Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bad move by Dell?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Is it better for Dell to only use Intel?

Total: 46 votes

  • yes
  • 27 %
  • no
  • 74 %
February 18, 2006 4:03:01 AM

I just got done reading the article on Dell saying that they wont be supporting AMD Proc's. IMO this is a bad move. I can understand if they wouldnt use Athlon 64's in mainstream comps due to price:p erformance in comparison to intel. But gaming is become big now and AMD (IMO) is obviously the choice for gaming. Also Intel's Pentium D 820-840 cant keep up with there X2 counterparts for Multi-tasking and encoding.
I would like to here other peoples thoughts on this. If you think this is a good idea or not...

More about : bad move dell

February 18, 2006 4:36:11 AM

I think it is a huge mistake. They are doing a great job of appealing to joe average computer buyer but are really thumbing their noses at the enthusiasts. Yes, they make the XPS line but most of your computer geeks know they can build an AMD system that will be faster for less. The average buyer buys about every 4 years where as the enthusiasts tend to buy almost every year or at least upgrade. I currently have 2 desktop p4, laptop p4, and 2 Athlon 64s. Not to mention I build computers for people all the time. I still send people that just want to surf the internet and crap like that to Dell to buy. Dell is very competitive on base computers. High end, thats another story. They had lower than expected earnings this last quarter, so if that keeps up maybe they will consider a change. If I had to guess why they haven't added them to their line. It would be that AMD doesn't make their own motherboard chipsets, they rely on 3rd party manufacturers like Nvidia, Via, Sis, etc.
Related resources
February 18, 2006 6:42:43 AM

No choice really. Dell makes thier mark by buying bulk, and selling cheap. Splitting thier purchasing power is not an option.
February 18, 2006 7:42:58 AM

Even though I'm a frequent DELL customer I have to say it's rather lame, now they try to enter the gaming market with their XPS systems but leaving out the high potential of AMD CPU's...

I'm quite happy with my XPS M170 "LAN-Party" notebook, which rocks for it's portability, but not choosing an AMD proc. for an extreme gaming rig is just wrong... at least for now. Who knows, maybe its not a decision they made on their own... What if intel requests an exclusive position and "just saying" maybe threatens with higher prices?

No ofense against intel and clearly it's an alegation without proof, but IMO could be exactly this the case though.
February 18, 2006 8:12:37 AM

XPS is not for gaming, its for heavy computing in general and noone can beat Intel there.
And you dont really want a Turion in your XPS M170, do you?
February 18, 2006 8:19:39 AM

didn't say i want a turion in my m170, and it fits very nicely for the gaming i do :lol:  ... but my friend has bought himself the xps 600 workstation, and the only thing missing imo is the fx-60...
February 18, 2006 8:24:54 AM

Quote:
No ofense against intel and clearly it's an alegation without proof, but IMO could be exactly this the case though.
You do know that Dell is a larger company than Intel right?
February 18, 2006 8:25:18 AM

Quote:
XPS is not for gaming, its for heavy computing in general and noone can beat Intel there.
And you dont really want a Turion in your XPS M170, do you?



I respectfully disagree.

AMD64s ARE for heavy computing.

Please take a look at the benchmarks I posted above.

Let's compare heavy iron here -- the 2xx and 8xx Opterons destroy Intel Xeons despite a 1.2GHz core clock deficit.
February 18, 2006 8:30:35 AM

so?
it's still not dell who decides on the price of the intel cpu's, or is there some conspiracy i'm not aware of?

my point was, that buying not only many but also exclusively intel gives dell a certain price advantage for the same cpu's. getting their fingers on amd cpu's could "weaken" this position for future bargaining a little bit...
February 18, 2006 8:32:56 AM

...oh and yes, i know that dell is the bigger corp. than intel. knowing because i hold some stocks of each... (not so proud on the dell-shares though.... not getting enough money out of it...)
February 18, 2006 8:33:51 AM

Quote:
XPS is not for gaming, its for heavy computing in general and noone can beat Intel there.
And you dont really want a Turion in your XPS M170, do you?



I respectfully disagree.

AMD64s ARE for heavy computing.

Please take a look at the benchmarks I posted above.

