$75 Core 2 Duo revealed

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

lawl ... lawls, lawlocaust

[Nestersan]

Stale bulla > [I.R.A]_FBI jokes

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Nestersan < [I.R.A]_FBI toenail

[ProdMaster]

Excellent news!! Intel for life...

[Skillachi]

i think intel is personally taking losses to catch up to amds almost perfect 65nm procces and offering low cost cpus which they make little or no profit at all on amd on the other hand im quite positive could drop their chips lower n still make profit....... but this is only speculation

Just to correct your information, Intel in fact is making a profit, and not losses. You made a bad assumption because you thought the reason why intel costs more money is because their production process is very expensive. But in some ways intel's production process costs even less than amd's (will post link later). The reason why intel used to cost more money was because simply put, they were robbing us all.

However if you check the news posted on Macworld http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04...ofit/index.php

Intel posted a profit of $1.6 billion for the first quarter, a rise of 19 percent over that quarter last year, thanks to reduced personnel costs after recent layoffs and a $300 million tax reversal, the company said Tuesday.

However you may realize that intel made less revenue. Now to show you the difference, profit is what is made from all the processors intel has sold since the year beginning January(or february) 2007 (whichever is the first quarter). Now revenue on the other hand is the amount of money made from processors they have been selling for years, which means that all the stores that still have PIVs and D's in their store rooms which they have forgotten about and are not even stocking, are also adding to intel's revenue loss. So if intel wants to report revenue gains they would have to somehow manage to sell off all of those. Also external projects also add to revenue losses


In other news, good move intel. Nice cheap processor that people can experiment with now