Intel E6850 Benchmarks & Pricing 3GHZ $266 ?

$266. WOW. Great price.

AMD is pooping in their pants. :eek:

What about the old 6800? Will they drop to $266 as well? I rather have the 1066fsb since it probably overclock better?
 
holy crap. screw the e6420

wait a minute...it says the q6600 will be $266
 
Man, if the $266 tag is correct, AMD will make NO money from their CPU's any time soon... And that's almost like a nail to their coffin right now....:eek:
 
:rolleyes: no way in hell that price is right, come on guys, be realistic.... Intel would have a shareholder revolt if they slashed their own wrists like this......
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
:rolleyes: no way in hell that price is right, come on guys, be realistic.... Intel would have a shareholder revolt if they slashed their own wrists like this......
Click to expand...

How are they slashing their wrists?! I have an E6300 that does 2.8GHz at stock voltage. These Conroe processors are capable of sooo much more than Intel is letting on; Intel is just artificially holding them back so they can release gen 2 at full speed and send AMD back to the drawing board when (if?) K10 finally makes it out. I could easily see Intel slashing high-clocked dual-core prices and rolling out low-clocked quad-cores. Same thing happened when dual-cores came out; you could pick up an FX55 for $300 when the FX60 was going for $800+.

Two cores is more than I'll ever need. I love my E6300 (its a great clocker), but if I can really get a 3GHz/4MB/1333FSB part for $266, I'll be selling my E6300 very quickly.
 
That has got to be incorrect because then Intel would have to slash their prices all the other Conroes. The E6600 would be 100 dollars, E6400 would probably be 70, etc..
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
:rolleyes: no way in hell that price is right, come on guys, be realistic.... Intel would have a shareholder revolt if they slashed their own wrists like this......
Click to expand...

I don’t know man....
It kinda looks like Intel doesn't want to loose ANY market share whatsoever, and they can definitely afford selling their used-t-be high-end CPU's for a fraction of the price. Making these CPU doesn't cost them any more then the current 6300 and 6400's... The multi is the same, they enable full 4mb cache that was already there, we all know 333MHz FSB is nothing for Conroes... They most likely will not loose any money either, sine what they lack in price will be corrected by increased volume... The $600~999 segment will be reserved for new 45nm Q's....
All this would leave AMD's shareholders slashing their own wrists...:eek:
 
Skunt said:
That has got to be incorrect because then Intel would have to slash their prices all the other Conroes. The E6600 would be 100 dollars, E6400 would probably be 70, etc..
Click to expand...

Or they could just discontinue them.....:eek: ;)
 
On the assumption that the pricing is correct: good God. (Though the chart for it appeared to be flagged for the second half of 2007...)

Flip side: what sort of motherboard monstrosity will you need for these?
 
slashing their wrists as in... i mean goddamn, that is f-ing cheap!

I'll admit, i made my earlier post a little hastily so the wording might seem a bit abrasive, but wow.... that is cheap cheap cheap.... to the person that said they aren't any more expensive for intel to produce.... sure they are..... the dies have to be that much higher quality to be certified for production cores.

and yea, i mean, if this is Intel's new "mainstream" chip.... I mean, their new high end would have to be unfuckingbelievable..... does this mean they have something up their sleeves?

I don't know, but i swear, this has to be just rumor or simply untrue at this point, because it just isn't believable.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
to the person that said they aren't any more expensive for intel to produce.... sure they are..... the dies have to be that much higher quality to be certified for production cores.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the binsplits for the current Conroes? E6600s are reaching 2.8 or 3.0 without touching the VCore.

We're talking Q3'07 here. Yields will have further improved. Quad-core will become mainstream. These prices aren't out of line for a company with four 65nm fabs and with economies of scale on its side.
 
Stop dreaming guys cos that aint happening......there is no reason to drop the price that much when youre dominating the competition...... unless they know AMD is releasing a monster.....
 
That's a very interesting chart. I can't see any reason that Intel would do that. To cut that much out of their pricing pie makes no sense at all. They would be selling very high end parts for bargain basement prices, and that's very much not like them. Given, they'll still make shitpots of money, since they cost per unit is probably pennies at this point. If you CAN make money, you SHOULD make money, and god knows they can on this product.
 
Dominating the competition has nothing to do with dominating the market, and that's what Intel wants to get more of....
And bruce, the yields of any processor manufacturing get better with time and therefore you end up with new steppings, and new speed binning... It doesn't mean they make more (and throw away more) first gen silicon. They make more of better sillicon, which is actually saving them money...:cool:
 
luihed said:
Stop dreaming guys cos that aint happening......there is no reason to drop the price that much when youre dominating the competition...... unless they know AMD is releasing a monster.....
Click to expand...

I agree, especially about the monster.
 
