Slashdot Mirror
Dell Still Intel Only
wyckedone writes "Dell Computers has no plans to offer the new dual-core AMD Opteron even though it has been proven that "Opteron's integrated memory controller and multiple Hypertransport interconnects help it outperform Intel's Xeon processor on many benchmarks, especially those that measure the performance of memory-intensive applications.". HP, IBM and Sun Microsystems have all announced that they are going to release servers based on the new AMD chip. Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does? Intel has no plans to release a dual-core Xeon until 2006."
who gives a crap what chip vendor they choose to use? the pc market isn't a monopoly.
If Dell had a monopoly on PC manufacture, this would surely be big news. As it is, they're a company who've weighed both sides of an idea, and made a business.
Remind me why I should care?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Dude! Youre not getting a dualcore!
FP
[sig]you really dont want the answers, trust me[/sig]
It's Dell. They use these rumors to get a better deal from Intel.
Or so I've heard.
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
1. AMD can't produce enough chips to satisfy Dell's demands
2. Intel has proven a reliable platform for Dell
3. Most end user's don't care
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
Because Dell looked at the numbers and determined that the exclusively-Intel price discount that Dell gets is more valuable than the potential revenue they'd get by offering AMD.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Intel is paper-launching it's "desktop" Dual Core CPUs today ($1000+ desktop CPUs... Mmmm..) Meanwhile, AMD has supplied IBM, HP, etc with Dual Core CPUs for their server lines, which you can order today and receive within a few weeks.
This generation goes to AMD, pure and simple. The Opterons are going to swallow the Intel systems in performance whole. Maybe even price in some configurations.
If Dell used AMD , they probably could offer sub-200 computers because of their purchase power.
No matter where you go , there you are.
This means more business for HP, IBM and Sun Microsystems (if of course Businesses in the market for servers choose AMD).
Dell has chosen to stick with Intel which isn't the worse choice. It means lost profits but it also means less support for two distinct chips.
It is up to the above three companies to prove to Dell (and Intel) that AMD is a viable alternative by speaking with their dollars and buying Opteron servers
-Teiresias
If Dell decided to use Intel and AMD processors, they would have to dedicate resources to another product line. It's likely that for all their different models, Dell has a very limited number of motherboards and other such pieces of hardware. If they were to adopt AMD, they would have to dedicate development and support resources to a whole other set of product lines. It's just not worth it. They have their designs that work, they have their production lines in place, and they have their customer service set up. Adding AMD just makes things doubly complicated and eats into their profit margins. There is a huge barrier to adoption that they are just not going to be able to justify, no matter what the "demand" seems to be. People think AMD boxes would be cheaper, but for Dell to support them, they would not be.
Didn't something like this happen with IBM?
The i386 chip came out, it was faster, but IBM decided not to move right away - after all, who needed all of that extra speed? The i286 was fine!
If memory serves me right, I believe that Compaq came out within seconds telling anyone who would listen that they had i386 processors now - and made it their policy to always support the latest and fastest chips.
I wonder if this will hurt Dell at all. Odds are, with the enterprise vendors, not too much - but all it takes is a little mistake to give your competitors a chance to catch up. And as slim as margins on PCs are, I'm not Dell can afford to slip up in a situation like this.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
But if you are buying a Dell PC then you probably do not care to horribly much about the microseconds that AMD can buy in you in comparison to the Intel chip.
Which isn't to say your 12 year old doesn't, but that is besides the point.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Perhaps Dell doesn't think consumers will purchase computers that don't have "the Intel Inside"®. It's not just about price/performance, but about eroding market share if they switch products and consumers don't "get it." And, as the article hints at, as long as Dell can whip Intel into price concessions by playing the "maybe we'll go with AMD" game, there's no real economic gain for Dell to switch to AMD.
Unless, that is, the consumer PC market sees a marked demand for AMD-based systems. Especially if a significant Dell competitor (is there one?) starts to meet that demand with AMD systems. I just don't see another consumer PC maker with the type of market share necessary to force Dell into that position.
Could it be that Dell's customers are not asking for AMD? Maybe performance isn't a big issue for checking your email and typing out that King Lear essay?
