Dell,gateway etc.. never choose AMD why?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

AMD seems to offer more back for the buck but it seems that they never
offer desktops with AMD cpus. I seriously doubt people buy off the
shelf PC's based on CPU brand since DELL etc.. are now commodity
products and they choose on features and price not INTEL or AMD.

Selling PC's as 64bit in the Advert will move more product yet DELL
etc.. do not seem to follow. Does intel threaten cutting the pipeline
if they even think about selling one model line with a non Intel CPU.
How is the DOJ not even investigating this?
42 answers Last reply
More about dell gateway choose
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    > jdobb2001 <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Gateway has sold AMD-based PCs in the past (their
    "Gateway Select" line). And now that Gateway owns
    eMachines, they are once again openly selling AMD.

    Dell, on the other hand ... supposedly has a deal
    with Intel that ensures that Dell can match the
    price-performance of competitors using AMD.

    Of course, with Intel being off their game in raw
    performance, no price break can get many enthusiast
    dudes to go Dell these days.

    The DELL-INTC deal is apt to entirely implode if Dell
    begin openly offering AMD CPUs - Dell would suddenly
    lose the huge price break.

    Dell's business and product mix might have to radically
    change overnight, on the day that they put the first
    AMD-based PC on their web site.

    The Dell-INTC deal may well be a "deadly embrace"
    at this point. If Dell adopts AMD, it may be seen as
    more revealing about Intel's problems than about the
    state of Dell's customer demands.

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Hi,
    My name is Bob Russels. I am a recent graduate of Harvard
    Business School, and I have decided to start my own computer
    manufacturing business, and go head to head with dell. We
    would like some input from the public about what improvments could be
    made in the pc business. We are welcome to any suggestions or
    complaints. Every single suggestion will be looked out and evaluated.
    Please send any information to compr87@yahoo.com.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    jdobb2001 wrote:
    > AMD seems to offer more back for the buck but it seems that they never
    > offer desktops with AMD cpus. I seriously doubt people buy off the
    > shelf PC's based on CPU brand since DELL etc.. are now commodity
    > products and they choose on features and price not INTEL or AMD.

    Gateway *does* sell AMD-based systems now, through its Emachines
    subsidiary brand mostly. You can even buy AMD-based notebooks through them.

    Also HP (through both HP and Compaq) sell AMD-based desktops and notebooks.

    Nobody I know of yet, advertises AMD very much on TV. Even the ones who
    sell AMD products only advertise their Intel products. That's mainly due
    to the Intel-Inside campaign. AMD has nothing similar.

    > Selling PC's as 64bit in the Advert will move more product yet DELL
    > etc.. do not seem to follow. Does intel threaten cutting the pipeline
    > if they even think about selling one model line with a non Intel CPU.
    > How is the DOJ not even investigating this?

    You sound like you think that the DOJ actually is working to benefit you
    as a consumer? :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 19 Dec 2004 08:31:40 -0800, "jdobb2001" <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >AMD seems to offer more back for the buck but it seems that they never
    >offer desktops with AMD cpus. I seriously doubt people buy off the
    >shelf PC's based on CPU brand since DELL etc.. are now commodity
    >products and they choose on features and price not INTEL or AMD.
    >
    >Selling PC's as 64bit in the Advert will move more product yet DELL
    >etc.. do not seem to follow. Does intel threaten cutting the pipeline
    >if they even think about selling one model line with a non Intel CPU.
    >How is the DOJ not even investigating this?

    Cutting the pipeline to Dell would just hurt Intel's bottom line, who's
    going to buy that inventory?

    btw, about 3 weeks ago I noticed BestBuy had an ad on the cover for a
    Gateway PC (not a E-Machines) with AMD inside, so I guess the "Gateway"
    brand (or just re-badged e-machines?) are back in the AMD camp.

    Ed
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 19 Dec 2004 08:31:40 -0800, "jdobb2001" <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >AMD seems to offer more back for the buck but it seems that they never
    >offer desktops with AMD cpus.

    One thing to remember is that Dell does not pay anywhere near the same
    price for their processors as you or I would. At a rough guess, I
    would say that the low-end Intel Celeron and P4 chips are being sold
    to Dell in the $40-$60 range, while they sell at retail for somewhere
    around $100-$200. So, where if you or I were to buy these chips, AMD
    might work out to easily be $30 or $50 cheaper, for Dell the
    difference is more like $5.


    Consider that you can configure out near-identical systems between a
    Dell Dimension 3000 with a 3.0GHz P4 with 800MT/s bus speed or an HP
    Pavilion a810e with a (much slower) AMD Sempron 3000+ processor and
    they work out to the same price. For the fairly basic config I tested
    I got the Dell at $548 before a $40 mail-in rebate and the HP at $580
    before a $50 mail-in rebate, though small tweaks in configuration
    could push it one way or the other.

    Now part of the reason for this is that Dell's cost-structure is lower
    than HP's, but a major reason for that is that Dell has far fewer
    differences between their various systems at least in part due to
    using only Intel processors.

    > I seriously doubt people buy off the
    >shelf PC's based on CPU brand since DELL etc.. are now commodity
    >products and they choose on features and price not INTEL or AMD.
    >
    >Selling PC's as 64bit in the Advert will move more product yet DELL
    >etc.. do not seem to follow.

    64-bit probably isn't a huge selling feature just yet, especially
    given that there is no 64-bit Windows available (in a non-beta form at
    least) for AMD's chips yet.

    > Does intel threaten cutting the pipeline
    >if they even think about selling one model line with a non Intel CPU.
    >How is the DOJ not even investigating this?

    DOJ *HAS* investigated this, and they found that Intel is doing
    absolutely nothing wrong. The EU's version of the DOJ is currently
    investigating as well and they are a bit more skeptical, but nothing
    has come of it as yet.


    Really you have to look at Dell's business model to understand some of
    this. Dell survives entirely on minimum inventory and just-in-time
    shipments of parts. While on the front they claim to offer the most
    customizable systems out there, in reality they are all about
    minimizing customizations. They can't custom-assemble every system
    for every user that comes along, so they just take a guess at what
    will be purchased and assemble systems that way.

    A key part of this process means minimizing the motherboards used.
    Motherboards are the key to an OEM design. Where a different
    processor or different amount of memory can be just dropped in without
    a thought, a different motherboard means a TOTALLY new system where
    you have to re-validate everything and set up completely different
    product lines. This is not just true for Dell, but all big OEMs, any
    given model of computer is defined by the motherboard it uses. No
    matter how you configure up a Dell Dimension 3000 you always get the
    same motherboard.

    Now, here's the problem for AMD. To use an AMD processor you need a
    different motherboard than for an Intel chip, ie Dell would have to
    dedicate at least one entire system to AMD chips. Now Dell only sells
    a grand total of 8 different desktop systems, and within those 8 there
    are at least a few products which are very similar allowing for some
    overlap and maybe even sharing motherboards (ie the Dimension 4700 and
    the Optiplex GX280 might share a board or some such thing), greatly
    reducing the amount of validation required. For comparison, HPap
    currently sells 20 different models of PC. While there is probably a
    fair bit of overlap between their Presario, Pavilion and Media Center
    PC lines, they still have a lot more configuration options and, as
    such, more costs involved with selling these systems than Dell.

    So, combine that fact, along with the addition of more suppliers (at
    the very least AMD for the processors and possibly another company for
    the motherboards), additional support costs involved, the need to keep
    more spare parts on-hand and you end up with some financial reasons
    why Dell sticks to Intel-only.


    Of course, this only works for Dell so long as Intel remains at or
    near the top in terms of performance. With AMD gaining a bit of an
    edge in performance, particularly on the server front, Dell is kind of
    backed into a corner.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Ed wrote:
    > btw, about 3 weeks ago I noticed BestBuy had an ad on the cover for a
    > Gateway PC (not a E-Machines) with AMD inside, so I guess the "Gateway"
    > brand (or just re-badged e-machines?) are back in the AMD camp.

    Yeah, I would've assumed they would reserve the Gateway for Intel-only
    branding, while Emachines did all things. I'm not sure how they plan to
    differentiate their two brands now.

    Yousuf Khan
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > Now, here's the problem for AMD. To use an AMD processor you need a
    > different motherboard than for an Intel chip, ie Dell would have to
    > dedicate at least one entire system to AMD chips.

    I don't know how valid this is. Remember, once upon a time AMD used to
    sell processors that were socket-compatible with Intel processors, and
    Dell still wouldn't sell AMD at that time, saying that there is not
    enough differentiation. First it wants differentiation and then it doesn't.