Hmm, could be one of two things, Intel is worried about K10 winning out (atleast in the short term), and they want as many satisfied customers before consumer release so try and dull AMD's sales, or intel is really ramping up 45nm production so they want to move out the inventory so they don't have lot of leftovers like the Pentium D's. I got the feeling that intel hasn't told us the whole picture and they got some pretty good speed jumps coming up with there processors.
 
Intel has had price drops upcoming for a long time now, the only difference is these new processors are coming into the mix at the same time, or shortly after.
 
thats 266.00 per 1000 ordered. they showing the q6700 at 530 per 1000 units. thats way i understand it. once retailers get a hold of them they tack on more to make money. again just what im seeing someone tell me different if im incorrect.
 
knothead34 said:
thats 266.00 per 1000 ordered. they showing the q6700 at 530 per 1000 units. thats way i understand it. once retailers get a hold of them they tack on more to make money. again just what im seeing someone tell me different if im incorrect.
Click to expand...
Your'e 100% correct.

Expect the final retail price to be higher.
 
Drexion said:
Your'e 100% correct.

Expect the final retail price to be higher.
Click to expand...

Yeah but not really enough to change things massive, so the E6850 could possibly be 300 USD at most with the retail gouge, as well as 575 USD maybe for the Q6700.

The thing is by that point Intel seems to be trying to put the squeeze on AMD so that they have to sell K8L/K10 cheaper, which would hurt them significantly as that is a new architecture and they still have to recoup development costs from it.

H2 2007 is somewhat vague though, maybe these are Late Summer/Early Autumn. Who knows...

Q6600 at $266 USD would be quite interesting to say the least, compared to what AMD offers at that time.
 
looks about right.

E6850 launching the same time as Bearlake becomes available. very nice combo.
 
knothead34 said:
thats 266.00 per 1000 ordered. they showing the q6700 at 530 per 1000 units. thats way i understand it. once retailers get a hold of them they tack on more to make money. again just what im seeing someone tell me different if im incorrect.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

For instance, Intel currently lists E6600 at $316 (official tray price), but Newegg sells the more expensive boxed version for $313.

Processor prices have always been quoted in 1 ku quantities, but distributors also always get 30/60-day discounts, rebates, and other incentives.
 
I've been buying CPUs for a long time and I've never paid the "1K unit price" - always a little lower. Rebates, discounts, you name it. I wouldn't be suprised to see one of these new chips at 250-260 shortly after release.
 
thats AT LEAST 4 months away (2nd half 2007), and probably more like late 3rd Q maybe Sept.

the pricing makes sense for that "long" off.
 
Let's look at this rationally. There are some possibilities here:

HKEPC's roadmap is correct. Therefore:

a) Intel is dropping prices because of Barcelona. This is unlikely since Hector made is clear "whatever you want to call AMD's upcoming chip design" won't ship until late Q3 and then as an Opteron-style launch. Even if "whatever..." were so good everyone+cleaning lady+dog wants one, it's unlikely that desktop versions of "whatever..." will ship in quantities to warrant such a strong(or desperate) response from Intel.

b) Intel is dropping prices and going for higher bins. This is also unlikely given that none of these higher bins are on the roadmap.


So, not being completely right, HKEPC's roadmap could be be partially or completely wrong. Since they're rarely completely wrong with roadmaps, I think they're partially wrong. Incidentally, this roadmap was probably taken from an earlier Japanese one so it's still possible garbage.

Anyhow, I think it makes no sense to be selling a 3.0GHz E6850 for a quarter the price of a 2.93GHz QX6800. It's likely the E6850 was placed in the wrong segment. It should be in the performance segment. The E6750 should be in its place. This would make E6850 half the price of QX6800 and E6750 half that of Q6700. Q6600 should cost a little more - a bit over the $316 current price for E6600 and E6550 should be a bit more than half that price.

Still tempting...

But then, I could be wrong :p
 
On a side note, what is the TXT feature that HKEPC says these chips have?
 
To understand these price cuts, you first have to understand that a $3 billion fab costs around $2 million per day (if not more) in depreciation costs. If that fab is underloaded, the operator will pay dearly for it.

Right now, AMD has two megafabs and one foundry (Chartered) producing processors. By the end of 2007, Fab 38 will also ramp. AMD ordered all this capacity hoping to reach 30% MSS at any cost. Combined with Intel's capacity, this means excess capacity for 2007 and 2008.

With excess capacity and inferior products, AMD has no choice but to pull the price lever because razor thin margins are better than underutilization charges. Even though Intel has better products, they have to follow suit because people look at price/performance. Who's going to win this price war? Well, let's just say you can't win by having low margins and inferior products at the same time.
 
Yep, AMD was planning to stay on track of gaining market share with those OEM wins. They didn't see Core 2 coming at all!!

Looks like AMD is going to be having a garage sale on Fabs in 08. Or bankruptcy.
 
They might make more money this way. Think about it... a 3GHz/1333 for 266$ wouldnt you go right out and buy one... or two? Hell yeah you would... Where as a 600$ CPU you might pass...
 