I think the disadvantage here is that Dell sometimes supplies companies with computers and they're the ones without a big choice. Home users tend to pick dell because it's the easy thing to do.
Dell has never offered AMD. Yet they have grown to be the largest PC company in the world. HP and Compaq can combine and Dell still outperforms them. IBM decides to sell off their PC division. Sun is fighting for its life.
I'm a big fan of AMD, but the "everybody else is doing it" argument has always been a stupid one. It is more stupid when "everybody else", even combined, have withered against the "not everybody else" competition.
Verily, I hear the propaganda spewing from the mouths of the less computer savvy: Somehow they've been brainwashed through the years, I assume by Intel's Blue Men.
"B-b-but, it's Pentium 4 EXTREME Edition with HT Technology!!1one"
"B-b-but, Intel's better for gaming!"
"B-b-but, If it's not Intel Inside(tm), then it's not worth a damn!"
"B-b-but, Is Windows XP even compatible with AMD?"
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Why is this news? Dell using AMD is just as possible as MS embracing Open Source methodologies and freely giving away all of their sourcecode.
Both are a possibility, but until either company is losing significant marketshare by staying the course they have traveled for so long... It won't happen.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
We used dell hardware (windows enviornment) for 2 years, and switched right back to HP.
The hard drives constantly crashed, raid never worked, and restoring from tape during production time was constant. Parts were never available, and the constant response from their help desk was "flash the bios" or "flash the firmware" when it pertained to nothing that was going on.
At one point they were just sending us new servers for free to fix the broken ones. Note: Those new ones then broke constantly as well.
I think there are plenty of other reasons to switch from dell than a lack of an AMD chip in a server.
(note: I do like dell workstations and home PCs and laptops... just not their servers)
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
TheInq on Intel Paper Launch
One thing you can all bet on. Dell does its numbers. If it didn't, it wouldn't be where it is now.
:)
:)
In the end it ALWAYS comes down to numbers. Intel probably gives Dell quite a discount for having Dell's exclusivety. Most corporate customers don't mind the performance difference, since they will never get fired for buying Intel... on the contrary, in the corporate / server world, Intel has a great reputation.
The press fanfare generated by such announcements probably is beneficial to Dell. Remember, (almost) any publicity is good publicity. Everyone that read this thread now remembered Dell exists
Don't worry, one day they probably will conclude its more profitable to also sell AMD - probably when AMD manages to give them a nice discount too
Dell Computers has no plans to offer the new dual-core AMD Opteron
Also in the news:
- Ford has no plans to offer the new Honda engine.
- Suse has no plans to offer the new SP2 patch.
- Cadbury's Roses has no plans to offer the new Quality Street fillings.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Any number of reasons come to mind, all pulled from my posterier based on what little I know about Dell's business model and relationship with Intel, but try any of these on:
It could be any combination of the above or something else entirely. Maybe Dell is just making a horrible business decision, but I'm guessing that they've run the numbers and decided that its in their best interests to stay the course. Decisions that seem to be perplexing to us almost boil down to money. Their financial analysts have convinced management that the company is best served this way.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Right or wrong, markets have inertia. If there isn't enough demand for AMD chips from Dells' huge corporate customers then it makes little business sense to expend effort on providing them. Unfortunately, the technology isn't the only factor here. When sufficient demand exists, expect Dell to get rather more keen on AMD products.
The other factor is AMD's manufacturing capacity. I imagine Dell would be wary about going for AMD if they had concerns about this.
Why not offer customers an alternative that has better performance instead of risking the lose of those customers to another vendor that does?
Why not allow a hugely successful company figure out what's best for it's customers rather than assuming that they would want to please an AMD fanboy.
It's a bit trollish, I know, but Dell isn't hurting. They're doing a great job, even without using AMD. Perhaps doubling the number of configurations would increase their stock on hand, and that would cost more money and cut down on profits. Perhaps it would add complexity to the orders, which might result in poorer customer service. Perhaps the number of customers on a given hardware platform would change, decreasing the amount of testing and QA they could perform per platform, resulting in a loss for customers and vendor alike.
Why not accept the fact that there is more than just a one line blurb, and that maybe Dell actually knows what they're doing...
