Intel delaying, jacking the price of quad-core QX9770 CPU?

Ready for more rumors of processor delays? This time, it's Intel (not AMD) in the spotlight according to DigiTimes' sources at Taiwan motherboard makers. Intel is said to be delaying volume shipments of their quad-core QX9770 CPU for high-end desktops until February or March instead of January as earlier believed. Worse yet, the proc is now rumored to cost $1,399 (in 1,000 unit quantities) when it ships -- not $1,200 as thought back in November. Hey Intel, if this move has anything to do with an intent to monopolize the market in lieu of AMD's inability to compete then let us remind you of something -- the EU and a certain Attorney General are watching you.

[Bill @ Jan 16th 2008 9:28AM]

Eeeeerm how exactly increasing the price and delaying shipment helps them monopolise the market?

It is not Intel's fault that AMD cannot compete at the moment Intel is simply taking advantage of the situation to maximise profit which is what any and every company would do at similar situations.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 16th 2008 10:16AM]

I don't remember a time when AMD truly did compete with Intel.
AMD does offer a cheaper product which every now and then managed to outperform the Intel equivalent (Athlon Vs. the Pentium 3; Duron vs. Celeron) but AMD has lagged behind Intel mostly because of Intel's aggressive marketing strategies.

Lay computer buyers have no idea what the hell an "AMD" is, but they do know they've seen Intel Inside stickers everywhere. Or, perhaps they've seen the Pentium 4 commercials.

Nowadays, Intel is beating the hell out of all other processor manufaturers - they basically have no real compeition anymore. They've got multiple markets of proccessors and you'd need a damn benchmark performance chart just to know which CPU does what.

[Johan S @ Jan 16th 2008 10:17AM]

I am not sure what Thomas' angle is. Maybe making more profit means they will have more money to invest in future processor factories and design.. which would make it harder for a competitor? I doubt this is a problem though because if AMD had good ideas for processors they would be able to get investors to build the factories needed. The other scenario is that Intel jacks up the prices now so that they can have enough money to sell processors at a loss in the future with the purpose of preventing a competitor from arising. This would get found out easily though.

[Andrew @ Jan 16th 2008 10:23AM]

Price fixing is considered monopolistic behavior. If you aren't a monopoly, you can't artificially set a price. If you went to the grocery store to buy an apple and the apples were $100, you'd be like ZoMG!&WTF@!!!1!! and go shop somewhere else. But with microprocessors, you have an oligopoly with only two major players, which is turning into a monopoly quickly as of late, which means you can't exactly shop somewhere else, can ya?

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Jan 16th 2008 12:10PM]

@Andrew

You sure can shop somewhere else: single core CPUs, dual core CPUs, etc.

When you go to the store to buy an apple and it costs $2800... then you say WTF do I need a quad core for when there's plenty of cheaper apples!

[Spyvie @ Jan 16th 2008 12:20PM]

What would be the proper pricing strategy if Intel and others wanted AMD to survive?

[Mark @ Jan 16th 2008 9:18PM]

Aaaaand thus it begins. Welcome children, to the days of the Pentium III.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 16th 2008 9:33AM]

I hate their naming strategy because to the lay computer shopper its ridiculously confusing - they'd end up buying on price rather than performance.

[Jon @ Jan 16th 2008 9:39AM]

Does anyone know what site this benchmark chart came from?

[fh @ Jan 16th 2008 9:42AM]

Watermark on the bottom points to HotHardware. From there you should be able to find the article.

[Jon @ Jan 16th 2008 9:45AM]

Thanks! Wasn't familiar with the watermark, thanks again!

[asphixiated @ Jan 16th 2008 9:45AM]

And it begins...

[szamot @ Jan 16th 2008 9:49AM]

I love these useless tests, Vista running with 2gb and in 800x600 do they even make monitors capable of displaying that crap, other than the ATM terminals. Wow, what achievement.

[Zeus.:God @ Jan 16th 2008 10:00AM]

They have everything set so low, because they are testing the CPU. When you turn the graphics up, that is a more GPU intensive issue. When it is low, most of the processing is done exclusively by the CPU.