When OC.com posts an article about Intel's price cuts, it's pretty much a sure deal...
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01120/
And oh yeah, I was right in my assumption earlier in this thread that Intel is out to get it's market share back from AMD, and put AMD back in it's place...:eek: ;)
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
They might make more money this way. Think about it... a 3GHz/1333 for 266$ wouldnt you go right out and buy one... or two? Hell yeah you would... Where as a 600$ CPU you might pass...
Click to expand...

Depends at these prices, I would go for the E6700 at 183USD, that should be the price of the E6700 at that time at least, with the E6750 being identical in pricing, same as the E6400 and E6420 at the exact same price on April 22nd.

We will have to see if any additional demand will be generated by these prices, with prices this low, everyone will be able to afford an acceptable level of performance for their CPU.

The Q6600 at 266USD, is damn sweet though that an incredible value for a Quad Core, and quite quick considering when Quad Core had initially been introduced. It's also not a bad Quad Core by any means, 80% of the Single Thread performance of the E6850, give or take.
 
lol why is it that the only people that don't want this to happen are the uber nerds that have quad cores already?? I guess they dont want the average joe to buy a system that smokes theirs?

as for AMD releasing a monster..... please. AMD is a non factor. they can't even do their chipsets right and their stock prices are all over the place. not too mention all their debt...
 
mzs_biteme said:
When OC.com posts an article about Intel's price cuts, it's pretty much a sure deal...
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01120/
And oh yeah, I was right in my assumption earlier in this thread that Intel is out to get it's market share back from AMD, and put AMD back in it's place...:eek: ;)
Click to expand...


umm i dont know about that..... I cant put much stock in an article written by an "author" with a yahoo e-mail address
 
JackPack said:
To understand these price cuts, you first have to understand that a $3 billion fab costs around $2 million per day (if not more) in depreciation costs. If that fab is underloaded, the operator will pay dearly for it.
Click to expand...

Let's use those numbers then. At 50% utilization and a quick downsize, $90million per quarter. Maybe $10 difference in ASP? I can't tell which is worse. Though, you're probably right. They'd need to drop prices until they couldn't drop them any further.

JackPack said:
Right now, AMD has two megafabs and one foundry (Chartered) producing processors. By the end of 2007, Fab 38 will also ramp. AMD ordered all this capacity hoping to reach 30% MSS at any cost. Combined with Intel's capacity, this means excess capacity for 2007 and 2008.
Click to expand...

...and 2006. Right, this price war exists because supply exceeded demand and will continue until demand grows or supply is curbed. As a rule, the foundry would go first.

JackPack said:
With excess capacity and inferior products, AMD has no choice but to pull the price lever because razor thin margins are better than underutilization charges. Even though Intel has better products, they have to follow suit because people look at price/performance. Who's going to win this price war? Well, let's just say you can't win by having low margins and inferior products at the same time.
Click to expand...

I don't think the question is to whether AMD would get a rump-humping or whether they would drop their prices.

Intel's been waging this price war entirely with Netburst stuff so far. And the reason, again, is because of supply. But, Core 2's market penetration is having an even bigger impact. Look at the difference between Q3,Q4 '06 and Q1 '07. Hector's recent claim of distribution problems implies OEMs switched up on AMD sometime during Q1, probably for E4300s and E6300s despite AMD's latest price drops. Next month, E4300 will be going for $113, dropping into the netburst slot. AMD can't expect to sell their 4200+ for that price and retain market share.

Intel's better name-brand recognition summed up in capacity, historical performance, and reputation means that for equivalent performance, AMD must charge less. AMD's top mainstream OEM chip is the 5000+. I don't think they can supply enough of these to compete against Intel's Alledales.

The thing is Intel's inventory decreased in Q4. It might not decrease as quickly during the this and next quarter because of the traditionally lowered demand. Still, they're converting to C2Q which will curb supply a little. So, what's with these rumored Q3 prices? Ed Stroligo must be right if these prices are right. I think he's wrong because I truly believe Intel is out to make money, not to maim AMD; money be damned. Isn't this excessive overkill? Why lose money without further gain? It doesn't make sense. And again, same bin, one 3.0GHz C2D for a quarter the price of two 2.93 C2Ds. Never happened before.

Now, I see a lot of "I would upgrade/buy at those prices" posts. Right! I would, too. Well, not really, because I'm waiting for 45nm mobiles(15w chips would be easier on my thighs, and I do want a few more kids). Face it, upgraders aren't a big part of the market. For buyers, the best price is the one closest to $0.00. Maybe whoever deduced these price charts also infused them with a bit of wishful thinking.

Projecting one's wishes on someone's guesses to a corporation's roadmap doesn't seem a reasonable thing to do, though:p
 
Why is $266 for a 3Ghz Core 2 so astonishing? It's probably just a re-branded E6600 turned up to 333MHz, which can easily be accomplished with a voltage decrease.

The only reason I can see not to do it is that people who bought E6800's for $900 will feel more stupid than they already should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top