- Status
If you think AMD and Giga are at odds... you have been pawned. Looks like an artificial marital strife between the two to hype up the fact that you can unlock. I'm sure both will make more sales at the end of the day. Nice try... I don't believe it.
jimmysmitty
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2007
- 551
- 0
- 19,010
Lets look at this logically:
AMD sets core to be locked and sells at lower price than equivalent quad.
If people wnat quad they pay more.
AMD makes more money
Instead of:
People want a quad they buy tri core
Unlock tri core to quad (if they are lucky)
AMD makes less money.
So to recap: AMD would prefer to make more money than less. Makes sense. And I bet Gigabyte will lose this one.
Money, ita makea da world go round.
AMD sets core to be locked and sells at lower price than equivalent quad.
If people wnat quad they pay more.
AMD makes more money
Instead of:
People want a quad they buy tri core
Unlock tri core to quad (if they are lucky)
AMD makes less money.
So to recap: AMD would prefer to make more money than less. Makes sense. And I bet Gigabyte will lose this one.
Money, ita makea da world go round.
[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]scenario:AMD produces 500,000 chips, 25,000 are scrapped for errors that make them unusable, 75,000 are good for 2 cores, 100,000 are good for 3 cores and 300,000 are good for all 4 cores. The market demand for chips is 300,000 2 core chips, 150,000 3 core and 25,000 4 core chips. The problem here is that AMD has too many fully functioning chips, and it has to find a solution. If it lowers the price of 4 core chips to get more demand for those chips, it loses the margin that they need to stay in business, and those lower prices on 4 core chips will require that 3 and 2 core chips also be lower priced and AMD loses alot of money and Intel becoms a de facto monopoly. If it disables working cores to meet the demand for 3 and 2 core chips, it loses the margin that it would never have gotten by not selling it as a higher priced 4 core chip, but it meets all the demands for it's chips if it does so, thus keeping market share, and getting every last penny they can from the batch of processors manufactured, and this is the solution AMD has taken. Lower prices for things creates a higher demand for those items. A 2 core chip that can be turned into a 4 core chip can convince someone who would have paid for the 4 core chip to decide to roll the dice and try a 2 core chip turned into a 4 core chip, thus AMD loses the margin they need from 4 core chip sales. Instead of getting the above demand numbers, the new demand numbers become closer to 305,000 2 core chips, 160,000 3 core and 10,000 4 core chips netting 15,000 fewer big ticket sales and more of the less lucrative low ticket sales for a chip that actually would have passed a 4 core test. Thus, they find a way to stop the bleed and return demand to the more lucrative numbers.[/citation]
Someone else gets it. Not to mention, this also simplifies and in turn reduces overhead and manufacturing costs when they can reap the benefits of multiple products/SKUs off of only one manufacturing line! Either way, it is a win-win situation for AMD, they earn back what would otherwise be scrap!
Someone else gets it. Not to mention, this also simplifies and in turn reduces overhead and manufacturing costs when they can reap the benefits of multiple products/SKUs off of only one manufacturing line! Either way, it is a win-win situation for AMD, they earn back what would otherwise be scrap!
have a friend that is a amd sales rep told me its more cost efficient to make all chips quads then to make a number of each he saids it cost more to make a 2 core die and 3 core and then four so by makeing all chips quads they save money the fact that some quad cores r locked to 2 or 3 cores does not mean that the chip it self is bad its just there way of keeping up with the demands for core 2 and 3 and saveign money doing so
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
Facebook
Twitter