...is still Indian only.
Not to be a pessimist, but I've dealt with Dell Tech Support 23 times this past year, every time with India, and I had only 2 positive experiences.
The company I work for has a lot of sales folks, who like to break laptops and all. So, I usually end up calling Dell for replacements (fulfill warranties and such) and guess what, I ALWAYS have to talk to Tech Support first. Every single time it's "reboot the machine". Come on! And good luck trying to let them know all you need is a replacement part, they just ask you a bevy of questions first and THEN transfer you when they can't understand you anymore.
They should just automate the damn tech support, it's pretty much the same effect. Those folks cannot understand you, and you end up either with a dropped line or worse, a transfer to another tech support person. BAH!
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
These announcements have shocked the geek community so bad that highly intelligent virgins all over the world are committing suicide.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Since when is Dell not using AMD news? It seems to me that "Dell still not using AMD" is a news article here about once per quarter. Let's just wait for them to actually use AMD, and then post that story. Hearing "nothing's changed" over and over again gets kinda.... boring.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Only on slashdot could someone proclaim "M O N O P O L Y BUIS-NESS!" and 3 sentences later say you can walk into a local retailer and purchase a cheap, customized version of this supposedly monopolized resource.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
check it out here
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
AMDs consume less power, and run much cooler.
I don't know how many people are thinking about the cost of infrastructure to host servers, but that is another reason to use AMD based systems.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
Kia still does not offer their cars with an engine made by BMW. Really, when has Dell ever done anything to sell computers that are actually better for any reason?
Who cares? Customers buy on a price/performance scale. If Dell doesn't meet there needs, they'll go somewhere else. Yes, brand names are important, but Dell isn't the only big gun out there - just the only one without AMD support.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
At a conference, Michael Dell spoke about this issue, indirectly. He argued that if Dell can satisfy most of the demand with a smaller number of parts, it will do that. I've heard other Dell managers speak and the magic number is usually 3 -- 3 graphics cards, 3 HD sizes, 3 speed levels, etc. Although Dell's factories are amazing in their ability to pump out customized PCs, each added part variant adds costs to the entire system.
Dell would rather lose a few percent of sales that drive the costs of the entire factory higher.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I run what I want, not what they want to sell me. e.g. an AMD64. ... the P4 I recently bought was because "facing reality" means using the same platform your customers will.
Personally the P4 bothers me. It takes a wack of power and it's so f'ing slow by comparison...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Well when you have a company that ships its own lame MP3 player instead of one people might actually want to buy (and I'm not even saying that would have to be an iPod!), then you realize that not all choices they make are really in thier long-term best interests - though Dell thinks they are I'm sure.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know that Intel will subsidize your advertising budget if you go all-Intel. I wonder how much of it is a matter of mindshare through advertising... get Intel to pay more of your marketing costs, you can cut margins on your servers.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
The odds of them not offering AMD chips hurting their business might as well not exist. The fact is Dell and Intel spend more on Advertising then most the other manufacturers combined. How many of you have seen AMD commercials? This is why AMD is SO much cheaper. They lack the marketing cost that Intel does. I doubt the Blue Man Group comes cheap.
As for Dell they have always thrown tons of money at Advertising and I would dare say more than most other PC manufacturers with maybe the exception of IBM, though they typically target more business users in the ads it seems. In the end stupid commercial get stupid people to buy stupid things. The smart ones know what they are doing and will buy the best performance for the price.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Can you imagine their Indian call center folk trying to even pronounce "AMD Opteron" ?
Its definately true that Dell gets cpus from Intel for cheap. Really cheap. Some of the systems listed on Dells page you look at and think "I couldn't build a system for this price myself". They just have a major discount. They also tend to get certain products first, and have them guaranteed.
This is also coupled with the fact that AMD doesn't have the customer recognition that Intel does. Dude I'm getting a Dell is followed by a man in a bunny suit. thats the way things are. On top of it one of AMDs strengths is the enthusiast market (which much of slashdot is). This market runs counter to dells market.
