Atom processor to cost Intel just $6 to $8?

Ever since Intel compared the criticality of its (still) forthcoming Silverthorne (which now goes by Atom, if you couldn't guess) processor to the original Pentium last June, we've all wondered just how fantasmical our worlds would become when this thing finally dropped. Now, however, Tom's Hardware has discovered that the release may actually do more for Intel than we geeks. After consulting a source it believes to be quite credible, it found that the CPU -- which will likely sell for upwards of $30 at the low-end -- will cost Intel just "$6 to $8, including production, packaging and shipping." Without busting out the abacus, it's still fairly easy to see how profitable said chips could be if Intel can move these at even a snail's pace, but of course, we'd take the dollars and cents estimates with a grain of salt until they actually hit the market.

[Via Digg]

[carbonrain @ Mar 30th 2008 5:51AM]

woot

[Liam @ Mar 30th 2008 6:36AM]

At least you didn't say "first:.

[Nathan @ Mar 30th 2008 5:55AM]

This can only mean one thing:

Wallet draaaainage! Drained dry! I'm so sorry.

[Raymond @ Mar 30th 2008 8:25AM]

I wish they'd stick one of these onto new Windows Mobile smartphones. My phone goes really slow on all but the most basic apps.

[rechnen @ Mar 30th 2008 1:21PM]

I drink your wallet! I drink it up!

[Chuckles McGee @ Mar 30th 2008 2:44PM]

@Nathan

Sorry, don't see how a $30 chip breaks the bank.

[Deputy Doffoos @ Mar 30th 2008 9:16PM]

@Chuckles McGyver

like they were going to charge you only $30


they have only profits in their eyes

[jason @ Mar 30th 2008 5:58AM]

This article is savagely biased towards stupid people who can't think for themselves because most of the costs for any technology come from research and development. Chips don't appear out of thin air to be made and sold. You guys as a technology blog of all things should know. Why does crap get delayed?? not cause the magical bunny of technology is late in dropping it off, it's cause research and development is taking longer than usual. Paying MIT grads to figure crap out ain't cheap.

[ErikLindemann @ Mar 30th 2008 6:28AM]

That's a common problem I have with technology blogs. I've just had to learn to deal with it.

[Mobius_1 @ Mar 30th 2008 7:39AM]

Which kind of explains why "KIRF" products are usually cheaper than their original counterparts

[hypereric @ Mar 30th 2008 8:29AM]

@jason:

bravo... nail, head!

Now if only people would apply the same logic to the proverbial "$600 airforce toilet seat" (have to be rated for so many g's, a certain size, the construction of an assembly line, etc... all amoritized over each seat's purchase) or the cost of medicine (small-hit-and-way-large-miss R&D, insurance, lawyers for the regulator's red-tape, etc), perhaps we can start to make a dent in the "conventional wisdom" that is so irrational.

[Ping Wang @ Mar 30th 2008 10:53AM]

China: Release the Bunnies!!

[Aguiluz @ Mar 30th 2008 11:03AM]

"bravo... nail, head!"

ARGH! A nail is driven through my brain...

*dies*

(But hey! Make the chips cheap!)

[YoJIMbo @ Mar 30th 2008 2:34PM]

Jason, seriously, don't piss off the Bunny... it's:


"The Magical Bunny of Technology" or "MBoT" as he likes to go by... We'll just see what he drops off for YOU after this serious offense...

[Johan S @ Mar 30th 2008 4:21PM]

This is not true. Most costs to a company don't come from R&D usually. You can look at public company like intel's earnings results and see how much is going to R&D, and how much their profits are .. what their profit margin is.

http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:INTC

What I' m seeing is last quarter out of the 10 billion in revenue 1.5 bil went into R&D (about the same amount as marketing), but about 4 bil in manufacturing relatyed (aka costof revenue), ... profit was (before taxes) 3 billion.

[hypereric @ Mar 30th 2008 5:31PM]

Unless I am looking at this wrong (which is totally possible), their net income (after taxes) was 1.5 billion. This boils down from a rounded-up 10 billion in total revenue (both of these are the latest quarter). About 15% net, which considering their near-stranglehold on PC makers, seems a little low to me.