    Also Dell does sell certain numbers of low-volume, but high-margin
    systems. Such as Itanium at one time: I know, Dell did have to drop the
    Itanium because of slow sales, but it at least still attempted to sell
    them before giving up -- it doesn't even give AMD /that/ amount of the
    benefit of the doubt. I'm pretty sure an AMD system will at least sell
    more units than an Itanium system ... any AMD system!

    > So, combine that fact, along with the addition of more suppliers (at
    > the very least AMD for the processors and possibly another company for
    > the motherboards), additional support costs involved, the need to keep
    > more spare parts on-hand and you end up with some financial reasons
    > why Dell sticks to Intel-only.

    Doesn't Dell, sell more than one brand of video card? What about hard
    drives? At one time, it may have even sold more than one brand of
    printer (before it went into the printer branding business itself).

    > Of course, this only works for Dell so long as Intel remains at or
    > near the top in terms of performance. With AMD gaining a bit of an
    > edge in performance, particularly on the server front, Dell is kind of
    > backed into a corner.

    The high performance systems wouldn't necessarily be the highest unit
    sales systems either. If Dell has no problem selling these low-volume
    systems from one supplier, then it shouldn't have trouble selling them
    from multiple suppliers. Afterall, in the high-performance segment,
    people like a fair bit of customizability.

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:33:30 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >> Now, here's the problem for AMD. To use an AMD processor you need a
    >> different motherboard than for an Intel chip, ie Dell would have to
    >> dedicate at least one entire system to AMD chips.
    >
    >I don't know how valid this is. Remember, once upon a time AMD used to
    >sell processors that were socket-compatible with Intel processors, and
    >Dell still wouldn't sell AMD at that time, saying that there is not
    >enough differentiation. First it wants differentiation and then it doesn't.

    Dell talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. You have to take
    everything that is said by Dell (both the company and the man) with a
    LARGE grain of salt in my experience.

    >Also Dell does sell certain numbers of low-volume, but high-margin
    >systems.

    Very few of them.

    > Such as Itanium at one time: I know, Dell did have to drop the
    >Itanium because of slow sales, but it at least still attempted to sell
    >them before giving up -- it doesn't even give AMD /that/ amount of the
    >benefit of the doubt. I'm pretty sure an AMD system will at least sell
    >more units than an Itanium system ... any AMD system!

    Yes, certainly. My only guess here is that there is some STRONG
    incentive from Intel on this one, because Dell must be losing a
    reasonable chunk of money their Itanium line. My guess is that Intel
    is taking this hit, not Dell.

    >> So, combine that fact, along with the addition of more suppliers (at
    >> the very least AMD for the processors and possibly another company for
    >> the motherboards), additional support costs involved, the need to keep
    >> more spare parts on-hand and you end up with some financial reasons
    >> why Dell sticks to Intel-only.
    >
    >Doesn't Dell, sell more than one brand of video card?

    It does, though it sells surprisingly few considering how they claim
    to offer so much customization. I counted a grand total of 5
    different video cards (6 if you count the integrated video) on the
    entire Dimension line-up. The Optiplex line-up adds a few more due to
    the multi-head and DVI options, though they remove the high-end gaming
    cards.

    With AMD processors they could easily require 5 different chips for a
    single system just to handle the various speed grades (though
    fortunately this is easier than different video cards).

    > What about hard drives?

    Three companies there, all of which can be used TOTALLY
    interchangeably. This is a somewhat of a different situation than AMD
    where they could only use the processors in the AMD systems.

    Note that there is obviously more too it than meets the eye here.
    It's well known that Intel not only gives Dell VERY good deals on
    their processors, but also covers a lot of their advertising costs
    (any time you hear the Intel jingle on a computer ad, you know that
    Intel money is involved somehow). I've heard some rumors that Dell's
    entire marketing budget is actually paid for by Intel, and that is
    something that AMD hasn't been able to match.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 19 Dec 2004 14:41:31 -0800, compr87@yahoo.com wrote:

    >Hi,
    >My name is Bob Russels. I am a recent graduate of Harvard
    >Business School, and I have decided to start my own computer
    >manufacturing business, and go head to head with dell. We
    >would like some input from the public about what improvments could be
    >made in the pc business. We are welcome to any suggestions or
    >complaints. Every single suggestion will be looked out and evaluated.
    >Please send any information to compr87@yahoo.com.

    I'd strongly suggest you find a different line of work.:-) First, Dell has
    priced it's competitors into the toilet and is in serious danger of
    following them itself. Second, they have squeezed suppliers of component
    parts -- mbrds, video cards, hard disks, CD-DVDs etc. and yes even CPUs --
    on cost to the point that many are teetering on the brink of extinction.

    IMHO the PC business is now in a replenish and replace cycle with a period
    of 3-4years on average, just like the automobile or the appliance business.
    IOW the boom is not coming back.

    OTOH if you can come up with a commodity box which "man and his dog" must
    have, a sort of computing nerve center for the home, you might be on to
    something. So far that is in a process of *slow* evolution and the result
    is not likely to really resemble what we currently think of as a "PC"; it's
    also not likely to resemble what businesses need to satisfy their
    "computing needs".

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "jdobb2001" <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com> writes:

    > AMD seems to offer more back for the buck but it seems that they never
    > offer desktops with AMD cpus. I seriously doubt people buy off the
    > shelf PC's based on CPU brand since DELL etc.. are now commodity
    > products and they choose on features and price not INTEL or AMD.
    >
    > Selling PC's as 64bit in the Advert will move more product yet DELL
    > etc.. do not seem to follow. Does intel threaten cutting the pipeline
    > if they even think about selling one model line with a non Intel CPU.
    > How is the DOJ not even investigating this?

    According to a friend of mine, who work for Dell here in Europe, the
    reason that Dell isn't offering AMD based machines is that they don't
    have enough customer requests for it to make it worthwhile for them.

    Thay may be the honeytongued version of the good prices that Dell get
    from Intel, though :-)


    Kai
    --
    Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:32:24 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:

    > "jdobb2001" <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com> writes:
    >
    >> AMD seems to offer more back for the buck but it seems that they never
    >> offer desktops with AMD cpus. I seriously doubt people buy off the
    >> shelf PC's based on CPU brand since DELL etc.. are now commodity
    >> products and they choose on features and price not INTEL or AMD.
    >>
    >> Selling PC's as 64bit in the Advert will move more product yet DELL
    >> etc.. do not seem to follow. Does intel threaten cutting the pipeline
    >> if they even think about selling one model line with a non Intel CPU.
    >> How is the DOJ not even investigating this?
    >
    > According to a friend of mine, who work for Dell here in Europe, the
    > reason that Dell isn't offering AMD based machines is that they don't
    > have enough customer requests for it to make it worthwhile for them.

    Ah-CHO<bullshit>OO. Excuse me!

    > Thay may be the honeytongued version of the good prices that Dell get
    > from Intel, though :-)

    Ya' think? ...and it's not just the prices, as has been pointed out
    elsewhere in this thread. Dell and Intel have a symbiotic relationship
    that is predicated on 100% product loyalty.

    --
    Keith
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >>Doesn't Dell, sell more than one brand of video card?
    >
    >
    > It does, though it sells surprisingly few considering how they claim
    > to offer so much customization. I counted a grand total of 5
    > different video cards (6 if you count the integrated video) on the
    > entire Dimension line-up. The Optiplex line-up adds a few more due to
    > the multi-head and DVI options, though they remove the high-end gaming
    > cards.
    >
    > With AMD processors they could easily require 5 different chips for a
    > single system just to handle the various speed grades (though
    > fortunately this is easier than different video cards).

    5 different chips of what? Chipsets, CPUs, or video chipsets?


    Yousuf Khan
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    compr87@yahoo.com wrote :

    > Please send any information to compr87@yahoo.com.

    You can start with serious email account.