Let's compare heavy iron here -- the 2xx and 8xx Opterons destroy Intel Xeons despite a 1.2GHz core clock deficit.
Yes, Opterons might have the edge in more situations than Xeons, but there arent any WS CPUs in XPSs.
February 18, 2006 8:34:53 AM

With that, I agree 100%. It's just that most people think it's Intel pulling Dell's chain, while usually it's the other way round. After all Dell buys 1/3rd of Intel's chips. That kind of buying power gives Dell the edge.
February 18, 2006 8:35:43 AM

The Non-Opteron AMD64s perform very well too. Even running Intel optimized code AMD64s do very well.
February 18, 2006 8:38:43 AM

well that's exactly my point :D  ... who wouldn't buy a amd rig with dell prices...

wouldn't be no 1/3 no more for intel... :twisted:
February 18, 2006 8:39:38 AM

I just hop they made the right choice for the company.
February 18, 2006 9:51:22 AM

Dell has good deals with Intel and they only care about money.
AMD is far too little and unreliable to support Dell.
The only thing that Dell might add(for now) is an extreme gaming PC that has Fx 59.
Either than that,there is really no need for AMD since AMD chips don't have Intel quality or Intel reputation.
Remember, Dell sells to the average buyer or for someone who wants a notebook. Intel is very good at that,since many people know only about Intel.
And even if they knew about AMD they'd say,why get something that is from a lesser company,probably with flaws when you can get a solid product from a very well known and publicised company.
February 18, 2006 10:00:12 AM

The same Intel quality that produced the Pentium bugs, the i840 chipset, the RDRAM fiasco and a new P4 processor which ran slower than an old P3 proc?
February 18, 2006 10:23:23 AM

Do you know how many bugs Athlons have? You better have one major bug that you can fix without major expenses rather than tens of bugs youre never going to fix (like the Memory Controller that doesnt work properly even so long after its release).
The i840 chipset was before my time, so I cannot judge on it.
Any problems with RD-RAM?
Ever heard of Venice? It was also worse than the older core.

Im sorry, but your points arent pretty good.
February 18, 2006 11:22:52 AM

Quote:
Do you know how many bugs Athlons have? You better have one major bug that you can fix without major expenses rather than tens of bugs youre never going to fix (like the Memory Controller that doesnt work properly even so long after its release).
The i840 chipset was before my time, so I cannot judge on it.
Any problems with RD-RAM?
Ever heard of Venice? It was also worse than the older core.

Im sorry, but your points arent pretty good.




I am just as mad at AMD as I am at Intel about that.

The point is Intel has had some MAJOR failures so stating that Intel has better quality is simply not true.

Intel is no more stable than AMD nor do they build better quality products than AMD.

In all honesty setting their major issues aside for a moment AMD and Intel are about equal in quality and overall stability.
February 18, 2006 12:08:06 PM

And that's coming from a AMD fanboy that will overrate AMD.
I guess we can safely assume that Intel has more reliability. Now i never tried AMD but i know people with AMD chips that have problems, heating or instability. Intel may be hot now,but they are still stable.
But lets end this,cause it's getting nowhere fast :wink:
February 18, 2006 12:18:57 PM

I have had AMD machines that have been up and running 24/7/365 for years. How can you possibly claim they are unreliable? The drives tend to crash before the machines do!

If Intel had a better product I would buy Intel, however they simply do not.

For the record I own BOTH AMD and Intel, in fact I own more Intel CPUs than AMD CPUs.
February 18, 2006 12:23:21 PM

Quote:
XPS is not for gaming

So how come Dell advertises them like gaming machines?
Dell's Gaming Systems
February 18, 2006 12:43:17 PM

For the record I did not overrate AMD.

I provided benchmarks and diagrams to support my statements.

And as khha4113 stated:

Dell is marketing their XPS system as gaming systems.

Also as prozac26 stated:

Quote:

Dell sucks


I believe that is also a true statement.
February 18, 2006 1:31:32 PM

Quote:
I have had AMD machines that have been up and running 24/7/365 for years. How can you possibly claim they are unreliable? The drives tend to crash before the machines do!

If Intel had a better product I would buy Intel, however they simply do not.

