On May 13 2009 19:55 haduken wrote:
Intel have such strong ties in distributor channels that i don't see how this will change anything.
What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. Unlike microsoft who abuse the channel relationships, intel is actually worthy of their dominance.
Not true back in the Pentium 4 days. Amd was superior both in price and power consumption then.
You guys don't understand what Intel did. They set pricing guidelines for major computer manufacturers. If the manufacturers exclusively used Intel chips, then they get to buy the processors for $250 each. If they used 90%+ Intel chips. then the price is $275. If they used 80%+ then the price is $300 each. It wasn't be beneficial for computer manufacturers to buy AMD processors because they'll end up paying more money per processor.
The same thing is happening right now with the Intel Atom processors. Nvidia is complaining about Intel's pricing policy for it's Atom processors. Intel is selling it's Atom processor individually to manufacturers for $45 each. But, if the manufacturers buy the the processor along with Intel's chipset/graphics bundle, it'll only cost $25. Nvidia developed a graphics chipset for the Intel Atom platform that supports HD playback. But despite it being superior to the Intel chipset, it isn't getting into many netbooks because Intel is giving away it's chipsets along with $20.
EPT