However where this decision doesn't make sense is in their server line. I doubt Intel gives dell a massive price break on Xeon chips (like they tend to with p4's), and I doubt Dell having Opteron chips would lose dell too much of the costs dealing with Intel, but I could be wrong. Basically with the performance of the Xeon relative to the opteron for servers the Opteron looks highly attrractive. From speed, memory performance, heat, and price standpoints. Not selling those chips seems crazy, but who knows. Maybe dell has something up their sleeves.
Phil
We have been using Dell for the last 8 years and my experience has been just to opposite. I have had a Dell field service tech fly in at midnight with parts in hand to help fix a bad Array Enclosure. I have also had their tech support guys stay on the phone and help rebuild a Domain controller when a drive went bad. On the HP / Compaq side if the house (about 50/50 these days) I have had more problems with bad drives, power supplies, etc. Their support is OK but I have to call them more often. This is in a server room with about 75 servers. We use their Dell) Desktops as well and almost never have hardware issues. Ian
Really it does. AMD is faster for memory intensive programs. Pretty even on FP intensive programs. And wins based on bang for the buck. If you are going to build a HPC cluster AMD is often the better choice. Where Intel has an advantage is stability. You will really be hard pressed to find a more stabile combination than an Intel CPU on a motherboard using an Intel Chip set. Better yet an actual Intel motherboard. As long as AMD does not make their own chip set Intel will have if not a real at least a perceived advantage in stability. Dell used to use Intel motherboards even if they make their own now they use Intel chip sets. They can go straight to Intel and say will this work with that CPU. With AMD they would most likely then have to go to SIS, VIA, or nVidia to get a chip set. Then design a board using there reference. If machines started to have some strange issue Dell would then have to deal with the chip set provider blaming AMD and AMD blaming the chip set provider.
Dell has their relationship with Intel all worked out. They have there supply chain all set up. They are the number one PC maker on the planet. Right now they have no real motivation to move. With IBM leaving the x86 market "are they keeping the servers?" and HP flopping around Dell is in pretty good shape.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
When AMD processors become more mainstream due to HP and others that offer them, continue to outperform and underprice Intel... Dell is just going to be left in the dust. And by that point, by buying lots of cheaper processors from AMD and reaping the profits associated with a lower cost of production.
:)
It's competition that drives every vendor, and if Dell feels they can get away without offering AMD, that's fine. But then again, when you go looking for jobs, you don't see the need to be 'well versed in Dell Poweredge servers' do you? But HP/Compaq servers... that's a necessity when applying for a lot of jobs -- it just goes to show the reach of Dell's server market anyways. I think Dell makes the majority of its cash from home PC sales, and this move only shows that -- people will continue to be stupid and buy Dells though I have to admit, for $399 I couldn't build a computer as good as what Dell sells.
Time will tell in this departement, but I do believe that Dell will fare just fine, because they prey on ignorance of customers -- home custoemrs. Business customers need the best performance for the least money, and right now (and for the foreseeable future), that will probably be AMD, and businesses will flock to that as it necessitates for their daily chores. We did it here at work, the new Opterons work quite well with SQL Server 2003
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I'd buy HP's ProLiant line, but not their PCs.
Dell is all about low margin *parts assembly*. Works fine for destops.
When we had a drive fail in a PowerVault 220S, Dell sent out a tech to replace the drive, and the entire RAID-5 volume got hosed. That's just simply not supposed to happen. Doesn't happen with the Sun boxes we have here, nor the CPQ/HP ProLiants. The Sun and HP boxes are engineered as systems. The Dell relied on a rebadged Adaptec card, a rebadged copy of Volume Manager, and tech support who don't know anything about how the parts work together.
If your IT stuff is done right, desktops are essentially disposable. Servers, not so much. Restoring a terabyte from tape is still a slow proposition, especially with network-based backup.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
How many "Dell may sell AMD", followed up a few days (or weeks) later by "Dell will remain Intel only" stories do we need? Dell announces every so often that it may offer systems with AMD processors to scare Intel into offering a better deal. I doubt they have ever seriously considered going with AMD, and I don't think that they will anytime soon. These stories are pointless.