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:3pvbs0lv55p5244etdb9b9mv212rnr7uen@4ax.com...
    > On 19 Dec 2004 08:31:40 -0800, "jdobb2001" <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    > A key part of this process means minimizing the motherboards used.
    > Motherboards are the key to an OEM design. Where a different
    > processor or different amount of memory can be just dropped in without
    > a thought, a different motherboard means a TOTALLY new system where
    > you have to re-validate everything and set up completely different
    > product lines. This is not just true for Dell, but all big OEMs, any
    > given model of computer is defined by the motherboard it uses. No
    > matter how you configure up a Dell Dimension 3000 you always get the
    > same motherboard.
    >
    > Now, here's the problem for AMD. To use an AMD processor you need a
    > different motherboard than for an Intel chip, ie Dell would have to
    > dedicate at least one entire system to AMD chips. Now Dell only sells
    > a grand total of 8 different desktop systems, and within those 8 there
    > are at least a few products which are very similar allowing for some
    > overlap and maybe even sharing motherboards (ie the Dimension 4700 and
    > the Optiplex GX280 might share a board or some such thing), greatly
    > reducing the amount of validation required. For comparison, HPap
    > currently sells 20 different models of PC. While there is probably a
    > fair bit of overlap between their Presario, Pavilion and Media Center
    > PC lines, they still have a lot more configuration options and, as
    > such, more costs involved with selling these systems than Dell.
    >
    > So, combine that fact, along with the addition of more suppliers (at
    > the very least AMD for the processors and possibly another company for
    > the motherboards), additional support costs involved, the need to keep
    > more spare parts on-hand and you end up with some financial reasons
    > why Dell sticks to Intel-only.

    You're treading on religious grounds now. I made similar statements
    (that reducing the number of configurations and suppliers is key and
    that's a major reason why I personally work only with Intel HW) in here
    awhile back and got raked over the coals. It really riles up the AMD
    marketeers.

    AJ
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    <compr87@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1103496091.863874.169100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    > My name is Bob Russels. I am a recent graduate of Harvard
    > Business School, and I have decided to start my own computer
    > manufacturing business, and go head to head with dell. We
    > would like some input from the public about what improvments could be
    > made in the pc business. We are welcome to any suggestions or
    > complaints. Every single suggestion will be looked out and evaluated.
    > Please send any information to compr87@yahoo.com.

    Cut the price points in half for the same products.

    (hehe, for starters).

    AJ
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in news:b92dneQSTs9ygFvcRVn-
    tA@rogers.com:

    > Ed wrote:
    >> btw, about 3 weeks ago I noticed BestBuy had an ad on the cover for a
    >> Gateway PC (not a E-Machines) with AMD inside, so I guess the "Gateway"
    >> brand (or just re-badged e-machines?) are back in the AMD camp.
    >
    > Yeah, I would've assumed they would reserve the Gateway for Intel-only
    > branding, while Emachines did all things. I'm not sure how they plan to
    > differentiate their two brands now.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan

    How were they differentiated before? (Other than brand name of course.)
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:16:06 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >>>Doesn't Dell, sell more than one brand of video card?
    >>
    >>
    >> It does, though it sells surprisingly few considering how they claim
    >> to offer so much customization. I counted a grand total of 5
    >> different video cards (6 if you count the integrated video) on the
    >> entire Dimension line-up. The Optiplex line-up adds a few more due to
    >> the multi-head and DVI options, though they remove the high-end gaming
    >> cards.
    >>
    >> With AMD processors they could easily require 5 different chips for a
    >> single system just to handle the various speed grades (though
    >> fortunately this is easier than different video cards).
    >
    >5 different chips of what? Chipsets, CPUs, or video chipsets?

    Processors. Dell only sells 5 different video cards for all of their
    Dimension line, so they only need to stock 5 different parts to
    satisfy all their video-card needs. With AMD-based systems they would
    probably need at least 3 or 4 parts JUST for the CPU along to satisfy
    the various speed grades for the processor. When trying to minimize
    the amount of parts on-hand (which is goal #1 at Dell), this is not a
    good thing.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 19 Dec 2004 14:41:31 -0800, compr87@yahoo.com wrote:

    >Hi,
    >My name is Bob Russels. I am a recent graduate of Harvard
    >Business School, and I have decided to start my own computer
    >manufacturing business, and go head to head with dell. We
    >would like some input from the public about what improvments could be
    >made in the pc business. We are welcome to any suggestions or
    >complaints. Every single suggestion will be looked out and evaluated.
    >Please send any information to compr87@yahoo.com.

    That's easy. Outsource manufacturing to China, support to India. Use
    the 'efficiencies' extracted from it to beef up sales and marketing.
    Come up with an easily recognizable dude as an ad personality. Oh,
    yes, avoid AMD like a plague - this will greatly enhance your
    relationship with INTC. Voila - you are DULL Computer Co.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:55:41 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
    <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On 19 Dec 2004 14:41:31 -0800, compr87@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>My name is Bob Russels. I am a recent graduate of Harvard
    >>Business School, and I have decided to start my own computer
    >>manufacturing business, and go head to head with dell. We
    >>would like some input from the public about what improvments could be
    >>made in the pc business. We are welcome to any suggestions or
    >>complaints. Every single suggestion will be looked out and evaluated.
    >>Please send any information to compr87@yahoo.com.
    >
    >That's easy. Outsource manufacturing to China, support to India. Use
    >the 'efficiencies' extracted from it to beef up sales and marketing.
    >Come up with an easily recognizable dude as an ad personality. Oh,
    >yes, avoid AMD like a plague - this will greatly enhance your
    >relationship with INTC. Voila - you are DULL Computer Co.

    This pretty much describes HPaq, Dell, Gateway/eMachines, IBM/Lenovo
    and.. umm... whoever the heck all makes computers these days.


    That being said, if Bob is really serious about starting a computer
    company, he REALLY needs to find a niche where Dell and HP just don't
    compete.

    One niche which definitely is an option is a sort of "luxury"
    computer. Think something like a Lexus or a BWM of computers. The
    trick here is providing some really high-end quality and really good
    support for the very tiny percentage of customers that are willing to
    pay for it. The trouble with this niche is that a lot of companies
    are already there. Alienware seems to be making a go of it reasonably
    well, and others are definitely trying.

    Another niche is for the very small and quiet boxes, ideally in
    cool-looking cases. No necessarily the fastest machines, but
    something that artsy types will want on their desk (assuming they
    don't want a Mac :> ). Again, this is a niche that already has some
    competitors, though it may still be an option.

    Basically the answer here is, to quote the most ridiculously overused
    catchphrase in business-speak, to think outside the box. If you try
    to go head-to-head against Dell you're going to get creamed. You
    don't see new companies starting up with the intention of building
    cars for your regular driver for the simple reason that the market is
    already over saturated. Same goes for computers, but profit margins
    are even thinner here. If you want to build computers, you need to
    offer something that no one (or at least few people) are offering.


    If I were sufficiently insane to try starting my own computer company,
    I would go after the small, low-noise, funky-case, Apple-wannabe
    market. There is definitely the demand for such designs and the
    technology exists, it's just a matter of putting two and two together
    and get a foothold before Dell and HPaq clobber this market. Of
    course, I wouldn't do this because I'm not insane... but maybe that's
    just me.


    Ohh.. and make sure that you offer Linux as a fully supported option
    and do things like making Firefox/Thunderbird the default
    browser/e-mail program. This will help get armies of Slashdot geeks
    to do some marketing for you.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > >> With AMD processors they could easily require 5 different chips
    for a
    > >> single system just to handle the various speed grades (though
    > >> fortunately this is easier than different video cards).
    > >
    > >5 different chips of what? Chipsets, CPUs, or video chipsets?
    >
    > Processors. Dell only sells 5 different video cards for all of their
    > Dimension line, so they only need to stock 5 different parts to
    > satisfy all their video-card needs. With AMD-based systems they
    would
    > probably need at least 3 or 4 parts JUST for the CPU along to satisfy
    > the various speed grades for the processor. When trying to minimize
    > the amount of parts on-hand (which is goal #1 at Dell), this is not a
    > good thing.

    I'm not getting this, why would AMD based systems require /any/
    different video cards than Intel based ones?

    Yousuf Khan
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    AJ wrote:
    > "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:3pvbs0lv55p5244etdb9b9mv212rnr7uen@4ax.com...
    > > So, combine that fact, along with the addition of more suppliers
    (at
    > > the very least AMD for the processors and possibly another company
    for
    > > the motherboards), additional support costs involved, the need to
    keep
    > > more spare parts on-hand and you end up with some financial reasons
    > > why Dell sticks to Intel-only.
    >
    > You're treading on religious grounds now. I made similar statements
    > (that reducing the number of configurations and suppliers is key and
    > that's a major reason why I personally work only with Intel HW) in
    here
    > awhile back and got raked over the coals. It really riles up the AMD
    > marketeers.

