If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New Itanium chips cost just $744
The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are
the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Yousuf Khan wrote:
The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan What fraction do you suppose that is of what it costs Intel to make them? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan What fraction do you suppose that is of what it costs Intel to make them? Including R&D, the manufacturing line, the office help, insurance, power bills etc or just what the bit of a silicon wafer costs? -- Stacey |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey wrote:
CJT wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan What fraction do you suppose that is of what it costs Intel to make them? Including R&D, the manufacturing line, the office help, insurance, power bills etc or just what the bit of a silicon wafer costs? Fully loaded. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"CJT" wrote in message
... Yousuf Khan wrote: The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan What fraction do you suppose that is of what it costs Intel to make them? Considering the low volumes and the billions of dollars spent in developing it, I'd say Intel is probably losing money on it. :-) Yousuf Khan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yousuf Khan wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message ... Yousuf Khan wrote: The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan What fraction do you suppose that is of what it costs Intel to make them? Considering the low volumes and the billions of dollars spent in developing it, I'd say Intel is probably losing money on it. :-) Yousuf Khan I remember reading something when the first Itaniums became available the claimed Intel would need to sell about 2 to 3 million chips in order to recover the R&D costs and the fab costs. The same article also mentioned that Intel only /expected/ to sell about 750,000. In other words, Intel didn't expect to make a profit out of Itanic - they just expected Itanic to be just a stepping stone to something else that /would/ bring in the big bucks. As well, I wonder how much of the R&D costs for Itanic are being recovered from other Intel products? Surely to god a lot of the research work done to create Itanic would be of benefit to other things Intel is/was working on ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Stow wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: "CJT" wrote in message ... Yousuf Khan wrote: The new low-cost, low-power "Deerfield" Itanium 2 chips released today are the cheapest in the Itanium family ever. The 1.0Ghz costs $744, while the 1.4Ghz costs $1172: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...08/tc_nf/22235 Yousuf Khan What fraction do you suppose that is of what it costs Intel to make them? Considering the low volumes and the billions of dollars spent in developing it, I'd say Intel is probably losing money on it. :-) Yousuf Khan I remember reading something when the first Itaniums became available the claimed Intel would need to sell about 2 to 3 million chips in order to recover the R&D costs and the fab costs. The same article also mentioned that Intel only /expected/ to sell about 750,000. In other words, Intel didn't expect to make a profit out of Itanic - they just expected Itanic to be just a stepping stone to something else that /would/ bring in the big bucks. As well, I wonder how much of the R&D costs for Itanic are being recovered from other Intel products? Surely to god a lot of the research work done to create Itanic would be of benefit to other things Intel is/was working on ? Assuming they sell overseas, at what point (if any) does selling far below cost become "dumping" and perhaps cause problems with, e.g., the WTO? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:06:43 GMT, CJT wrote:
As well, I wonder how much of the R&D costs for Itanic are being recovered from other Intel products? Surely to god a lot of the research work done to create Itanic would be of benefit to other things Intel is/was working on ? Assuming they sell overseas, at what point (if any) does selling far below cost become "dumping" and perhaps cause problems with, e.g., the WTO? Don't think you could make a case for that. I mean, they didn't intend on it being an unpopular, money-losing product. Plus, it's one thing when you lost your money on R&D (fixed costs), quite another when you are selling it for below what it costs to make them (varible costs). ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:06:43 GMT, CJT wrote:
snip Assuming they sell overseas, at what point (if any) does selling far below cost become "dumping" and perhaps cause problems with, e.g., the WTO? If manufacturers were not permitted to introduce new products and sell them at a loss, we'd be stuck in a world with practically no new products. In order to show that Intel was "dumping" Itaniums, you'd have to show that someone was losing business because of it, and that would be a very tough sell. The only people who are going to buy Itaniums are people who, for one reason or another, need a chip like Itanium. At this point, I think Intel would be happy enough just to get the chips out there so people will write software for them and get used to using them. RM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMD to demonstrate dual-core chips | Tony Hill | AMD x86-64 Processors | 11 | September 16th 04 11:49 AM |
Itanium sales hit $14bn (w/ -$13.4bn adjustment)! Uh, Opteron sales too | Yousuf Khan | AMD x86-64 Processors | 43 | September 7th 04 09:34 AM |
Power supply EXPLOSION | Peter Hucker | Overclocking | 137 | July 28th 04 10:35 PM |
Bad news for ATI: Nvidia to 'own' ATI at CeBit - no pixel shader 3.0 support in R420 (long) | NV55 | Ati Videocards | 12 | February 24th 04 06:29 AM |
Inq update on future ATI & Nvidia chips | Radeon350 | Ati Videocards | 0 | August 13th 03 10:41 PM |