Slashdot Mirror
Dell to use AMD Chips in Desktop PCs
bain writes "MarketWatch reports that Dell has decided to use AMD chips in its Dimension desktops due next month. The move to use AMD chips signals a break from its long standing reliance on Intel chips. The information slipped out of Dell's quarterly earnings report." From the article: "Before the announcement, which had been speculated in the financial community and the press, Morgan Stanley analyst Mark Edelstone wrote in a research note: 'It should have a negative impact on Intel and it could be a large offset to the expected benefits from Intel's restructuring efforts.' AMD, which has become a more formidable competitor to Intel, has been expanding its manufacturing capacity, a sign that it expects to be shipping more chips. Its chief goal is to put itself in position to supply 33% of the global microprocessor market by 2008. "
Hopefully, this will spur even more innovation from both camps than we've been seeing recently. If you thought the new processor offerings were impressive before, wait until you see Intel fighting back against this move to try to regain some market share.
I'm excited.
though I'm still not going to buy any computers from Dell)
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
Now that AMD won't be the "poor but better underdog" we better start preparing ourselves to hate them!
Although the article mentioned that AMD is increasing its capacity to produce chips, I have to wonder how supplying Dell is going to impact the little guy. Are there enough chips to go around for everyone? Will NewEgg and others start having shortages? The Enthusiast has always been in AMD's corner. With Intel releasing its new processors that run circles around AMD offerings and the potential for there to be shortages in the after-market, I have to wonder if AMD is trading one customer base for another.
Dell figured the reduced power consumption would leave more available for more effective explosions.
Join Tor today!
If they were really wanting to beat down HP and Gateway they would address their customer service issues before they worried about switching processors.
As geeks, we're most concerned with the top-of-the-line desktop chips. But it's a mistake to think that's the most important factor in the market. Companies like Dell don't make the majority of their profits from highly-informed, single-PC-buying gamers and linux nerds. Their bread-and-butter is the business desktop and server market, followed in second place by the fairly uninformed home PC buying family.
For businesses, decisions about what to buy are made on a large scale, based more on budgetary and standardization factors than on which chip has the absolute top performance in its price class this week. My company picks a standard model and sticks to it for months at a time, sometimes more than a year. It might buy thousands of desktops and laptops during that time, as well as dozens or a few hundred servers.
Dell is just trying to grab market share. AMD owns 20% of the desktop market now. That Intel's Core Duo is the price/performance winner this month is a blip on the screen - the larger trend is all that matters to Dell. They need to get at that 20% of the market they're missing, because it represents money left on the table in their primary sector. No business can stay in business if it is in the habit of leaving its customers' money on the table.
What has been holding Dell back historically is twofold - sure, there's whatever exclusive deal they had with Intel, and that is significant. But there's also the (historical) inability of AMD to ship large quantities of a given part on release. Dell does not want to be in the position of turning down or delaying shipment of large orders by its most important (corporate) customers, for lack of parts. AMD has only recently (in the last two or three years maybe) been able to show reliable ability to ship the kinds of quantities that Dell requires. So, now that it can, it becomes a Dell vendor.
So, it doesn't matter all that much to Dell if Intel's Core Duo is in the lead currently. That's a short-term question, of what to package on its current models next quarter maybe. Right now it is concerned with meeting the demands of existing customers, and those existing customers are working from certified models and budget numberes that were determined on paper months ago. I doubt any major company is purchasing Core Duo machines for its employees this week - very few are that proactive and quick with purchasing decisions.
As for next quarter, and the quarter after that - well, Dell will use whatever part makes the most sense, for each model in each product line at each price point and discount level. For some, that probably will mean a core duo platform - but assuradly, now that they have signed the agreement, they will have some Athlon models - and they'll sell some. I'd expect AMD single-chip (dual and single core) desktops to make up something like 5% to 10% of next quarter's shipped desktop units, and maybe a good 15% of next quarter's shipped server units.
Dell's home market will be mostly mid to low-end dell desktops, using whatever chip is at the $50 to $80-each (in 1000-tray quanitites) price point that month. Leaving AMD out of that equation would be a mistake, again irrespective of Core Duo vs. Athlon 64 x2 price/performance points. The cheapest Athlon 64 X2 is still well above $100 each in quantity - and Core 2 Duo is around $200 minimum. They are only a small portion of even the home desktop market at this point, so which of the two is fastest isn't really that relevant to Dell.
-Lep
I am allowed to criticize you: you are not allowed to criticize me. Sorry, that's just how things are.
While in the end, both hyperthreading and multicore enable you to run more task concurrently without buying extra chips, they don't have anything in common. HT isn't Multi-cores precursor, it's completly different idea.
The basic idea of HT is to fill-in the hole that happen in the pipe. Very often, the CPU waits a few cycle, while instruction are comming through the pipeline stage. The basic idea of HT is instead of a given stage stay idle, wainting on the previous to complete, we can feed it with data from another thread. 1 logical unit, but 2 threads run in parallel, the first one as usual, the second only serve to avoid staying idle each time a prediction turned out wrong. Over-all speed : almost the same, but background task "feel" more responsive.
The basic idea behind multicore is to try to takae the advantage of 2 CPU, but sharing some part : 1 packaging, 1 interface, 1 socket on a single-socket motherboard some times even 1 of the lowest level cache (and some times it is just two chip packaged together and using 1 interface), except from that sharing, it behaves mostly like two CPU. Over-all speed : doubled.
So the idea are basically different : HT is "try to keep the CPU busy even in case of pipe-line stall (and thus avoid wasting time)", Dual-Core is "try to make SMP by making two-processors-on-a-chip (and thus increasing theoretical max speed)".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I like AMD, but Dell could put magic genies in their boxes and I would never buy one.
Well yeah, but that's just common sense. Djinnis sound great, but anyone who has ever read any mythology involving them knows that their wishes always come with unexpected twists and downsides.
For example, you might ask your djinni to compute the turbulence vectors around the air intake of the fighter jet you are designing. And he would instantly do so using single-precision floating point and the wrong rounding mode! Whoa betide those who trust in the djinni!
The enemies of Democracy are