    I wouldn't call it religious arguments, it's just a very logical
    question to ask. Is Dell refusing to use AMD processors because of
    inventory reasons, or "other" reasons (i.e. incentives from Intel)?
    Even Tony had to admit after originally writing the above statement
    that Dell says one thing and does another. So minimizing inventory is
    not the real reason why Dell does it. And to answer the question about
    whether any individual, such as yourself, saves any money by
    standadizing on Intel parts, then the answer to that is that you're not
    receiving any "Intel Inside" funding. :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > >> With AMD processors they could easily require 5 different chips
    for a
    > >> single system just to handle the various speed grades (though
    > >> fortunately this is easier than different video cards).
    > >
    > >5 different chips of what? Chipsets, CPUs, or video chipsets?
    >
    > Processors. Dell only sells 5 different video cards for all of their
    > Dimension line, so they only need to stock 5 different parts to
    > satisfy all their video-card needs. With AMD-based systems they
    would
    > probably need at least 3 or 4 parts JUST for the CPU along to satisfy
    > the various speed grades for the processor. When trying to minimize
    > the amount of parts on-hand (which is goal #1 at Dell), this is not a
    > good thing.

    I'm not getting this, why would AMD based systems require /any/
    different video cards than Intel based ones?

    Yousuf Khan
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    John Smithe wrote:
    >>Yeah, I would've assumed they would reserve the Gateway for Intel-only
    >>branding, while Emachines did all things. I'm not sure how they plan to
    >>differentiate their two brands now.
    >>
    >> Yousuf Khan
    >
    >
    > How were they differentiated before? (Other than brand name of course.)

    Well, that's easy, before they were two completely separate companies,
    and they competed directly against each other.

    Yousuf Khan
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1103740228.475304.264440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > AJ wrote:
    >> "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    > news:3pvbs0lv55p5244etdb9b9mv212rnr7uen@4ax.com...
    >> > So, combine that fact, along with the addition of more suppliers
    > (at
    >> > the very least AMD for the processors and possibly another company
    > for
    >> > the motherboards), additional support costs involved, the need to
    > keep
    >> > more spare parts on-hand and you end up with some financial reasons
    >> > why Dell sticks to Intel-only.
    >>
    >> You're treading on religious grounds now. I made similar statements
    >> (that reducing the number of configurations and suppliers is key and
    >> that's a major reason why I personally work only with Intel HW) in
    > here
    >> awhile back and got raked over the coals. It really riles up the AMD
    >> marketeers.
    >
    > I wouldn't call it religious arguments, it's just a very logical
    > question to ask. Is Dell refusing to use AMD processors because of
    > inventory reasons, or "other" reasons (i.e. incentives from Intel)?
    > Even Tony had to admit after originally writing the above statement
    > that Dell says one thing and does another. So minimizing inventory is
    > not the real reason why Dell does it.

    It's all the complexity, not just inventory. The more suppliers and parts,
    the worse it gets.

    > And to answer the question about
    > whether any individual, such as yourself, saves any money by
    > standadizing on Intel parts, then the answer to that is that you're not
    > receiving any "Intel Inside" funding. :-)

    Well I'm thinking ahead to one day where I may resell PCs I build in a
    higher volume (though the issues I have with transitionary technologies
    currently in vogue has put a damper on such ideas for me).

    AJ
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:46:01 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > John Smithe wrote:
    >>>Yeah, I would've assumed they would reserve the Gateway for Intel-only
    >>>branding, while Emachines did all things. I'm not sure how they plan to
    >>>differentiate their two brands now.
    >>>
    >>> Yousuf Khan
    >>
    >>
    >> How were they differentiated before? (Other than brand name of course.)
    >
    > Well, that's easy, before they were two completely separate companies,
    > and they competed directly against each other.

    Perhaps it's not unlike all the Coke brands. The intention is to compete
    against ones self and gain shelf space.

    --
    Keith
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    AJ wrote:
    >>I wouldn't call it religious arguments, it's just a very logical
    >>question to ask. Is Dell refusing to use AMD processors because of
    >>inventory reasons, or "other" reasons (i.e. incentives from Intel)?
    >>Even Tony had to admit after originally writing the above statement
    >>that Dell says one thing and does another. So minimizing inventory is
    >>not the real reason why Dell does it.
    >
    >
    > It's all the complexity, not just inventory. The more suppliers and parts,
    > the worse it gets.

    Actually, no, no it isn't. When I was talking about minimizing
    inventory, I was referring to this issue of minimizing complexity as
    well. As I was mentioning to Tony, there was a time when AMD used to
    make fully socket-compatible processors to Intel's. Even back then Dell
    refused to sell AMD processors with the excuse that there wasn't enough
    difference between them to bother with it. Now there's a huge difference
    between them, and it still doesn't want to sell them. Now the excuse is
    that AMD doesn't produce in high enough volume. AMD will address that
    issue, and Dell will come up with another excuse after that.

    However, I know for a fact that Dell does sell AMD-based systems, right
    from desktops all of the way upto laptops and servers. You just have to
    ask (forcefully). A friend of mine was working in the IT department of a
    medical instruments company, and its CEO was a huge Dell fan and a huge
    AMD fan. Did he have to make a choice between one or the other? Nope,
    Dell made desktops and notebooks with AMD processors in them for him.
    And you hear similar stories from various websites from time to time. So
    it's not that Dell couldn't make these models, it just doesn't want to
    be caught making these models. By whom? By Intel.

    >> And to answer the question about
    >>whether any individual, such as yourself, saves any money by
    >>standadizing on Intel parts, then the answer to that is that you're not
    >>receiving any "Intel Inside" funding. :-)
    >
    >
    > Well I'm thinking ahead to one day where I may resell PCs I build in a
    > higher volume (though the issues I have with transitionary technologies
    > currently in vogue has put a damper on such ideas for me).

    Without making thousands of systems a year, you're not likely to become
    an Intel Inside recipient. However, I've seen that at least two of my
    local computer stores in Ottawa, Canada are recipients of the AMD
    Premier Partner certification. I think that gives them access to the
    latest AMD parts and discounts on the older parts. They're the only two
    stores I know of who are selling Athlon 64's, whereas everybody else is
    selling Athlon XP's and Semprons.

    Yousuf Khan
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:Q4Gyd.31924$GK5.1567767@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > AJ wrote:
    >>>I wouldn't call it religious arguments, it's just a very logical
    >>>question to ask. Is Dell refusing to use AMD processors because of
    >>>inventory reasons, or "other" reasons (i.e. incentives from Intel)?
    >>>Even Tony had to admit after originally writing the above statement
    >>>that Dell says one thing and does another. So minimizing inventory is
    >>>not the real reason why Dell does it.
    >>
    >>
    >> It's all the complexity, not just inventory. The more suppliers and parts,
    >> the worse it gets.
    >
    > Actually, no, no it isn't. [irrelevant stuff omitted]

    It is a generalization that, in general, holds true. Intel/AMD has nothing to
    do with it.

    >>> And to answer the question about
    >>>whether any individual, such as yourself, saves any money by
    >>>standadizing on Intel parts, then the answer to that is that you're not
    >>>receiving any "Intel Inside" funding. :-)
    >>
    >>
    >> Well I'm thinking ahead to one day where I may resell PCs I build in a
    >> higher volume (though the issues I have with transitionary technologies
    >> currently in vogue has put a damper on such ideas for me).
    >
    > Without making thousands of systems a year, you're not likely to become an Intel Inside recipient.

    Not a concern for me. By "volume", I didn't mean 1000's or even hundreds of
    systems per year. Just enough to remain in control of the configurations and
    setups and not have to recommend and then *live with* supporting Dells (or
    god forbid those pesky HPs!).

    AJ
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 22 Dec 2004 10:20:18 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >> >> With AMD processors they could easily require 5 different chips
    >for a
    >> >> single system just to handle the various speed grades (though
    >> >> fortunately this is easier than different video cards).
    >> >
    >> >5 different chips of what? Chipsets, CPUs, or video chipsets?
    >>
    >> Processors. Dell only sells 5 different video cards for all of their
    >> Dimension line, so they only need to stock 5 different parts to
    >> satisfy all their video-card needs. With AMD-based systems they
    >would
    >> probably need at least 3 or 4 parts JUST for the CPU along to satisfy
    >> the various speed grades for the processor. When trying to minimize
    >> the amount of parts on-hand (which is goal #1 at Dell), this is not a
    >> good thing.
    >
    >I'm not getting this, why would AMD based systems require /any/
    >different video cards than Intel based ones?

    Huh? They wouldn't, they need processors! 3 or 4 PROCESSORS! That
    is 3 or 4 extra parts, all of which are CPUs that would only be sold
    in one (or a small number) of their systems. Dell's business is all
    about minimizing the total number of parts that they needs, I was just
    using the video cards for comparison purposes. A single AMD-based
    system would require that Dell stock 4 or 5 extra parts for the CPU
    alone, plus at least one more for the motherboard. This is on top of
    the additional bits and pieces that are common among all of Dell's
    systems.

