wbmw, I think not -
Klaus, I see your point, but originally, we were not discussing business models; rather, we were discussing the cost to produce a CPU. See the difference?
The discussion came up with the assertion that Intel could lower their ASPs to starve out AMD, and still not violate Sherman, because they would still make a profit. I think marketing costs count towards making a profit.
In terms of this thread, you have to consider the fully burdened cost of producing the product. It was interesting seeing several Intel boosters try to twist the argument into a pure manufacturing argument, but it really missed the whole point.
Which is, AMD can sell their processors at a lower break-even that Intel by a considerable amount for both to be profitable.
drjohn - your argument that:
Here is a simple concept how come your so called low cost producer keeps losing money quater after quater, obviously thier cost's are not low enough for them to make a profit that's something you can take to the bank and can't b.s. your way out of.
is truly bizzare. It is not contested by anyone here that AMD has been selling product at a price too low to make a profit. The entire thread tries to calculate how much AMD would have to raise prices, and Intel lower prices, for them both to be at break-even assuming constant sales volume and not including any side businesses.
I think that the obvious is now shown to be true - the fully burdened CPU cost for Intel is way higher than AMD. Thus, Intel could not lower their price to be below AMD without violating anti-trust law.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