Stability is a major factor; AMD once had a legacy of crash-happy platforms. I don't believe this to be true now, but Dell when they look at these things they weigh heat production, power consumption all as factors; including reputation. I think AMD has great technology now, I don't think that can be denied. But Dell markets on slightly different criteria than people the who build their own systems(yeah I know that statement is obvious, but its obviousness makes a point).
IBM? I won't even try to speak to that - partially because I'm not sure WHY they dropped out of the PC business (NOT the server business - all they've got now is CPUs and servers).
However, HP and Compaq had two problems. First, they had eMachines syndrome - they made shitty hardware, and people were starting to realize it. Second, as somebody else said, HP is an ink delivery mechanism for their printers. They're not a computer company. They're not a camera company. They're not even a printer company. They're a flipping ink company.
Dell hardware is MUCH better than HPaq hardware (not saying much, mind you - I'd rather avoid Dell, given the chance). Sure, HPaq and IBM use(d) AMD. (Servers only, for IBM, though, last I checked - the PC division, which was the only one sold off, used all Intel, IIRC) However, there are other factors leading to the downfall of those companies.
Every quarter or two Dell makes noises about maybe using AMD chips, or some other chips, in some part of its business.
/me *shrugs*
Then it squeezes more concessions out of Intel to be the flag bearer. They get something - more marketing $$$, better volume margines, etc. that're given to them, and soon the dance starts over again.
The reason Dell hasn't used AMD to date is, from the customers point of view, because Intel keeps showering them with money. At the same time, HP is making sales here because they've got quad opteron systems.
So be it. If Intel doesn't keep padding Dell's bottom line, then maybe they'll have a 6850 fitted out with opterons next year.
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
1: HP builds crap, supports it like crap, and was the first major manufacturer to stop shipping the Windows Operating System discs you paid for as part of the system with the system. Their "recovery disc" is even more crap, when you can get it. They sell computers mainly to bundle their much more profitable printers with. If you disagree, tell me the last time you recommended a Pavilion to a friend you wanted to keep.
2: Sun is overpriced! Let me repeat, Sun is overpriced!!
3: IBM is not as cheap as Dell, is trying to get out of the PC business because they're losing money on the desktop and notebook arenas, and hasn't been winning any customer support awards for end-users/home-users for years, if not a decade.
4: Gateway is dueling with Apple to see who can have a lower market share in computers. They try to sell TV's the way Apple sells iPods.
5: And Dell, who suffers from none of the above, keeps insisting that "Well sell AMD based computers when our customers demand it." How deaf can they be?
6: Alienware and the other niche marketeeters? $$$.
In my book, not a single good choice for a no-problems, affordable, supported, home AMD system. And both myself, my wife's business, and the company I now work for (as well as the last one) have all been loyal Dell customers accounting for well over 1000 units sold so far. Dell does not care about us!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was agreeing with you until I saw I do like dell workstations and home PCs and laptops
Dell laptops are the worst brand of laptops you can buy. They break constantly. I go to school with 200 people who own a Dell laptop. Without fail, everyone I know with a Dell laptop has had very big problems.
If you're not buying a Mac, you're much better off with an IBM or Panasonic or a lesser-known brand
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Intel provides a complete solution, not just a processor. They get a rocksolid chipset designed by the same company producing the cpu. With AMD Dell has to deal with 2 companies instead of one. First they must get the cpus from AMD and then deal with a 3rd party for the chipset. With the amount of competition in the chipset arena for AMD chips the focus tends to be on features instead of stability (not saying that all the chipsets are flakey but far more often then intel's).
Oh and all this from an AMD fanboy.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Becasue consumers do not care about this technical pissing contest that is going on in the industry. They don't care, because they don't have to. The performence difference is squat in the real world.
Keeping that in consideration, why spend the extra dollrs supporting another chip that doesn't have brand awareness amoung Dell's customers?
People don't want faster computers anynmore, they want computers that work and that they don't have to worry about. The want their computers to be the next generation TV. Some may scoff, but the technical challenge of making a computer that worry free is far more challenging then another 10% speed increase that can only be measured running certian programs in lab like conditions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
by adding AMD systems across the board, Dell would double overnight the number of motherboards that they have to support and troubleshoot. Even if AMD sales were only a small part of their overall revenue.
