Slashdot Mirror
Dell Finally Goes for AMD
this great guy writes "You read it correctly. It had to happen one day.
According to Forbes
'Dell Inc has informed its Taiwan contract makers of plans to develop devices based on Advanced Micro Devices Inc's microprocessors, and these suppliers are awaiting orders for global shipment, the Economic Daily News reported, citing industry sources.'"
As long as only Forbes are saying it, I would take it with a large pinch of salt. I've seen enough of their reports written by/for SCO to know they can't be relied on to check their facts.
All they've said is "We do not comment on rumors and speculation". After years of saying "Intel only!!!", it sounds like there may be a change in attitude.
Reminds me a bit of the White Houses change from "Rove and Libby had absolutly nothing to do with the CIA leak case!" to "We don't comment on ongoing investigations". Sometimes its whats not said that means the most.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
It seems whenever Dell needs more price concessions from Intel, they just have to dangle the possibility out there that they could start offering AMD-powered systems. I suspect after a few quick phone calls, Dell will get cheaper processors and this "rumour" will be relegated to the dustbin (again). Sigh...
Because Intel invested all it's brainpower into the overpriced Itanic whose incompatibility with x86-32 made every single potential buyer back from, as few people are interrested in a platform with no OS and barely a handful of apps not including your own legacy apps.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Are they shopping for a another price break from Intel for staying with a single vendor?
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
Duh, no, people DO buy AMD because it's "better". Only Intel's marketting droids and retarded monkeys used to think that "a clock is a clock". AMD chips have been outperforming Intel's for years now, clock for clock (shall I remind you that top of the line P4 reach 4GHz and still get their balls busted by Athlon64 who have yet to reach 3GHz out of the box?)
People buy AMD because they feature
Last thing about the performance/clock thing: Pentium-M beat the living shit out of P4 clock for clock 95% of the time.
Shame Intel didn't work on scaling them to high frequencies, 2.5GHz-ish desktop Pentium-M would at least put some kind of fight against Athlon64 chips.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Ditto that.
If the lawsuit has managed to crack open Dell to using AMD processors because Intel has to mind its manners with a lawsuit on the horizon then even if the lawsuit doesn't procede it's done what it needed to do: level the playing field.
It's true that AMD marketting hasn't been the best, but it's also true that Intel marketting has convinced the majority of casual users that more GHZ = more performance always. And all questions of marketing aside, I think AMD has a real case.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
We don't buy AMD because they're "better" than Intel - a clock is a clock. They're no more or less stable, no better supported. We buy them because they're cheaper.
:)
Wrong - you're a victim to Intel's marteting. Take, for example, the highest-end Athlon single core, compared to the highest-end Intel single core - the FX-57 vs the EE 3.73Ghz. The FX-57 runs at 2.8Ghz. The EE at 3.73 Ghz - the FX-57 running some 25% slower - in pure clock speed. Let's say they have identical performance (they don't) - then the AMD would perform better - significantly so - per "clock" as you say. Based on results from spec.org - the FX-57 runs between 1929 and 1970 for SPECint2000 scores and between 1894 and 2261 in SPECfp2000 (the higher of the SPECfp score is on a 64-bit linux distro with a high-end compiler - the low-end on a Windows XP system, presumably 32-bit). The Intel EE gets 1796 on SPECint2000 (xp SP2) and 2016 on SPECfp2000 (xp SP2). So the AMD beats it by 10% in SPECint2000 (using the average of the FX-57's scores) and gets beat on the Intel-preferred platform by 10%. I call it a draw in terms of performance and the AMD does it with a 50% slower clock.
Unless you mean some other clock.
AMD isn't exactly a garage-based company. They've had several "big breaks" already, and I can remember seeing 486 AMDs running toe-to-toe with 486 Intels. This is just another push, but we'll see if it continues, and whether it even turns out to be true. Personally, I have been building AMD machines almost exclusively for the last 10 years. I moved from AMD to Intel when the Celeron 300a made its debut, but then the Athlon pulled me back less than a year later. I'm not sure where this will take AMD, but Dell using their processors to make some high-end gaming rigs would be nice... except for the fact that they're pretty limited regarding BIOS and other system tweaks. That is the one area Dell could really make some adjustments... and the one reason I don't recommend anyone buy from a major distributor of manufactured PCs.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
I look around my home and workplace and all I see these days is AMD. I'm responsible for purchasing in both places (and also advise many others - family, friends, school), and while 2 or 3 years ago I would always suggest intel now it's AMD for just about everything. (They do say free advice is worth what you pay for it, but I research their needs as carefully as I research my own.)