    The point I'm getting at here is that Dell thrives on the minimization
    of choice, making all of their systems as identical as possible. To
    keep even just a single extra different part in stock complicates
    things. Sometimes their hand is forced and they do need to offer
    choices to customers because all their marketing is all based on the
    exact opposite of their manufacturing reality, ie they advertise
    maximizing choice.

    For the moment at least, customers have not forced Dell's hand in to
    using AMD processors, sufficiently few people buying Dell systems
    would go elsewhere just for an AMD processor, so Dell can avoid this.
    The video cards I mentioned above are only as a sort of
    counter-example. With video cards their hand HAS been forced. I'm
    sure that Dell would LOVE to only supply a single video card for all
    their systems, or at least just a single manufacturer. If it weren't
    for the fact that sufficient customers buying Dell's will DEMAND
    either an ATI card or an nVidia card, Dell would probably drop one of
    those brands and go exclusively with the other. Actually, if they
    could I'm sure that the Dell ideal would be to go exclusively with
    integrated video and forget video cards altogether.


    The real point to take away from this whole argument is that AMD will
    NEVER win over Dell based on price. If they want to get Dell selling
    their processors, they need to offer a product that customers are
    demanding from Dell or they'll go elsewhere. With the Opteron AMD has
    such a product for servers, and I'm sure that this has cost Dell some
    sales. On the desktop front though, most people buying Dell desktops
    either do so for businesses (where ease of maintenance is the #1
    priority, and while processors don't do anything here, minimizing
    motherboard drivers helps), or they are buying consumer-grade systems
    where the type of processor in there probably isn't a very big worry
    as long as the cost is ok.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >>I'm not getting this, why would AMD based systems require /any/
    >>different video cards than Intel based ones?
    >
    >
    > Huh? They wouldn't, they need processors! 3 or 4 PROCESSORS! That
    > is 3 or 4 extra parts, all of which are CPUs that would only be sold
    > in one (or a small number) of their systems. Dell's business is all
    > about minimizing the total number of parts that they needs, I was just
    > using the video cards for comparison purposes. A single AMD-based
    > system would require that Dell stock 4 or 5 extra parts for the CPU
    > alone, plus at least one more for the motherboard. This is on top of
    > the additional bits and pieces that are common among all of Dell's
    > systems.

    Yeah, but they'd need to stock those extra parts everytime they add
    another Intel product line too, for example, Pentium M, Pentium 4 Socket
    478, Pentium 4 Socket 775, P4EE, Celeron, Itanium, and their various
    speed grades. Actually in the case of most of these mail-order PC
    places, I've never seen them stocking much more than two speeds of the
    same processor, usually the top two most common speed grades.

    In fact, I think AMD produced the Socket 754 Sempron just for this case,
    to minimize the number of parts needed to be stocked, at the insistence
    of HP.

    > The real point to take away from this whole argument is that AMD will
    > NEVER win over Dell based on price. If they want to get Dell selling
    > their processors, they need to offer a product that customers are
    > demanding from Dell or they'll go elsewhere. With the Opteron AMD has
    > such a product for servers, and I'm sure that this has cost Dell some
    > sales. On the desktop front though, most people buying Dell desktops
    > either do so for businesses (where ease of maintenance is the #1
    > priority, and while processors don't do anything here, minimizing
    > motherboard drivers helps), or they are buying consumer-grade systems
    > where the type of processor in there probably isn't a very big worry
    > as long as the cost is ok.

    I don't think there's much doubt anymore that Dell will have to start
    selling Opteron very soon. Intel screwed up its 90nm manufacturing
    process by not going with SOI, and Prescott was supposed to mask this
    misstep by going fast even without it (eg. 50% extra pipeline stages).
    This worked for Intel about 4 years ago when it introduced Williamette,
    it masked their last screwed up manufacturing process which was 180nm
    without copper. But even Prescott couldn't bypass the laws of physics
    this time, and Intel's bacon is now cooked, because Intel won't be able
    to design a completely new processor for at least 3 years. Opteron is
    the only option for the foreseeable future. For all of Intel's vaunted
    manufacturing skills, it really bets on the wrong horse quite often.

    But strangely, IBM seems to think that the Xeon is a better
    cost/performance part than Opteron.

    > Susan Whitney, general manager of IBM's X86 server business, said Xeon's lower cost was the key reason most of Big Blue's industry standard servers run on Intel's chip rather than AMD's offering.

    FT.com / Industries / IT - Companies get bit between their teeth
    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/79cb46d0-575d-11d9-a8db-00000e2511c8.html

    I thought that Opterons cost less than Xeons?

    Yousuf Khan
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >I don't think there's much doubt anymore that Dell will have to start
    >selling Opteron very soon. Intel screwed up its 90nm manufacturing
    >process by not going with SOI, and Prescott was supposed to mask this
    >misstep by going fast even without it (eg. 50% extra pipeline stages).
    >This worked for Intel about 4 years ago when it introduced Williamette,
    >it masked their last screwed up manufacturing process which was 180nm
    >without copper. But even Prescott couldn't bypass the laws of physics
    >this time, and Intel's bacon is now cooked, because Intel won't be able
    >to design a completely new processor for at least 3 years. Opteron is
    >the only option for the foreseeable future. For all of Intel's vaunted
    >manufacturing skills, it really bets on the wrong horse quite often.

    Well, it's easy to view things from afar, and criticize Intel's
    "screwed-up" decision regarding technologies. I'm sure they do their
    homework before making any critical decision such as whether or not to
    use SOI, and they know as much about these technologies as anyone on
    the planet. It's their livelihood.

    IMO, the only clearly wrong-headed decision was the one to pursue high
    clock-speeds as the path to highest performance. Hind-site is always
    20/20, but it seems unlikely that they could not have seen that this
    strategy would fail, as it automatically makes any given
    performance-level more difficult to achieve. It begs the question
    "why did they do it", and I'm afraid the only plausible answer is that
    Intel's marketing demanded that they have the fastest-clocking product
    on the market.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > I'm sure they do their homework before making any critical
    > decision such as whether or not to use SOI, and they know
    > as much about these technologies as anyone on the planet.
    > It's their livelihood.

    Yes, but Intel also have considerations other than pure
    technical merit. Market size and ability to deliver rate
    very high. What happens if they only revamp one fab for
    SOI, then that market takes off and they can't supply Dell?
    Egg all over their faces. Intel "enjoys" a premium reputation
    that is also a straight-jacket.

    > IMO, the only clearly wrong-headed decision was the one to
    > pursue high clock-speeds as the path to highest performance.

    I don't think Intel had any choice. We were all supposed
    to be running IA64 processors (Itanium) by now. The iP7
    (Pentium4) is a chip that was never supposed to exist.
    An emergency stop-gap when it appeared that IA64 might
    be a bit slow in market adoption.

    > they do it", and I'm afraid the only plausible answer
    > is that Intel's marketing demanded that they have the
    > fastest-clocking product on the market.

    I would have agreed with you 6 months ago. But now even
    Intel is using model numbers rather than GHz, at least for
    their budget Celeron line.

    I don't doubt that high clocks were favored by Intel marketing
    & Itanium camps. So they pipelined and overclocked the iP5
    into the P7. And they've finally been able to make timing
    on some sections, so have "new" features.

    -- Robert
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:03:19 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >>>I'm not getting this, why would AMD based systems require /any/
    >>>different video cards than Intel based ones?
    >>
    >>
    >> Huh? They wouldn't, they need processors! 3 or 4 PROCESSORS! That
    >> is 3 or 4 extra parts, all of which are CPUs that would only be sold
    >> in one (or a small number) of their systems. Dell's business is all
    >> about minimizing the total number of parts that they needs, I was just
    >> using the video cards for comparison purposes. A single AMD-based
    >> system would require that Dell stock 4 or 5 extra parts for the CPU
    >> alone, plus at least one more for the motherboard. This is on top of
    >> the additional bits and pieces that are common among all of Dell's
    >> systems.
    >
    >Yeah, but they'd need to stock those extra parts everytime they add
    >another Intel product line too, for example, Pentium M, Pentium 4 Socket
    >478, Pentium 4 Socket 775, P4EE, Celeron, Itanium, and their various
    >speed grades. Actually in the case of most of these mail-order PC
    >places, I've never seen them stocking much more than two speeds of the
    >same processor, usually the top two most common speed grades.