That being said, don't try to judge things you don't understand. Maybe you should do some research before you post?

[Motoken @ Jan 16th 2008 3:06PM]

@ Zeus, thanks for that bit of info, didn't know that.

[System48 @ Jan 16th 2008 9:52AM]

This delay has been rumored about for a little over a month now, not what I would call breaking news. It's always Digitimes reporting and it's always coming from Taiwan mobo makers. On top of this it's basically been confirmed by Intel, they backed off the Jan date and started saying Q1 '08. Could care less about the delay since I'm waiting on the P45 chipset for the next build I'm doing.

[System48 @ Jan 16th 2008 9:54AM]

Low-res test like that are meant to show the performance of the CPU, if they upped the res to 1920*1200 the GPU would start hindering performance.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 16th 2008 10:18AM]

I'm suprised there isn't a label on PC's that says "CRYSIS CERTIFIED"

If I saw a label on a machine that said that, and I knew instantly that this CPU and RAM combination could play Crysis, that would be all the buying guide I would need before spending my money on it.

[kii @ Jan 16th 2008 10:05AM]

@szamot
These are CPUs performance tests, usually at the games lowest resolution and detail settings to prevent the graphics cards become bottleneck, thus leaving CPUs the only significant factor (similar to 3Dmark CPU software rendering test)

[Generic @ Jan 16th 2008 10:13AM]

well the plunging stock market shares of intel are a factor guys, it is a world wide thing, prices are increasing in general and this is a domino effect...

[Bill @ Jan 16th 2008 10:39AM]

Oh and just a bit of a a-hole/uptight comment, in lieu means instead of which in the used sentence makes no sense whatsoever....

[Fruition @ Jan 16th 2008 11:01AM]

Hey, don't try and steal my job!

I'm watching you. o_O

[Fruition @ Jan 16th 2008 10:26AM]

GRAMMAR AND WORD USAGE NAZI IS HERE!

"Hey Intel, if this move has anything to do with an intent to monopolize the market in lieu of AMD's inability to compete..."

"lieu" means "instead". I don't know how that fits into your sentence, which suggests that Intel is acting in response to another event. Therefore, you're probably looking for something along the lines of "in light of".

GRAMMAR NAZI AWAY!
*Pulls out a grappling gun and shoots it into the air, flying off camera*

[szamot @ Jan 16th 2008 10:45AM]

oh no I do understand the point of this test super fast ATM machines where all the work is being done just by the CPU to highlight its true power.... Yeah I get that. Why they would use a huge ass graphic card for the CPU test is another story - hell why not just run everything at 1x1 pixel to get even better results. I would like to see you guys run a game at 8x6, really I would.

I vote for Crysis Certified sticker too. We need more meaningless tests like this so we can all buy the best PC - based on a pie chart or a bar chart, it is kind of like buying "good" red wine because it scored 92 points. It is absolutely meaningless.

I can just see the geeks,
* look at my PC it scored 91.120450498908439013471047901 points on Crysis Scale
* is that the old or the new revised scale
* newly revised where you take the total score and turn into percentage for a more meaningful number you see
* wow dude, that must rock at 8x6
* yeah it just smokes - I am so glad I got this Crysis certified rig with 91.120450498908439013471047901 performance coefficient
* yeah I am getting one for my client but he is a lamer and only runs Office and IE so he only needs, 42.9878969678979 Crysis performance coefficient, what a miser
* man I am so 1337 I can read the bar charts and certified Crysis performance numbers are absolutely cool
* wow dude this game looks so choppy - you should run it at 8x6 like Crysis recommends man then you will get the most out of your CPU

and on and on and on and on..... until cows come home

[Zeus.:God @ Jan 16th 2008 11:09AM]

Are you seriously that fuckin' stupid? The graphics card is in there just because that was the setup they had at the time. You need a graphics card to view anything, so your point is moot.

