get a bigger share of the market, >so producing a chip that is stamped slower than what it can actually run at >doesn't make sense on the top-end of the market. Yes, I'd take my 3.2ghz >line and siphon off some and mark them 3.06 and 2.8 and so forth, if there >is a demand down there. But I'm not going to hold back my top-end chips >as the more separation there is between me and my competitor, performance >wise, the larger my market share. Otherwise there would be no SPEC, no >THWP, etc... Intel already has 85%+ of the desktop market share, and probably even a greater portion of the small server share. Killing the competition to gain that extra 10-15% market share does not net them more money in the short term (the math is not complicated), and invites serious problems in the long run, such as possible anti-trust investigations if AMD goes out of business. >>Intel raises clock speed just enough to stay ahead of their perceived >>competition. If AMD magically released a 4GHz part tomorrow, do you seriously >>doubt that Intel wouldn't be able to follow suit almost immediately? > >Yes I do. Because they would have already released it to get the lions share >of the top-end market where the profit is highest. Intel _already_ has the "lions share of the top-end market". Even more so than the lion's share of the desktop market they have.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.