    Yes, but they can share those chips between multiple product lines for
    the most part. The same socket 478 P4 chips and Celeron chips were
    used in all of their Dimension and Optiplex lines with only small
    variations. But you do have a point here about the socket change to
    Socket 775 being a bad thing for them, and I suspect that they'll try
    to switch over as many products at once to minimize the impact of
    this.

    As for the other chips, the P4EE is a bit of an odd-ball, but they
    sell in sufficiently expensive machines that it's probably worth it
    for bragging rights if nothing else. They don't need to stock any
    Pentium-M chips since they don't make laptops (they just sell the
    final product with their name branded on top). As for the Itanium...
    err.. well there's no real explaining for that one. My only guess
    here is that Intel is providing a SIGNIFICANT portion of the funding
    (like all of it) for Dell's Itanium systems, because they just do NOT
    fit the Dell model at all.

    >In fact, I think AMD produced the Socket 754 Sempron just for this case,
    >to minimize the number of parts needed to be stocked, at the insistence
    >of HP.

    Probably. AMD is definitely learning and it's paying off for them
    with their HPaq deal. HP sells quite a large number of AMD-based
    systems, including some in their commercial-grade systems.

    In fact, one could probably argue that Dell would theoretically be
    better off going exclusively with AMD chips than they are with only
    Intel chips. However this really just isn't an option for a variety
    of reasons.

    >I don't think there's much doubt anymore that Dell will have to start
    >selling Opteron very soon. Intel screwed up its 90nm manufacturing
    >process by not going with SOI, and Prescott was supposed to mask this
    >misstep by going fast even without it (eg. 50% extra pipeline stages).
    >This worked for Intel about 4 years ago when it introduced Williamette,
    >it masked their last screwed up manufacturing process which was 180nm
    >without copper. But even Prescott couldn't bypass the laws of physics
    >this time, and Intel's bacon is now cooked, because Intel won't be able
    >to design a completely new processor for at least 3 years. Opteron is
    >the only option for the foreseeable future. For all of Intel's vaunted
    >manufacturing skills, it really bets on the wrong horse quite often.

    It certainly seems that way for the moment, though these things can
    change. I suspect that once we start seeing dual-core chips coming to
    market, the advantage for the Opteron is going to become even more
    apparent. Combine that with the fact that AMD might have up to a
    6-month head-start on dual-core chips and Dell could be in a rather
    poor position if they don't sell Opteron systems.

    On the flip side though, AMD's 90nm process isn't exactly making
    waves. Sure they got the power consumption down nice, but so did
    Intel if you look at it from a per-transistor perspective (which
    doesn't help much when you more than double the number of
    transistors). However the clock speed of AMD's 90nm parts is still
    LOWER than that of their 130nm parts. I figured that this would
    change fairly quickly as they ramped up production, but thus far it
    hasn't.

    >But strangely, IBM seems to think that the Xeon is a better
    >cost/performance part than Opteron.
    >
    >> Susan Whitney, general manager of IBM's X86 server business, said Xeon's lower cost was the key reason most of Big Blue's industry standard servers run on Intel's chip rather than AMD's offering.
    >
    >FT.com / Industries / IT - Companies get bit between their teeth
    >http://news.ft.com/cms/s/79cb46d0-575d-11d9-a8db-00000e2511c8.html
    >
    >I thought that Opterons cost less than Xeons?

    Remember that the price you or I would pay for the chip might not have
    any relation to what IBM or Dell pays for them.

    FWIW I just configured out some sample servers to compare the
    near-identical Xeon-based e336 and Opteron-based e326. I configured
    out the systems as a bare-bones setup with 1GB of RAM and either dual
    3.6GHz Xeons or dual Opteron 250 (2.4GHz) chips and no hard drive or
    extra hardware. The result was that the dual Xeons server cost $4478
    and the dual Opteron server cost $4418, not exactly a significant
    difference. Of course, when you add a hard drive in the Xeon system
    becomes more expensive, but that is because it uses up to 4
    hot-swapable drives of the laptop-style 2.5" form factor while the
    Opteron uses only 2 drives in a more standard 3.5" form factor.

    Anyway, long story short, the price looks to be pretty much the same.
    Performance will vary from one application to the next, but they are
    likely to be fairly close. As mentioned above though, I think that
    the dual-core Opteron could throw a real monkey-wrench into this
    argument, especially given that dual-core Xeons might end up having to
    clock WELL down in order to high a viable power consumption number to
    fit into a 2-socket 1U system.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    chrisv wrote:
    > Well, it's easy to view things from afar, and criticize Intel's
    > "screwed-up" decision regarding technologies. I'm sure they do their
    > homework before making any critical decision such as whether or not to
    > use SOI, and they know as much about these technologies as anyone on
    > the planet. It's their livelihood.
    >
    > IMO, the only clearly wrong-headed decision was the one to pursue high
    > clock-speeds as the path to highest performance. Hind-site is always
    > 20/20, but it seems unlikely that they could not have seen that this
    > strategy would fail, as it automatically makes any given
    > performance-level more difficult to achieve. It begs the question
    > "why did they do it", and I'm afraid the only plausible answer is that
    > Intel's marketing demanded that they have the fastest-clocking product
    > on the market.

    Well, I don't want to blame this all on the evil marketeers of Intel,
    engineering managers can be right there amongst the best managers in the
    world when it comes to making wrong decisions. I can definitely see that
    the managers' made decisions to not adopt certain technology simply
    because they wanted to get the next miniaturization node first, damn the
    consequences.

    Yes, it's their livelihood to know the best technology, but that doesn't
    mean they are being listened to by their own managers.

    Yousuf Khan
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >>In fact, I think AMD produced the Socket 754 Sempron just for this case,
    >>to minimize the number of parts needed to be stocked, at the insistence
    >>of HP.
    >
    >
    > Probably. AMD is definitely learning and it's paying off for them
    > with their HPaq deal. HP sells quite a large number of AMD-based
    > systems, including some in their commercial-grade systems.
    >
    > In fact, one could probably argue that Dell would theoretically be
    > better off going exclusively with AMD chips than they are with only
    > Intel chips. However this really just isn't an option for a variety
    > of reasons.

    Yeah, thinking back to the Pentium/K6 days, Dell's pricing model
    would've really benefitted being able to continue to sell Socket 7
    processors for an additional year or so until the Socket 370 became more
    common place. Probably at that point they could've continued to sell
    Socket 7's for another year beyond that just as AMD continued to do.

    > It certainly seems that way for the moment, though these things can
    > change. I suspect that once we start seeing dual-core chips coming to
    > market, the advantage for the Opteron is going to become even more
    > apparent. Combine that with the fact that AMD might have up to a
    > 6-month head-start on dual-core chips and Dell could be in a rather
    > poor position if they don't sell Opteron systems.

    I doubt that six months is enough of a headstart to for Dell to start
    feeling any kind of pain. It'll probably take six months just to get
    dual-cores popular among people.

    > On the flip side though, AMD's 90nm process isn't exactly making
    > waves. Sure they got the power consumption down nice, but so did
    > Intel if you look at it from a per-transistor perspective (which
    > doesn't help much when you more than double the number of
    > transistors). However the clock speed of AMD's 90nm parts is still
    > LOWER than that of their 130nm parts. I figured that this would
    > change fairly quickly as they ramped up production, but thus far it
    > hasn't.

    They seem to be trying to keep power consumption contained. Might be the
    smart thing to start concerning themselves over these days, i.e. power
    requirements rather than speed. The 130nm parts are within the 89W
    envelope. While the 90nm parts under the 67W envelope.

    >>But strangely, IBM seems to think that the Xeon is a better
    >>cost/performance part than Opteron.
    >
    >
    > Remember that the price you or I would pay for the chip might not have
    > any relation to what IBM or Dell pays for them.
    >
    > FWIW I just configured out some sample servers to compare the
    > near-identical Xeon-based e336 and Opteron-based e326. I configured
    > out the systems as a bare-bones setup with 1GB of RAM and either dual
    > 3.6GHz Xeons or dual Opteron 250 (2.4GHz) chips and no hard drive or
    > extra hardware. The result was that the dual Xeons server cost $4478
    > and the dual Opteron server cost $4418, not exactly a significant
    > difference. Of course, when you add a hard drive in the Xeon system
    > becomes more expensive, but that is because it uses up to 4
    > hot-swapable drives of the laptop-style 2.5" form factor while the
    > Opteron uses only 2 drives in a more standard 3.5" form factor.

    Do the dual-core Xeons that IBM makes use their own Summit chipset?
    Perhaps its trying to make more sales of the Summit chipset rather than
    the Xeons themselves?

