Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

KEEP WATCHING AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 17, 2006 1:15:02 PM

More and more proof that dell will use AMD sooner than later.

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2698
:wink:

More about : watching amd

February 17, 2006 1:20:01 PM

THG says something else...
February 17, 2006 1:45:45 PM

Quote:
Forget Dell, they suck monkey nuts.


Yeah I know, but they'll be really helpful in the notebook and desktop segment. Servers are well covered with HP and Sun.
Related resources
February 17, 2006 3:13:46 PM

Quote:
Forget Dell, they suck monkey nuts.


I concur, ever since i tried to upgrade an old socket A processor in a dell machine and realized that they modified the slot so mainstream processors wouldnt fit, ive stayed as far away as possible.
February 17, 2006 3:28:03 PM

9-inch, are you done with the fanboy posts? We all know AMD has the better product but the morons they have doing marketing will never make them widely used. Even if Dell does sell AMD cpus whose to say anyone will buy them? The people who are buying Dells likely have never heard of AMD, or just look at the Ghz rating and say its cheap crap. And why do you people even care about Dells? There crappy low-end computers, when at that point it doesn't make a difference if you a P4 or Celeron vs. a Athlon64 or a Sempron. These aren't gaming computers, they are websurfing and e-mailing machines.
February 17, 2006 3:33:37 PM

Quote:
More and more proof that dell will use AMD sooner than later.


Who even want to buy their systems from Dell? :p  OK fanboys who can't put it together, alright


,,
February 17, 2006 3:38:48 PM

Quote:
Forget Dell, they suck monkey nuts.


Yeah I know, but they'll be really helpful in the notebook and desktop segment. Servers are well covered with HP and Sun. i third no fourth that motion(sorry chuck) (lol munkey nutz) man dell is still a peice of crap no matter what proc they use dell can go and

KISS MY BIG FAT NEW YORK ASS!!!!!
February 17, 2006 5:24:01 PM

Quote:
I concur, ever since i tried to upgrade an old socket A processor in a dell machine and realized that they modified the slot so mainstream processors wouldnt fit, ive stayed as far away as possible.


??????????

I think you have got your wires crossed rather than Dell. Don't get me wrong I am not a lover of Dell machines either, but Dell's have always used standard CPU slots/sockets and you can change the CPU for a 'mainstream' CPU that is compatiable with the BIOS and slot that the system is based on. The Slot 1 boards (Pentium II/Pentium III slot based CPU's) could use any of the CPU's bought from any supplier as long as the chipset supported it (I have personally changed plenty of them in Dell systems to faster CPU's bought both OEM and Retail).
Secondly, Socket A is an AMD platform only (as was Slot A) and as Dell are Intel only resellers, they would not use an AMD platform in their systems. AMD & Intel have not been cross-platform compatiable since the Socket 7 days.
February 17, 2006 10:08:24 PM

Warning: Long post.

That article and it's rumours are inheirently contradictory. Your RealTechNews article is basing it's information on a short article from The Inquirer. The direct link is provided here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29756

First of all, this latest rumour is entirely based on "analysis" by American Technology Research. Normally, since they claim to be unbiased and independent on their website, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, however that company is in a conflict of interest. The company specializes in making money for technology investors. It's awfully convenient that they release this "independant analysis" and suddenly AMD's stock rises 80 cents as reported in The Inquirer article? I'm sure their investor customers are very happy.

It's also worthy to note that The Inquirer's report on the rumour is dripping with sarcasm.

Quote:
And if we had a cent for every time there was a rumour that Dell was gonna use AMD chips we'd be able to afford to marry that profligate Adamson Rust.

RealTechNews also specifically refers to The Inquierer as it's source in this rumour which is interesting since this is the same Inquirer that released an article indicating how "Dell will not pick up AMD".

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29657

The major issue in The Inquirer's opinion is AMD's lack of manufacturing capacity. Even the RealTechNews article you posted mentions this fact.

Quote:
AMD also has about the same, but AMD’s main problem right now is supply. As I said, their chips are selling as fast, or in many cases faster, than they can produce them. The upcoming 65-nanometer process should definitely help with this problem (smaller chips = more chips per silicon wafer) but where Intel is pushing it out this year, it had seemed like AMD wouldn’t release 65-nanometer chips until very late ‘06 or possibly ‘07.

