Ok so let's look at this timeline. >Intel has 8 Core

>>61500131
if they could charge you 4000 for a 40 bucks item, they would.

>>61500131
only the 10c i7-6950X was that much.
the 8c i7-6900 was at a comparatively "affordable" $1100.

>>61500227
Whatever nigga, you get the point.

>>61500131
You charge what the market allows.
All big enterprise have bean counters collecting data to guess the optimal price for their product.

No competition means higher prices because of elevated demand with no "viable' alternatives

It also leads to laziness in development

Those two statements are a Résumé of why Intel got BTFO'd
1 high end cpu is probably around 100 bucks a piece, add the ihs/pcb/pins... you're around 200, now if they were in fact doing research, you would factor in the research costs, but we're talking about Intel here.

So an intel chip, with everything factored in, approaches the 150$ mark, now let's say you are the sole driving force of the market, and you are selling garbage, and your competitor hasn't released shit in more than 5 years, just polish the turd a little and upsell it for 12x the cost!

>>61500346
Intel spends more on R&D than AMD and Nvidia combined, the issue is that instead of researching a new they invest in retarded tech that fails and push Core to its absolute limits.

>>61500644
They spent it all on insane buyouts of other companies. They also have to fund their own fabs since they won't share them. X86 chip pricing is outrageous in general though, high end arm SoCs sell for $100 or less while a comparable low end mobile i3 is $300 or so. Even AMD epyc is extremely overpriced, each of the 4 dies are worth about $50 and maybe another $50 for the interposer. While there's many R&D costs to cover prices are detached from actual costs due to the x86 duopoly, the 32 core 2p epyc is $4000 while 48 core arm server CPUs sell for $1400 or so while likely being more costly to manufacture.

they have outrageous profit not only on the server market (and now hopefully not anymore) but also on the notebook market. half the price of your shitlaptop is for the shitty i3/i5 u series cpu inside

File: 1499995049663.jpg (18KB, 538x307px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 538x307px

>>61500644
Another misconception. The R&D is not for processors, its for Intel's half assed never succesful projects across the world. They got lazy on the semiconductor side of things.
t. Intel engineer

>>61502136
>high end arm SoCs sell for $100 or less
Of course, they are weak.

So what? They're allowed to make as much money as they want, free market at work, just because you're jealous and unsuccessful doesn't mean other should be the same!

File: mc04m4mdda4z.jpg (63KB, 784x558px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 784x558px

>>61500131
pls

>>61500131
Is Intel copying Nvidia or is Nvidia copying Intel?

>>61500131
They have their own fabs. They probably make up to 70% profit of each chipsets they sells plus close relationships ad contacts with oems.

>>61503283
What have they actually made? All I can think of:
SSDs
3d Xpoint
That Phi thing

>>61504089
Yes, let's blame capitalism for everything like the shallow contrarian you are.

The entire problem with x86 market is there's exactly two companies who can make those chips: Intel and AMD. Obviously, AMD fucked up with Bulldozer and Intel achieved near monopoly due to lack of competition. Since most of the supply was controlled by Intel and demand remained mostly the same, Intel could dictate prices. If there was proper competition in the x86 market (i.e. more than two companies), there would be constant pressure even if one of the companies would fail to deliver.
The reason there's no competition is because it's impossible to enter the x86 market. Even if a new company were to somehow bridge the gap of decades of experience that Intel and AMD acquired, there's still a large barrier: patents. Virtually every modern piece of x86 is patented by either AMD or Intel and they cross license between each other (because each company holds an important part that's necessary for a fully working x86_64 chip). There's no way they'd let another competitor enter the market and they can effectively restrict that with patents.
As you should well know, patents are government-mandated monopolies. So no, it's not the capitalism or the free market that's at fault. It's the state that prevents competition by artificially restricting the use of ideas and technologies.

>>61504063
fuck off kike