The Athlon64 chip with cool and quiet swung it for me. Very hot climate, struggling aircon and red-hot cpu do not make for a happy pc - or user.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
That is not the title I would use for this story. Nothing is confirmed. Nothing is close to confirmed.
While the individual listings of CPUs on Dull's site has meant nothing for years that it has happened this could be real news. The question then becomes why is this happening if indeed this story is true? Reasons could be as follows.
1. End of the year price negotiation time with Intel.
2. Intel's see, AMD is doing good, don't come down on use for monopolistic practices Mr. Government man.
3. Dull finally does listen to customers after years of saying they do but lying out their teeth.
Certainly one must wonder what exactly Dull has one their mind for a product, and clearing the server and gaming/workstation segment is where they are getting killed on performance, and performance per watt. They can Apple up their product line all they want, but with analyts on their case for a poorer than expected quarter they could legitimately be looking to save some face. Their consumer electronic attempts have largely failed, and we all remember their attempt to take over the white box market, dominated by AMD. Not too pretty a pony for them on that idea.
Some may question if AMD has enough capacity for them. Those people haven't been paying attention. AMD has a new fab coming on line. AMD has a deal with IBM and Chartered Semiconductor for additional capacity if needed. Dull will not switch their entire product line from Intel to AMD. Anyone thinking capacity is a problem, Dull included, is foolish. This is a strictly numbers bottom line game. If AMD is hurting Intel enough, and therefor Dull enough due to outright demand, and share starts slipping, and customers start saying hello to HP, Gateway, IBM, and Sun, then something has to be done if Intel can not deliver in 2006 as it currently appears.
Surely it could also be insurance for the antitrust suit for Intel. They could come to Dull and say ok. The heat is on. Put out one or two AMD product lines. Make a fuss about it in the media. Don't push them through your sales force. We won't take away your discount, or bump you down the product allocation totem pole, nor pull coop marketing dollars. Just the illusion of AMD and Dull being all buddy buddy, and we could see this happen until the case blows over.
ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com
" With the AMD lawsuit against Intel (which I think is stupid, the main reason AMD doesn't sell well is crappy marketing),"
That has got to be the strangest yet true statement I have ever heard in a long time. Intel's CPUs are slower, cost more, and use more power than AMDs yet they sell more. Does anyone find the power of marketing scary?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"my view of them, and I may well be totally wrong, is a bunch of hard working people that started off fighting a battle that everyone thought they would lose in 10 minutes flat."
AMD is a multinational publicly-traded corporation whose primary goal is to make money for shareholders and expand market share.
"I suppose it's just the lure of money but it's a shame it happens."
You might not be aware of this, but companies need profit to survive. If your real gripe is with profit, I doubt there are many companies out there that pass your moral litmus test.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I don't have the time to fathom the differences between 47 desktop models, 37 laptops, 53 laser printers and 73 inkjets with varying specs.
OMG.. How the hell do you buy groceries then? There's like 40 different types of toothpaste. God.. that must scare the crap out of you.
You're the first person I've ever heard of condemning variety..
--- We need more Ron Paul!
AMD has beaten Intel where marketing makes a difference, at Retail. It was only recently reported here on Slashdot that AMD had surpassed Intel in retail sales. And everyone poo-pooed it because it doesn't include the OEM manufacturers like Dell. So clearly AMD's marketing is working if they're outpacing Intel in the retail channel.
Getting Dell to ship AMD Boxes has nothing to do with marketing and EVERYTHING to do with Intel's anti-trust behaviour, and back-room dealings. Marketing by AMD has no impact on whether Dell will ship AMD Boxes (most of the other boxed OEM's already ship AMD based systems).