Of course, if it was private, and I was the owner.... crap, I'd be happy operating at .0015% net off of 10 billion total a quarter.

"Ya hear me Intel employees? Buy back your stock and delist yourself, make me king and that I would take that 14.9985% ($666,733,340) and spread it around for all of you to enjoy (which works out to a quarterly bonus of $7,018 for each of you as long as *we* maintain the same reveneue and net!"

(and yes, I did all that number-crunching in my head, so some of it may be off... but hey, what's a billion here or there?)

[Cellenin @ Mar 30th 2008 7:56PM]

@ hypereric

Becareful when speaking about logic and rational thinking around these parts...people might mistake you for a republican ;).

[Liam @ Mar 30th 2008 6:35AM]

Of course, if AMD were pushing Intel a little more with their own 45nm process, then they might have to be a little more competitive. There's not much else out there that can get close to what these chips can do (in a small, low-power device). It seems like a reasonable price point, considering.

[Mark @ Mar 30th 2008 7:05AM]

omz0rz .. $8.00?!??!!111 Intel is RIPPING US OFF! WTF!!!!

[Alex @ Mar 30th 2008 7:41AM]

Since you are clearly joking, it has been deemed that you are allowed to live.

[pscs @ Mar 30th 2008 7:49AM]

Possible. But will this really make a statement in cheaper computer prices? And I'd like to see the EEEPC desktop use this chip.

[neal @ Mar 30th 2008 7:54AM]

all i can say is. . . CHEAP AS CHIPS!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA 0.0

[Cal @ Mar 30th 2008 8:09AM]

What a bobby dazzler of a comment

[americans_r_fascists @ Mar 30th 2008 8:35AM]

Up and ATOM!

[rockintom @ Mar 30th 2008 9:12AM]

At them :(

[The Dude @ Mar 30th 2008 1:07PM]

I personally prefer Radiation Dude's lamer catch phrase, "Up and let's go."

[Kevin @ Mar 30th 2008 8:47AM]

Yes, but the R&D cost them something

[luzzio @ Mar 30th 2008 10:42AM]

+managerial costs
+marketing costs

and those shareholders and their grimy hands

[pfromg @ Mar 30th 2008 8:51AM]

Atom "tm"

this is a joke right?
how can you trademark the word Atom ?

intels legal boys will have a field day when this is launched , barring everyone from using the word atom anywhere.

[Neebs @ Mar 30th 2008 9:48AM]

Democritus' claim ran out, what can you do?

[thethirdmoose @ Mar 30th 2008 10:50AM]

Actually, it just prevents you from using Atom where it might cause dilution or confusion with Intel's chip. So I can still call a lava lamp or something Atom, but AMD can't call its chip the Atom.

[Che @ Mar 30th 2008 12:25PM]

But Apple could call chips Atom, just like it issued a "Nano" MP3 player when there was already one of the same name on the market.

I know, the original Nano player wasn't a huge seller and the Intel Atom will be, so not even Apple could get away with it, but I'm still amused but the great big balls it took to issue a directly competing product using the same name the competitor was already using.

[Umang Saini @ Mar 30th 2008 9:32AM]

$6 to 8 is still expensive, not to mention $30. I'd still prefer ARM chips that do more with less :-)

[Za @ Mar 30th 2008 10:45PM]

Atom is cheap for a first-gen x86 processor for small electronics.

[danny tong @ Mar 30th 2008 9:36AM]

Well you have to think also that once Intel recups all the mmoney they spent on research, everything else IS pure profit. And they could build upon it with small tweaks and other things in the future that don't really cost that much in R&D and keep the price the same or higher, creating a monopoly at the low-end if someone like AMD doesn't come and make it a competitive market. We might be stuck with Atom chips for quite a while when they could have easily developed a Quark chip, just because there is no demand and no competition.

