Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs because of poor AMD performance

Intel has recently adjusted its product strategy and will postpone three 45nm quad-core CPUs that were originally scheduled to launch in January next year, according to sources at motherboard makers.

Intel has already notified its partners that it will push back the launch of the three CPUs to February or March next year, depending on AMD's schedule for triple-core and the upcoming Phenom CPUs.

Launching the CPUs now will not benefit Intel much in its battle with AMD, while they could cause damage to Intel's 65nm quad-core CPUs, therefore the company has decided it is in no rush to release new products until AMD is able to present more of a threat.

The three CPUs that Intel plans to delay are the Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550, added the sources.

Intel commented that its launch of 45nm quad-core CPUs for desktops is on track for first quarter 2008, but declined to disclose a specific time-frame.

[davez82]

wow so sad, long live AMD

[DARKKNIGHT]

this is why monopolies are bad for any market.

intel is in a position to charge whatever they practically want now.

amd needs to get out of this hole it sinks itself deeper into everyday.

[INehalemEXI]

Im not upgrading my cpu anytime soon anyway.

[Bladestar]

Freaken AMD.. you see what you did? I don't get it... I've being hoping that AMD takes over intels market... but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOo... they can be very close.. and then fall flat 5 years...

[gta_cb]

AMD have been better then Intel for a looong time, its only since the Core 2 Duo was released that AMD have suffered, just give them a chance to get back on their feet, i for one have always been an AMD fan but built an Intel Core 2 Duo system, i would like for AMD to be the best then i can upgrade to Intel Quad core then go AMD when they are cheaper :) either way heres to AMD becoming the best again :)

[solar]

my question is since when did "more of a threat" = "poor performance" from a company?

[Lumbo]

simple logic, if they say its NO threat at all right now, cause AMD's cpu simply can't keep up with Intels performance since CoreDuo. Hence the POOR performance of AMD compared to Intels up to date chips might give Intel more time to earn cash with the "old" CoreDuo that is cheap to produce and still better than anything AMD has to offer right now, and once AMD seems to get closer to that performance they simply release the next gen, again making the AMD cpu the low performance choice.

[solar]

i guess i dont agree with the choice of words "poor performance". more like "inability to produce chips to rival competitors". thats more logical to me. but hey thx lumbo :D

[GodsHand]

AMD has let me down twice already. No need for the third time the charm, I dont care about using less power when idel. Just give me preformance, like Intel does.

[gta_cb]

the bad thing for us is that now they can just carry on selling the Core 2 Duo (which are good) and a highish price (anyone want a E6600?) and then when AMD release their new CPUs they can just reduce the price of the Core 2 Duo and bring their new CPUs out.

[GIJeff]

am still happy with my FX-62. OCed it to 3.2Ghz on air without a hickup. idle mid 30's, dont get above 40. Screw intel. im not going to pay 1,000 bucks for 20% performance. Especially when i can use that money to get a better video card that will make a much bigger difference.

AMD AM2 fx-62 @ 3.2Ghz
2GB OCZ Reaper 6400 @ 840mhz
7950GX2

[WilliamRLBaker]

we all know its another reason...come on what type of tatic is that?
We feel that at this time our competitor brings not enough of a threat to us, so we will hold off on using our ultimate weapon that could end the war....ok....

[jorellpogi]

AMD must not die. We need AMD to keep the CPU market competitive. Which in the end will benefit the consumers.

[bootsielon]

Intel should simply release those 45nm quad cores at an insane price so that only enthusiasts buy it. That way everyone wins.

[Samer305]

AMD used to be so much better. I was always with intel but AMD usually had something to fight back with but now AMD is just sitting there.

[Iceman100x]

Lol what the hell do they mean poor amd performance? Even if it was true they still far more advance then intel's weak cpu's by far, and way cheaper as well.

[Kakkoii]

I didn't choose the title. The creator of the story did.

What they mean is, AMD's poor performance in producing a chip that would be competing with there's. That's why he said Poor.

[Tyrael]

Like I said before, it's always back and forth between these two companies. I don't think there's a more important war on the market than the one that Intel/AMD and Nvidia/ATI fight, because their competition leads to our bottom line benefit. AMD-ATI will bounce back, just give it time...