Would there be enough new revenue from selling AMD systems to justify that? It has to be NEW revenue, because if it's just replacing one revenue stream with another at a greater cost, why would you bother?
Dell probably does not see enough additional revenue from AMD sales to justify the increased support costs.
Unfortunately not. Ramping up CPU production takes a very long time, because you have to build big, complex, factories. Ramping up demand can happen extremely quickly, because it just requires someone selecting the 'amd' dropdown rather than the 'intel' one on the Dell site.
That is (one reason why) Dell isn't going AMD.
For those who hadn't noticed (all geeks, apparently) Dell is not a computer company. It is a manufacturing company. It has made great, innovative strides in extremely efficient manufacturing. They just happen to be doing it with computers. The choice of CPU in the box means as much to Dell as the choice of compressor in a Siemens fridge means to Siemens. And the CPU means as much to most consumers as the compressor in their fridge.
Sure, some compressors are probably more efficient, reliable, quiet, whatever. But if you have n million invested in robots that can install one brand of compressor and not another, are you going to switch? What if you have a huge set of automated hardware tests all of them based on Intel motherboards - are you going to switch? What if you have hundreds of call center scripts based around diagnosing known Intel related problems?
The actual capability of the processor is NOT RELEVANT. Dell don't sell PCs because they make the best ones. They sell them because they make them very cheap, and can deliver huge orders on time, even when those orders are semi-custom. Dell does not achieve this impressive feat by switching components every time one of them becomes slightly better than another. If you want that kind of thing, there are many PC makers who will do it.
-----
Compaq as a company is gone. It's owner - HP - is nothing more than an ink-delivery system for printers (look at where all HP's profits come from...).
However, if you strip away all of the other unrelated businesses that IBM and HP are in, it looks a little different. IBM is just about out of the PC market altogether, whereas HP is still a big player, profits or not.
On the topic of the original GP post: The 286 vs 386 isn't that comparable to today's situation. The 386 had almost 3X the performance of the 286, plus it added virtual memory and removed the shackles of 16-bit pointers. It was a massive upgrade.
The new dual core chips don't offer anything that you can't currently get with a dual CPU motherboard. It's pretty much just a packaging issue. It's an internal implementation detail that may temporarily affect the system vendor's cost margins, but a few months delay introducing them probably won't have much long-term effect.
...the fact that Slashdot has run about 30 "Dell might maybe possibly be thinking about considering using AMD processors" only to run a "Never mind Dell denies it" stories. How about holding off on running another pair of these stories until Dell officially confirms they're using AMD processors?
If you really want this to change, then why not call Dell (1-800-WWW-DELL) and try to order a computer with an AMD chip in it. If they can see that they are losing business because of their stance they'll reconsider their policy. By taking the "Dell doesn't sell AMD so I won't bother to call" stance when buying a new computer Dell won't realize that they lost a customer due to their Intel only policy.
There's about 100 comments on this page about Dell's amazing manufacturing ability, but it's all ignorant misinformation. Dell relies on Flextronics, Selectron, et al to build practically everything they sell. Dell "integrates" the machine by installing the hard drive and taping up the box. Dell does have a very competent supply chain management operation, but they are mainly managing the supply chain of their subcontractor. Dell has, over the years, turned themselves into a really advanced cross between Gateway and UPS. Don't be fooled into believing they have some huge from-scratch design and manufacturing facility.
Headline:
Intel Invest 3.5 billion Dollars into Sales.
Body:
It Seems that Intel is up to their old tricks. Just when we all thought that Intel was beaten by the AMD Operton, they announce that there will be a another 3.5 Billion dollars poured into sales.
Amoungst the top supports we have Dell, Gateway, and IBM headlining the top 3 supporters of Intel Chips. HP and Compaq say "they offer both chip in their line of products to give the user the choice... Read more, Click Here.
-- :)
Usually the only thing preventing a server class cpu from being used on the desktop is price.
Alternatively, it is shown that fast desktop chips don't automatically make good server chips due to the different type of workload involved. If desktop chips made equally good server chips, then server chips wouldn't exist at all.
Conclusion: you'll see AMD dual-processor cpus on the desktop before you see Intel dual-processor cpus in servers.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."