Intel Core Duo Price Drops

[MacSA]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1545

The price of the 2.16GHz Core Duo will reportedly drop from $632 to $423, a reduction of about 33 percent. Meanwhile, the 2.0GHz model will drop in cost from $423 to $294 (30.5 percent), and the 1.83GHz model from $294 to $241 (18 percent).

So will Apple pass the price cuts on to consumers? (probaly a stupid quetion .. it's Apple lol) What about the core solo/duo in the Mini? .. the solo chip won't be that much cheaper than that dual 1.83?

 

[student_trap]

So will Apple pass the price cuts on to consumers? (probaly a stupid quetion .. it's Apple lol)

interesting, i doubt they will, which in a sense takes one of the benefits of the mactel switch away. They will probably stick to their prices, and slightly upgrade their processors when they can.

 

[MacSA]

can anyone remember the original prices of the entire chipset solo and duo?

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Apple rarely price drop, they normally add features and give it better specs.

 

[iGary]

I doubt it, especially with the iMacs already being so cheap.

Wonder how much Apple was paying for G5 chips.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

can anyone remember the original prices of the entire chipset solo and duo?

Core Duo
T2600 - 2.16 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $637
T2500 - 2 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $423
T2400 - 1.83 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $294
T2300 - 1.66 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $241

Low-voltage Core Duo
L2400 - 1.66 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $316
L2300 - 1.50 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $284

Core Solo
T1300 - 1.66 GHz, 667 MHz FSB - $209

 

[macEfan]

i doubt they would but it would still be nice....

 

[MacSA]

Interesting...so maybe the dual core mini could be bumped up to a 1.83? Where are Apple getting a 1.5 Core Solo from? Is it just an underclocked 1.66?

 

[livingfortoday]

They probably won't as they no doubt have already bought large supplies at old prices to make all the computers they have on hand. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw other changes down the line, though, like bigger hard drives, or standard superdrives on Mini's for the same price.

 

[livingfortoday]

Interesting...so maybe the dual core mini could be bumped up to a 1.83? Where are Apple getting a 1.5 Core Solo from? Is it just an underclocked 1.66?

I don't know how accurate this is, but someone had previously said on this forum that the 1.5's were dual-cores with a faulty core that had been clocked down. Again, I don't know how accurate that is, though from Intel's perspective, they could save a lot of money by being able to reuse faulty products like that. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

 

[bah-bah'd]

That is quite common to make Budget processors using the same parts as the non-budget processors.

Sempron 64 = Athlon 64 with less L2 cache, 800 bus limit (exact same .90 nm core)
and I swear:
Celeron D = Pent 4 D with no HT and less L2...

Oh, and more than those Core Duo processors have seen that 33% drop in cost, try most everything (we would buy...) =D Interestingly enough, it is not cheaper machines that comeout from Apple, etc. The manufacturers put whatever chip they can get at the same price, new machine coming out do have higher processer Mhz speck...

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'd expect Apple to bump up to the new 2.33 Core Duo at the high end, and leave the retail price the same. They could apparently now sell a budget-priced mini in the $400-500 range, but this would necessitate introducing a third model, which seems unlikely.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

I don't know how accurate this is, but someone had previously said on this forum that the 1.5's were dual-cores with a faulty core that had been clocked down. Again, I don't know how accurate that is, though from Intel's perspective, they could save a lot of money by being able to reuse faulty products like that. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

It's more likely its an under-clocked 1.66Ghz Core Solo. Damaging a dual core and then under-clocking it would be more expensive.

 

[moot]

Price drops from Apple - Yeah and they are going to release new MacBooks tomorow as well

Actually, who knows what Apple were charged for these chips in the first place. I bet they weren't paying those prices! The price they pay for the chips might not drop at all or if they do, then not by as large an ammount.
(I would think)

 

[joeconvert]

I doubt it, especially with the iMacs already being so cheap.

Wonder how much Apple was paying for G5 chips.

Around $100 or $120 can't remember what I read, but their was large expense in designing the rest of the motherboard controllers and such. With Intel they gainined the advantage of a well supported reference design and a number of vendors (including Intel) that already made the interconnects. Apple traded per CPU cost advantage for lower I/O chios and design costs.

 

[mchendricks]

I don't know how accurate this is, but someone had previously said on this forum that the 1.5's were dual-cores with a faulty core that had been clocked down. Again, I don't know how accurate that is, though from Intel's perspective, they could save a lot of money by being able to reuse faulty products like that. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

It could be like the old days of the 386 DX and SX processors. They were the same chip EXCEPT INTEL cut the pin that enabled the math coprocessor on the DX version.

Mike