    Yousuf Khan
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:12:15 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >> Well, it's easy to view things from afar, and criticize Intel's
    >> "screwed-up" decision regarding technologies. I'm sure they do their
    >> homework before making any critical decision such as whether or not to
    >> use SOI, and they know as much about these technologies as anyone on
    >> the planet. It's their livelihood.
    >>
    >> IMO, the only clearly wrong-headed decision was the one to pursue high
    >> clock-speeds as the path to highest performance. Hind-site is always
    >> 20/20, but it seems unlikely that they could not have seen that this
    >> strategy would fail, as it automatically makes any given
    >> performance-level more difficult to achieve. It begs the question
    >> "why did they do it", and I'm afraid the only plausible answer is that
    >> Intel's marketing demanded that they have the fastest-clocking product
    >> on the market.
    >
    > Well, I don't want to blame this all on the evil marketeers of Intel,
    > engineering managers can be right there amongst the best managers in the
    > world when it comes to making wrong decisions. I can definitely see that
    > the managers' made decisions to not adopt certain technology simply
    > because they wanted to get the next miniaturization node first, damn the
    > consequences.

    Even if those consequences make the product not suitable for the market
    (I'm thinking power here, but also P4 architecture)?

    > Yes, it's their livelihood to know the best technology, but that doesn't
    > mean they are being listened to by their own managers.

    That's how companies fail! Like Goerge (I think it was the G-man) said,
    Intel is trapped by their own success. They're also trapped by the silly
    mistake of running the iceberg field at full speed with an "unsinkable"
    chip. They've dug a very deep hole that AMD has done a rather good job of
    taking advantage of. *THIS* is a marketing/executive mistake not seen
    since DEC was torched by its insiders.

    --
    Keith
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:34:07 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >> In fact, one could probably argue that Dell would theoretically be
    >> better off going exclusively with AMD chips than they are with only
    >> Intel chips. However this really just isn't an option for a variety
    >> of reasons.
    >
    >Yeah, thinking back to the Pentium/K6 days, Dell's pricing model
    >would've really benefitted being able to continue to sell Socket 7
    >processors for an additional year or so until the Socket 370 became more
    >common place. Probably at that point they could've continued to sell
    >Socket 7's for another year beyond that just as AMD continued to do.

    Yup, though I think Dell kind of shot themselves in the foot on this
    one. They followed Intel's lead rather blindly and went all out for
    Slot 1, then paid a bit of a price when AMD had a very competitive
    socket 7 processors that came in with a much lower price tag. I don't
    think it really hurt Dell all that much.

    >> It certainly seems that way for the moment, though these things can
    >> change. I suspect that once we start seeing dual-core chips coming to
    >> market, the advantage for the Opteron is going to become even more
    >> apparent. Combine that with the fact that AMD might have up to a
    >> 6-month head-start on dual-core chips and Dell could be in a rather
    >> poor position if they don't sell Opteron systems.
    >
    >I doubt that six months is enough of a headstart to for Dell to start
    >feeling any kind of pain. It'll probably take six months just to get
    >dual-cores popular among people.

    6 months on it's own isn't enough, but if Intel's 6-month late answer
    is a noticeably slower processor than things won't look so hot.

    >> On the flip side though, AMD's 90nm process isn't exactly making
    >> waves. Sure they got the power consumption down nice, but so did
    >> Intel if you look at it from a per-transistor perspective (which
    >> doesn't help much when you more than double the number of
    >> transistors). However the clock speed of AMD's 90nm parts is still
    >> LOWER than that of their 130nm parts. I figured that this would
    >> change fairly quickly as they ramped up production, but thus far it
    >> hasn't.
    >
    >They seem to be trying to keep power consumption contained. Might be the
    >smart thing to start concerning themselves over these days, i.e. power
    >requirements rather than speed. The 130nm parts are within the 89W
    >envelope. While the 90nm parts under the 67W envelope.

    Could be. They do seem to be making some very attractive notebook
    processors, some of which are coming in with TDPs of only 25W. That
    puts the chips squarely in Pentium-M territory.

    >> FWIW I just configured out some sample servers to compare the
    >> near-identical Xeon-based e336 and Opteron-based e326. I configured
    >> out the systems as a bare-bones setup with 1GB of RAM and either dual
    >> 3.6GHz Xeons or dual Opteron 250 (2.4GHz) chips and no hard drive or
    >> extra hardware. The result was that the dual Xeons server cost $4478
    >> and the dual Opteron server cost $4418, not exactly a significant
    >> difference. Of course, when you add a hard drive in the Xeon system
    >> becomes more expensive, but that is because it uses up to 4
    >> hot-swapable drives of the laptop-style 2.5" form factor while the
    >> Opteron uses only 2 drives in a more standard 3.5" form factor.
    >
    >Do the dual-core Xeons that IBM makes use their own Summit chipset?
    >Perhaps its trying to make more sales of the Summit chipset rather than
    >the Xeons themselves?

    Err, I assume you mean "dual-processor" and not "dual-core" above?
    Either way the answer is no as far as I can tell, though IBM doesn't
    seem too eager to provide this info. To the best of my knowledge
    though, Summit is only used on their higher-end 4 and 8-way Xeon
    systems.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > >Yeah, thinking back to the Pentium/K6 days, Dell's pricing model
    > >would've really benefitted being able to continue to sell Socket 7
    > >processors for an additional year or so until the Socket 370 became
    more
    > >common place. Probably at that point they could've continued to sell

    > >Socket 7's for another year beyond that just as AMD continued to do.
    >
    > Yup, though I think Dell kind of shot themselves in the foot on this
    > one. They followed Intel's lead rather blindly and went all out for
    > Slot 1, then paid a bit of a price when AMD had a very competitive
    > socket 7 processors that came in with a much lower price tag. I
    don't
    > think it really hurt Dell all that much.

    Oh that's right I forgot, initially it wasn't even Socket 370, it was
    initially Slot 1 for Intel. Socket 370 didn't come out until the middle
    of the Pentium 3 generation. You just get used to thinking that Socket
    370 must've always been with the P6-series of processors right from the
    beginning, but it wasn't.

    And actually that makes it even more likely that it would've benefitted
    Dell. Dell not only had to switch away from Socket 7, but eventually
    it had to switch away from Slot 1 too. During all of that time, there
    was a steady supply of Socket 7's running K6's and Cyrixes available.

    But yes, it didn't hurt Dell all that much. It's likely that Dell was
    already the beneficiary of Intel's /special/ marketing campaigns by
    that time. Other manufacturers like HP and Gateway (and even IBM at
    that time) adopted the K6's and to a lesser extent the Cyrixes, and
    took some good cost savings off of it, but Dell still managed to stay
    competitive without the benefit of these cost savings.

    > >They seem to be trying to keep power consumption contained. Might be
    the
    > >smart thing to start concerning themselves over these days, i.e.
    power
    > >requirements rather than speed. The 130nm parts are within the 89W
    > >envelope. While the 90nm parts under the 67W envelope.
    >
    > Could be. They do seem to be making some very attractive notebook
    > processors, some of which are coming in with TDPs of only 25W. That
    > puts the chips squarely in Pentium-M territory.

    25W?!? I don't think they're quite that good yet, I think the AMD's
    might be in the 35W range, which is good but still a little higher than
    the Pentium-M's 27W range.

    There is talk now that AMD will be bringing out 25W mobile processors
    next year. I posted it up in another thread recently.

    > >Do the dual-core Xeons that IBM makes use their own Summit chipset?
    > >Perhaps its trying to make more sales of the Summit chipset rather
    than
    > >the Xeons themselves?
    >
    > Err, I assume you mean "dual-processor" and not "dual-core" above?
    > Either way the answer is no as far as I can tell, though IBM doesn't
    > seem too eager to provide this info. To the best of my knowledge
    > though, Summit is only used on their higher-end 4 and 8-way Xeon
    > systems.

    Actually, no, I was referring to dual-core Xeons since that's what we
    were talking about previously. But yes, it doesn't matter if we're
    talking about dual- or single-core Xeons, as the Summit is equally
    applicable to either one.

    Yousuf Khan
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    keith wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:12:15 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > > Well, I don't want to blame this all on the evil marketeers of
    Intel,
    > > engineering managers can be right there amongst the best managers
    in the
    > > world when it comes to making wrong decisions. I can definitely see
    that
    > > the managers' made decisions to not adopt certain technology simply

    > > because they wanted to get the next miniaturization node first,
    damn the
    > > consequences.
    >
    > Even if those consequences make the product not suitable for the
    market
    > (I'm thinking power here, but also P4 architecture)?