If AMD has little or no spare capacity right now, why would Dell switch and push themselves into a dead end? If 65nm won't be ready "until very late '06" or 2007 there is no reason why Dell will switch anytime soon.

Quote:
Yeah I know, but they'll be really helpful in the notebook and desktop segment. Servers are well covered with HP and Sun.

That is an absurd reason for Dell to switch to AMD processors. Granted in the desktop segment, AMD processors outperform Intel ones, but the difference isn't drastic especially in the everyday tasks that Dell's computers are marketed toward. Even power consumption and heat is not as large an issue as it once was as Intel matures it's 65nm process. It has long been reported that the 3.2GHz 940 would drop in TDP to 95W, now Intel has announced that the 3.4GHz 950 will fit into that power envelope as well.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/02/17/intel_penti...

As well, Intel is dropping it's processor prices by up to 50% which makes it even less worthwhile for Dell to switch to AMD in the near term. As well by Q3 Conroe will be released. We can debate the minute details of whether AM2 or Conroe will be faster, but either way their performance will be very close. Why would Dell spend the money to switch to AMD for desktop if there are no tangible benefits in the next year?

Switching to AMD in the notebook sector is even more ridiculous. Intel is extremely strong in that sector, especially now that they are pushing for dual cores. AMD Turion dual core solution was supposed to have launched with AM2 in April, but seeing that AM2 has been delayed to June, it's reasonable to expect the same for S1. Again, this means no tangible benefits. I know you posted an article in the Turion 64 thread that AMD is "headed toward" 4 hours of battery life this year and 5 hours next year. The thing is, Intel already has 4 hours of battery life with Core Duo now. The only hinderance is the USB issue, but Microsoft is already finalizing their fix. While AMD is aiming for 5 hours of battery life for next year, Intel will have it by Q4 with Merom.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/17/intel_roadmap_update_...

Quote:
So called mobile lifestyle notebooks, devices with 14" and 15" screens are indicated to exceed five hours of battery time when launched in Q4.

The only the only sector that makes sense for Dell to switch to Intel is the server market, specifically the 4-way and higher segment. This is where AMD's Direct Connect Architecture is particularly useful allowing it to pull ahead decidedly. It's interesting that this is the sector that you discount since:

Quote:
Servers are well covered with HP and Sun.
February 17, 2006 10:42:36 PM

Thanks for the warning. That article in theinquirer you linked to is nothing but pure biased speculation. The author even wrote that his "contention"is that [blah blah blah...etc]. It is his opinion.

Also, we have no frikin idea of how many Socket AM2 processors are already made! How can you know that AMD cannot keep up with demand? Consider that the Socket AM2 cpus were delayed because AMD wanted more than enough inventory before shipping them perhaps? We'll see though.
February 17, 2006 10:44:40 PM

Once again, very well said man. I also want to point out that for the same reason Dell has not gone with AMD yet, Apple also chose to go with Intel simply because of the fact that Intel can manufacture its chips per demand and can change their routines to increase production if necessary for a particular chip or chips.

It was also wise on Apples part to go with Intel because they know once again, that Intel is nothing but a pure marketing machine.

Quote:
Why did Apple pick Intel instead of AMD?

AMD was approached, but supply problems similar to those with IBM appeared likely. Also, Intel has been courting Apple for many years. Perhaps some of that effort has paid off. Further, this announcement was designed to be one of political expedience, convenience, exclusivity, and simplicity. The focus was to not scare the analysts and financial markets; those circles are happy with the "Intel" announcement. Further, you must look at Intel's roadmap one to two years into the future to see the types of processors Apple will be using; they're not Pentium 4, but will represent the advanced next generation of Intel's microprocessor designs. Finally, since Apple has shown it is willing to switch processor architectures entirely, nothing prevents Apple from availing itself of the best x86 and x86-64 processor technologies available from other x86 vendors once the x86 transition is complete or well underway - including those from AMD, as do many other PC vendors.

If AMD would have drawn up a roadmap like Intel did, maybe they would be used in Apple and Dell machines already. Like I've said before, Intel, Apple and Dell are innovators in the this industry. Marketing plays such a huge role in all this and that is where AMD is weak.

http://appleintelfaq.com/
February 17, 2006 10:49:12 PM

I know that The Inquirer article was opinion, but at least it's speculation was straight from AMD's own corporate slides.