[Zeus.:God @ Jan 16th 2008 11:11AM]

I forgot to mention, because apparently you don't understand. Crysis is a good stress test for the CPU, considering it is a CPU intensive game. To get more accurate results, they turn everything down, so that the video card isn't as much of an issue.

[Ian @ Jan 16th 2008 10:54AM]

By delaying some products Intel is being very clever. First they run down inventory of the older chipsets so it's pure profit and good business sense. Second they will get time to get up better yields of the newer processors and build an inventory for OEMs. Third Intel cannot be accused of taking advantage of AMD's weaknesses and flooding the market with newer better chipsets that could cause AMD to lose further market share.

[Arsenic0 @ Jan 16th 2008 3:26PM]

I agree..

But what is so bad about Intel "flooding" the market?
Its not like Intel made AMD Phenoms suck..

If your doing a 100M dash and the guy next to you falls your not going to slow down and wait for him...your going to keep sprinting to the end.

[Bill @ Jan 16th 2008 11:04AM]

Sorry fruition you show the way man and I follow did not mean to step on your toes lol

[Bill @ Jan 16th 2008 11:12AM]

Andrew, price fixing needs to involve two companies at least. So no price fixing going on here.

As far as competition goes it exists. Just because AMD makes an inferior product it does not mean they stop being competition. You have processors starting at 30$ all the way to 1500$ so however you see it you can still find a CPU to fit your budget.

In any case the point I was making is not if Intel is or is not a monopoly right now. I was only trying to understand how Thomas came to the conclusion that them delaying a product while increasing its price shows "an intent to monopolize the market" ...

[andy @ Jan 16th 2008 11:13AM]

I think this is what one would refer to as profit taking.

They're ahead in the market with superior product. They can charge whatever premium they like while they continue to sell their older products.

Anticompetitive behavior is not having a superior product at a superior price. It's when you sell a product at a loss to drive out competition, discourage distributors from picking up product from the competition, and prevent buyers from having access to competitor's products. Delaying your own product and charging more for it has nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. It just means you're that far ahead of the competition and can make some money.

[Abuzar @ Jan 16th 2008 2:43PM]

Man I really wish AMD would step it up so Intel can lower their prices.

[andy @ Jan 16th 2008 11:15AM]

actually, if this were an attempt to monopolize the market, Intel would be dropping the price on all of the core 2 stuff and selling this new quad core piece at cost in order to put AMD under. That's monopolizing the market; you're making yourself the only supplier.

[LondonConsultant @ Jan 16th 2008 11:44AM]

So, "intent to monopolize the market in lieu of AMD's inability to compete" should be "intent to exploit a market monopoly resulting from AMD's inability to compete"...

[James Cameron @ Jan 16th 2008 12:57PM]

Just get yourself a Q6600 for under $300 and OC it. The QX9770 isn't even worth the price.

[E. Baginska @ Jan 16th 2008 3:02PM]

What? Is engadget blind, deaf or dumb? Intel made 38 cents per share with profits up 51% and they slam the stock to a almost one year low because they should have made 2 cents more. Wall street is greedy and profit hungry. Wall street is not grateful intel is making money for them. It doesn't matter if you make $10 billion, they are going to hurt you. So what? You have to raise prices so wall street can get more greedy. At a height of $28, the stock has lost almost 30% of it's value in a month. Could you imagine if intel had a loss? You could probably buy it for 4 cents a share.

Pssss!!! By the way, AMD is up 12% today. Wall street keeps jacking up the price. But don't fall for it. That's why we're in the sub-prime mess in the first place.

[kal326 @ Jan 16th 2008 4:39PM]

Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over this? They jacked up the price of an already overpriced low volume chip. Its not like they tacked $199 onto the price of every chip. Besides if you can afford to blow $1200 on a status symbol chip you can afford to blow $1399. The other 99% of the market will continue to purchase the sub $500 reasonably priced product.

[turkletin @ Jan 16th 2008 9:16PM]

Would much rather see these CPU tests applied to something like video encoding rather than gaming or both. If there was a massive difference with xvid and x264 encoding over current CPU's, I'd definitely consider getting one.