[T-Bone @ Mar 30th 2008 11:54AM]

They aren't just recouping R&D, they also have to spend money on departments to advertise and sell the chips, they won't sell themselves.

[danny tong @ Mar 30th 2008 9:37AM]

Well you have to think also that once Intel recups all the mmoney they spent on research, everything else IS pure profit. And they could build upon it with small tweaks and other things in the future that don't really cost that much in R&D and keep the price the same or higher, creating a monopoly at the low-end if someone like AMD doesn't come and make it a competitive market. We might be stuck with Atom chips for quite a while when they could have easily developed a Quark chip, just because there is no demand and no competition.

[YoYoYo @ Mar 30th 2008 9:51AM]

Who cares? This chip may very well simply die an unillustrious death out of the gate. The benchmarks are absolutely pitiful thus far. Can has coverage of performance?

[T-Bone @ Mar 30th 2008 11:55AM]

Somehow, I don't think these chips are going for all-out performance.

[YoYoYo @ Mar 30th 2008 12:31PM]

If the 1.6ghz Atom can't beat the Eee's initial 900mhz Celeron in basic benchmarks, and only barely rival a P3, it's hard to imagine it really turning heads or getting the order volume Intel's hoping for, either. $6-8/chip surely requires considerable volume.

http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/intel/2008/maerz/erster_benchmark_intels_silverthorne/

[Chris @ Mar 30th 2008 2:12PM]

these aren't performance chips, they are meant to provide an x86 alternative the ARM cpu's you find in pda's, smartphones, GPS device, PMP's, etc. right now if you small, cheap, and power efficient platform, ARM is the way to go, but Atom will change that

[YoYoYo @ Mar 31st 2008 8:37AM]

But it won't mean much if it struggles at Youtube - The markets are converging. I run the same apps, for the most part, on my N800 that I do on my home box. Likewise, if a new Eee struggles at teh youtubes, all is lost for Asus.

[teasphere @ Mar 30th 2008 10:08AM]

Sure, just like the great new Wolfdale CPUs which are faster, cooler, and supposedly cheaper... except for the fact that they are artificially rare as hen's teeth and cost double what they were supposed to.

How about not gouging us and put out some affordable cool gadgets? Y'know like how most businesses work except for technology.

[boe @ Mar 30th 2008 10:27AM]

That's nice - only thing is when will they be in stock (not when will they be relesed)?

Intel released several new 45nm chips in January - only no place has them in stock. Speculation is they have a problem with their new plant but others are saying Intel discovered problems with their new chips - either way you can't find those CPUs anywhere. Maybe they only plan on releasing them in quantity when AMD can make better CPUs - in the end we as the consumer get the shaft.

[MMaster23 @ Mar 30th 2008 10:28AM]

That's great .. however .. cpus hardly make up a mobile products budget/price-breakdown. Stuff like memory/storage/screens/wireless modules/batteries are the price stuff.

Motherboards, PCBs, LCs, regulators etc barely cost anything.

[rento @ Mar 30th 2008 1:04PM]

Atom for iPhone?

[Max Savin @ Mar 30th 2008 1:36PM]

If its $30 retail for customers, you also have to keep in mind that stores make about 30% profit, and that it costs to advertise the product among other promotions and sales, so its not like they get a 4-5x return.

[thedesolate1 @ Mar 30th 2008 1:39PM]

ummm last I remember VIA/ARM arm are competing against Intel in this segment. Unless I am mistaken we aren't going to have Intel mobile chip overlords. So everybody is safe from getting stuck with slow overpriced atom CPU's.

[Valgas @ Mar 30th 2008 1:42PM]

I just want to see this chip in an EEE style UMPC like the HP 2133, same sexy design, bigger screen and low price. someone can do it.

[Tony Rayo @ Mar 30th 2008 2:10PM]

Very cool to think of dual-core Intel processors coming to our handhelds and such. Of course I'm more into devices on chip (like the microprocessors made by Microchip), I think 32-bit ASM would implode my head.

Speaking of which, didn't some company claim to put the entire logical parts of the Dreamcast system onto a single chip? What ever happened to that?