I also quoted the supply analysis from the article he himself posted. I would assume that if he believes the AMD-Dell rumour presented in the article he would also believe the rest of the analysis.

In any case, the entire issue is moot since Dell has again denied the rumours.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/17/dell_on_amd/
February 17, 2006 10:50:14 PM

Nice try once again.
As usual you have missed a few points.
While Dresden's production is maxed out, Amd does have an existing contract to outsource product. As such, product availability is a non-issue.
On the other hand, Dell is not that stupid. They know that thier greatest asset is in volumn buying. It is much easier for them to leverage a purchase of 100 million boards and chips from intel, than it would to deal for even only 75 million. While shortly Amd will go to a DDR2 format, that would symplify the same tactic in memory. However, Intel is expected to go to DDR3 shortly, so Dell would be stuck again trying to negotiate smaller quantities of product.
It would also be tough for Dell to maintain thier margin on limited purchase products, like Amd chips and mobos.
While Dell will use the "Amd option" to push down prices with Intel, and to keep share value high, in times like these, segmenting thier suppliers is just not a viable option.
I dont really see this as a negative to Amd, since thier product share will continue to rise, so long as they carry a reasonable product.
Unfortuneatly for Dell, that would leave them with a dwindling share of a dwindling market. I am fairly certain that thier demise would not draw too many tears from the enthusiast community.
February 17, 2006 10:56:29 PM

I believe that Dell is not going anywhere nor will its market share dwindle. They're known as a value computer company and will go to great lengths to keep that title. If anything, the rumors of them switching to AMD, will fuel the price negotiations between Dell and Intel.
February 17, 2006 10:58:03 PM

This is a quote from marketwatch, the original reporter of the comments:

""We really have no change in our stance," Chief Executive Kevin Rollins said Thursday on a post-earnings-release conference call. "We've had great success (with Intel chips). It's pretty clear that our customers are happy with our technology."
Still, Rollins also said the company routinely tests new technologies and will continue to do so.
But "today we're not changing our stance," he said. "

Very very careful wording if you look closely. He doesn't want anyone to know or suspect anything until it happens. "Today we are not changing our stance", he said, not "currently we have no plans to use AMD processors" as he has EVERY OTHER TIME he has been asked. Also, he said "We've HAD great success" [emph. added]. Odd he never even said the word "Intel", "Pentium", or any other thing relating to Intel. Remember also that the words "with Intel chips" was NOT what he said. That's what the news guys put in there, or what they think he meant to say. This actually makes me believe the rumors even more.
February 17, 2006 11:14:43 PM

I can assure you that Dell will not be going with AMD anytime in the forseeable future.

Dell doesn't even touch 1/3 to 1/2 of the computers they sell. Intel builds the entire system, slaps a dell logo on it, and sends it out directly to the customer that placed the order. Overlooking that little fact arent we?
February 17, 2006 11:14:53 PM

I just wonder how many chips AMD's partners are producing for them now. We keep hearing how AMD's supply is very tight right now so it seems weird why the outsourcing companies can't just supply more if they have so much spare capacity. I suppose it could just be AMD ramping down production of the current generation in favour of AM2, S1 and F.

Sadly, Dell's volume buying strategies are becoming increasingly difficult with DDR2 since there is a shortage. The problem probably won't improve much when AMD joins the party, although the memory manufacturers are attempting to increase production. The analysis from DRAMeXchange indicates that there is a 10-20% shortage which will continue through Q1, no doubt flowing into Q2.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20060215171...

As for Dell, they'll probably be able to remain competitive since Intel is beginning to agressively price it's processors. The previous generation 8xx processors are already priced for clearance, and the 9xx generation will receive massive prices cuts (up to 50%) in the end of April. Certainly a 3.4GHz 950 isn't bad for $316 especially now that it's TDP has dropped from 130W to 95W. Between agressive pricing on processors and aggressive pricing on chipsets once production moves from 130nm 200mm wafers to 90nm 300mm wafers, Dell should be able to hold market share in most sectors. 4-way and higher servers are always the issue anyways.
February 17, 2006 11:17:40 PM

I'm sure Mr. Rollins has been well trained by the PR people and the lawyers. Dell will obviously keep their options open especially to see how AM2 and Conroe fair. I'm not against Dell going AMD, it's necessary in the 4-way+ server markets, but it just doesn't make sense in the volume desktop and mobile markets.
February 18, 2006 12:48:09 AM

Quote:
The only the only sector that makes sense for Dell to switch to Intel is the server market, specifically the 4-way and higher segment. This is where AMD's Direct Connect Architecture is particularly useful allowing it to pull ahead decidedly


Not only servers, desktops also.