    Well, I'm sure they thought it would be suitable for the market, but it
    turned out wrong, that's why they call it a bad decision. They chose
    wrongly.

    Perhaps the management's priority was on getting to the miniaturization
    stage first so that they could tell the world they reached that stage
    before everybody else? And of course everytime *in the past*, just
    getting to a particular miniaturization stage also helped power
    consumption and speed. Management may have simply thought their process
    engineers could simply add a special ingredient as the process matured
    to make the process all better again, without major disruptions. Leave
    the experimenting with complex new process technologies for the next
    major stage.

    These days, in a lot of aspects of manufacturing, Intel is not
    perceived as the leader. For example, AMD is the perceived leader in
    the field of automation, with its APM (automated precision
    manufacturing) process. Of course IBM came up with everything from
    copper to SOI to straining first.

    APM lets AMD find defects in its microprocessors as they're being made,
    apparently. It looks like Chartered had to buy APM from AMD in order to
    even begin manufacturing Opterons and Athlons. And AMD is already on
    APM 3.0 now.

    > > Yes, it's their livelihood to know the best technology, but that
    doesn't
    > > mean they are being listened to by their own managers.
    >
    > That's how companies fail! Like Goerge (I think it was the G-man)
    said,
    > Intel is trapped by their own success. They're also trapped by the
    silly
    > mistake of running the iceberg field at full speed with an
    "unsinkable"
    > chip. They've dug a very deep hole that AMD has done a rather good
    job of
    > taking advantage of. *THIS* is a marketing/executive mistake not
    seen
    > since DEC was torched by its insiders.

    It's management having other priorities other than just basic
    get-the-job-done priorities. I will bet that Intel will be the first
    one to have a 65nm process, if anybody else gets there first, it will
    be deeply embarrassing for them -- it's as if every little online
    newspaper article hurts their feelings and they won't let anyone else
    come up to a miniaturization stage first. Whereas AMD won't even bother
    to compete against Intel for those bragging rights, it will get to 65nm
    when 65nm is ready for them. To them, the race is the metric by which
    they are measured: the race to the Ghz and higher, the race to the
    miniaturization. But they end up sacrificing basic needs to get to some
    goal fast, and as a consequence losing out on the overall race.

    Intel's big head-bonking club has been having less and less effect as
    time goes on. In the K6 days, after AMD got a bit of lead on the
    Pentium classic, Intel released the Celeron and bonked AMD on the head
    real good; AMD was down for a long time. In the K7 days, AMD introduced
    copper interconnects and got to 1Ghz first; Intel bonked back with P4,
    but this one didn't hurt AMD as bad as before, and AMD for the most
    part kept competitive. In the current K8 days, it doesn't even look
    like Intel can reach high enough to bonk AMD on the head this time.
    Yousuf Khan
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:08:17 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:12:15 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>> Well, it's easy to view things from afar, and criticize Intel's
    >>> "screwed-up" decision regarding technologies. I'm sure they do their
    >>> homework before making any critical decision such as whether or not to
    >>> use SOI, and they know as much about these technologies as anyone on
    >>> the planet. It's their livelihood.
    >>>
    >>> IMO, the only clearly wrong-headed decision was the one to pursue high
    >>> clock-speeds as the path to highest performance. Hind-site is always
    >>> 20/20, but it seems unlikely that they could not have seen that this
    >>> strategy would fail, as it automatically makes any given
    >>> performance-level more difficult to achieve. It begs the question
    >>> "why did they do it", and I'm afraid the only plausible answer is that
    >>> Intel's marketing demanded that they have the fastest-clocking product
    >>> on the market.
    >>
    >> Well, I don't want to blame this all on the evil marketeers of Intel,
    >> engineering managers can be right there amongst the best managers in the
    >> world when it comes to making wrong decisions. I can definitely see that
    >> the managers' made decisions to not adopt certain technology simply
    >> because they wanted to get the next miniaturization node first, damn the
    >> consequences.
    >
    >Even if those consequences make the product not suitable for the market
    >(I'm thinking power here, but also P4 architecture)?
    >
    >> Yes, it's their livelihood to know the best technology, but that doesn't
    >> mean they are being listened to by their own managers.
    >
    >That's how companies fail! Like Goerge (I think it was the G-man) said,
    >Intel is trapped by their own success. They're also trapped by the silly
    >mistake of running the iceberg field at full speed with an "unsinkable"
    >chip. They've dug a very deep hole that AMD has done a rather good job of
    >taking advantage of. *THIS* is a marketing/executive mistake not seen
    >since DEC was torched by its insiders.

    I'm baffled as to why "they" (the board ?) is letting Barrett hang around
    to complete the F/U. I think he's done a great job for AMD.:-) Funny how
    Hector seems to be so umm, dexterous... considering his background of
    coming from an outfit like Moto - no?

    Did ya catch this one:
    http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh75946_2004-12-28_22-10-45_n28725043_newsml
    - $10M.!!!!!... still a pretender and he's selling the coy. down the
    river.:-) Ahh, life in the fast lane.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:40:50 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:08:17 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:12:15 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>
    >>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>> Well, it's easy to view things from afar, and criticize Intel's
    >>>> "screwed-up" decision regarding technologies. I'm sure they do their
    >>>> homework before making any critical decision such as whether or not to
    >>>> use SOI, and they know as much about these technologies as anyone on
    >>>> the planet. It's their livelihood.
    >>>>
    >>>> IMO, the only clearly wrong-headed decision was the one to pursue high
    >>>> clock-speeds as the path to highest performance. Hind-site is always
    >>>> 20/20, but it seems unlikely that they could not have seen that this
    >>>> strategy would fail, as it automatically makes any given
    >>>> performance-level more difficult to achieve. It begs the question
    >>>> "why did they do it", and I'm afraid the only plausible answer is that
    >>>> Intel's marketing demanded that they have the fastest-clocking product
    >>>> on the market.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I don't want to blame this all on the evil marketeers of Intel,
    >>> engineering managers can be right there amongst the best managers in the
    >>> world when it comes to making wrong decisions. I can definitely see that
    >>> the managers' made decisions to not adopt certain technology simply
    >>> because they wanted to get the next miniaturization node first, damn the
    >>> consequences.
    >>
    >>Even if those consequences make the product not suitable for the market
    >>(I'm thinking power here, but also P4 architecture)?
    >>
    >>> Yes, it's their livelihood to know the best technology, but that doesn't
    >>> mean they are being listened to by their own managers.
    >>
    >>That's how companies fail! Like Goerge (I think it was the G-man) said,
    >>Intel is trapped by their own success. They're also trapped by the silly
    >>mistake of running the iceberg field at full speed with an "unsinkable"
    >>chip. They've dug a very deep hole that AMD has done a rather good job of
    >>taking advantage of. *THIS* is a marketing/executive mistake not seen
    >>since DEC was torched by its insiders.
    >
    > I'm baffled as to why "they" (the board ?) is letting Barrett hang around
    > to complete the F/U. I think he's done a great job for AMD.:-) Funny how
    > Hector seems to be so umm, dexterous... considering his background of
    > coming from an outfit like Moto - no?

    Hector came from TI, IIRC. There *is* a difference. TI is doing rather
    well in its market. Moto? Then agin, I could be wrong (and am too
    tired to look it up).

    --
    Keith
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    keith wrote:
    >>I'm baffled as to why "they" (the board ?) is letting Barrett hang around
    >>to complete the F/U. I think he's done a great job for AMD.:-) Funny how
    >>Hector seems to be so umm, dexterous... considering his background of
    >>coming from an outfit like Moto - no?
    >
    >
    > Hector came from TI, IIRC. There *is* a difference. TI is doing rather
    > well in its market. Moto? Then agin, I could be wrong (and am too
    > tired to look it up).
    >

    He was at TI a long time ago, his last gig was as president of Moto
    semiconductor.

    Yousuf Khan
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:36:47 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > keith wrote:
    >>>I'm baffled as to why "they" (the board ?) is letting Barrett hang around
    >>>to complete the F/U. I think he's done a great job for AMD.:-) Funny how
    >>>Hector seems to be so umm, dexterous... considering his background of
    >>>coming from an outfit like Moto - no?
    >>
    >>
    >> Hector came from TI, IIRC. There *is* a difference. TI is doing rather
    >> well in its market. Moto? Then agin, I could be wrong (and am too
    >> tired to look it up).
    >>
    >
    > He was at TI a long time ago, his last gig was as president of Moto
    > semiconductor.

    You're right. I'd forgotten that.

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Intel