why 4800 still very expensive?

[jimgeagea]

it is well know that the amd 4800 is 2*4000 cores wich corresponds to the price of 2*380$ = 760$
so the price of the 4800 should be between 750 and 800$, why is this huge price given by amd: 900$

if you see the prices of 4200 it is almost same price of 2*3500
4400 2*3700
4600 2*3800

the 4800 price is not logical at all, why is it so? and do u expect a soon price drop?

 

[dgb]

Probably because supply is extremely limited?

Your logic would make sense if to create a dual core processor, all you did was bolt two single cores together. This is not what happens, so your logic is not applicable.

EDIT: To elaborate on this, let's take a hypothetical example.

Every wafer can produce 32 cores, ie. 32 single core processors, or 16 dual core processors. Now lets assume that there is a failure rate of 50% - ie. 50% of cores don't work. Let's also assume that each core costs $100 to produce, no matter if it works or not, so the wafer costs $3200.

Using basic probabilities, the expected return of single core processors is 0.5x32 = 16 processors. So to break even they have to charge $200/processor, or $200/core.

The expected return of dual core processors is 0.5x16x0.5 = 4 processors. So to break even they have to charge $800/processor, or $400/core.


Now as the failure rate of cores approaches zero, the prices should converge to being equal amounts per core (ie p(dual core)=2p(single core).

Example 2.

Every wafer can produce 32 cores, ie. 32 single core processors, or 16 dual core processors. Now lets assume that there is a failure rate of 25%% - ie. 25% of cores don't work. Let's also assume that each core costs $100 to produce, no matter if it works or not, so the wafer costs $3200.

Using basic probabilities, the expected return of single core processors is 0.75x32 = 24 processors. So to break even they have to charge $133.33/processor or $133.33/core.

The expected return of dual core processors is 0.75x16x0.75 = 9 processors. So to break even they have to charge $355.55/processor or $177.78/core.

As you can see, because the failure rate is still greater than zero the dual core costs more/core than single core, but less than when the failure rate was 0.5.

Now this is highly abstracted - it doesn't take into account overheads, by products from dual core chips that only have one core working, marketing et al. This is not meant to explain pricing, indeed the "second core" on dual core processors can often be cheaper than a second single core, it is just to provide a basic idea why it can be more costly to produce a dual core processor than it can be to produce two single core processors.

 

[lithium726]

because its the flagship model. companies always charge more for their flagship model.

 

[Elimi'Xed]

beacuse amds the only player atm when it comes to dual core, hell even the 3800+ AMD Dual core beats out intels best uber 1000$ dual core chip. So no competion, low supply, high demand, high prices

//Elimi'Xed