It would be wiser for Dell to use Opteron for servers, Athlon FX processors for their XPS line and Turion for 64-bit mobility (in this case, they can use the MT lines for the thin and light segment).

These are hand-picked options for now. Once AMD has fab36 at full potential, then Dell can think on adding a few more lines like desktops and laptops.
February 18, 2006 1:09:15 AM

I'm no expert on Dell, but from what I've read, they're hurting.
For one thing, lower-end computers have become such a "comodity" item -- like toasters and microwaves -- that even with cost-cutting, supply management, large volume and all the other tricks Dell uses to minimize its costs and maximize its profits -- its profit-margins are shrinking.
There's no easy fix to that problem -- especially when facing the specter of a high-volume, low-cost competitor in a third-world country (Lenovo).
Part of the solution might be to change the Dell image from ONLY being a supplier of ho-hum, cookie-cutter computers, to include an upperscale, "vanity" line to compete with the likes of Sony's Vaio line.
Wasn't it Dell last month that grabbed a few headlines with a computer equipped with four GPUs? (two dual-GPU video cards).
Gamers of course generally prefer AMD -- not all of them, sure, but at the LAN parties I've been to AMD was clearly in the majority.
If Dell is going to make a credible stab at creating a new gaming line (maybe to include gaming laptops) then they will need some AMD CPUs for that.
February 18, 2006 1:26:43 AM

I'm of the opinion that the GPU(s) are more important for gaming than the CPU choice. As long as you have the best graphics card for the money, choosing between Intel and AMD isn't such a big deal especially at the high-end. I suppose gaming fanatics count every fps though so AMD does have benefits there right now. The 4 GPU SLI gaming Dell also uses a 955EE pre-overclocked to 4.26GHz. That speed can be reached using the stock cooler, and Dell is including a massive, custom designed cooling block so the temperatures are probably pretty good. (It wouldn't be smart for them to warranty it otherwise). At 4.26GHz even an Intel should offer sufficient performance.

Dell will probably wait to see how everything shakes out anyways. There's no point in Dell making the investment to switch to AMD right now with the S939 being replaced. That means the earliest they'll switch would be June when AM2 lauches. Even then, they probably just wait the 2 or so months for Conroe to launch. We'll see how the dust settles by year end.
February 18, 2006 8:14:23 AM

Quote:
I can assure you that Dell will not be going with AMD anytime in the forseeable future.

Dell doesn't even touch 1/3 to 1/2 of the computers they sell. Intel builds the entire system, slaps a dell logo on it, and sends it out directly to the customer that placed the order. Overlooking that little fact arent we?

Linkage plz
February 18, 2006 8:25:05 AM

Dell not only doesnt want to switch to AMD (why would they?), they also CANT! Their customers would pretty much feel pissed off ("If you think that AMDs are better, why do we get it now and not earlier?") and just wouldnt buy from Dell anymore.
February 18, 2006 9:40:52 AM

Erases as quickly as possible to avoid feeling bad
February 18, 2006 10:22:20 AM

Too bad for Dell.
I was a good Dell customer for years. I was surprised to have my High-End PC shipped fixed and returned in 2 days! Even shipping was free!
UNTIL.

1. The Dell PCs are getting really lame, like most PC use integrated graphics. Even the old extreme graphics 2 with 32 megs can be found. Only the biggest XPS has an OK graphics card available. (No X1900TXT anyplace)
2. Still not selling AMD, I didn't care much about AMD until the AMD chips got good "X2"
3. Forget about International service. In Thailand I was told I had to travel to Kuala Lumpur, get a hotel for a week. (Not possible to ship international to the service center) Then a service guy came to my hotel to fix on site or take back to the service center (I knew a motherboard was needed). Well, they can't fix it (no motherboards available) and suggested I get a new Dell.

It seems Alienware is picking up where Dell left off. I don't even concider HP or Gateway.
I also like Acer notebooks now. I got a 5502 - Pentuim 740, X700, bluetooth, DL DVD, everything. $1200
Perhaps the Conroe is interesting enough to temporaryly remove item #2.
!