For the record I own BOTH AMD and Intel, in fact I own more Intel CPUs than AMD CPUs


Don't waste your precious time and effrot telling that to an Intel twat. They still believe their processors are "great" performers and cry about it. :wink:
February 18, 2006 2:01:30 PM

My apologies Dr. prozac26

It was a typo.

I shouldn't have stayed up all night.
February 18, 2006 2:07:31 PM

I'm a gamer and I love AMD's CPU's but im also a business major and the AMD's kicks the Intel's *** in gaming but the Intel's kicks the AMD's *** at multitasking. 1 our of every 2 PC's are sold to businesses or goverment so I see why Dell sticks with Intel. The great thing is I dont care because I buy eMachine and they do AMD's cheap.
February 18, 2006 2:20:54 PM

Dell makes a bad move using just Intel chips, and, last I checked AMD CPUs have a much better price/performance even in the cheaper chips. (maybe not true when you're buying in huge bulk...)

I don't prefer either chipmaker to the other honestly, and I will buy which chip suits my needs at the time I buy one.

Dell doesn't suck all that bad, after all, they make some badass monitors!
February 18, 2006 2:24:49 PM

No, it is not a bad move. Let's look at it realistically. What consumer would Dell be targeting by having AMD processors? Computer enthusiasts? Last I checked most computer enthusiasts build their own computers. Also a transition like this would cost Dell a lot of $$$, and an unreliable consumer to help foot the bill of this transform is making Dell decide to stick with what they've got.
Another thing, the "monopoly" we know as Intel could also decide to no longer do business with Dell, which would hurt them more than anything AMD could offer to help.
February 18, 2006 2:50:27 PM

Quote:

AMD kicks Intel's butt in basically everything even multi-tasking. Intel dual core are crap, based on what I heard and seen on the CPU Charts. Go check the CPU Charts and you'll see.


Excellent point!

I agree.

Along with these:

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html

Intel with HT enabled usually scores LOWER, I wonder why???????????
February 18, 2006 2:57:07 PM

Like it or not, i've never seen a guy going bad with Intel,but i've seen a significant number of people having issues with AMD. mobo, chip it doesn't matter. AMD is still considered in many countries a cheap man's Intel. Yep,that's exactly the case.
And AMD was no were near reliable in the past. It generated heat, consumed a hole lot of power and it had a pitifull life. That alone won't vanish in one good year. For you it might but for many it won't.
Even if the 939 ain't that bad(reliability speaking, cause performance is darn good),i still can't compare a respectifull company which produces long lasting chips to a group of rockies that despite having it going(very well lately), they are :
sueing Intel because they need more $$$ and because they don't get enough sales (hunger for money no?)
plays with its costumer, do you actually believe in david vs goliath?
care ONLY about them, they don't give a *** about the costumer, Intel at least is releasing new software every now and then

Sry,but i still call that unreliable. If AMD is very good now,they might satisfy the average user who actually uses computers more often but there is no way they could supply Dell.
Ever since i saw the "charges " the accusations that AMD is bringing i seriously started hating it. A simple one should know that in a market you accept the rules,or you get lost.
K,i'm being way too harsh,and i'm spouting BS(though debateable BS),but AMD has really burned my chair with their law suit or how you call it. Don't take it seriously, there are times when people have to exteriorise.
February 18, 2006 3:19:35 PM

Quote:

sueing Intel because they need more $$$ and because they don't get enough sales (hunger for money no?)
plays with its costumer, do you actually believe in david vs goliath?
care ONLY about them, they don't give a *** about the costumer, Intel at least is releasing new software every now and then


Are you saying that Intel is not money hungry?

Do you think that Intel cares about the customer? I don't think so, none of the big corps really care about the customer, they just want money. You would have a better chance of getting a free copy of Vista for everyone in the USA from Microsoft before finding a Corp. that really cares for it's customers.
February 18, 2006 4:10:39 PM

Quote:
AMD kicks Intel's butt in basically everything even multi-tasking.

Have you seen real multitasking performance comparisons? I'm not talking running 2 programs since that's hardly multitasking, I'm talking about 4 or more programs at once.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60...

The first chart shows 2 programs running and the AMD and Intel chips are well interspersed. So that's hardly are resounding victory even in that situation. However, looking at the bottom chart where 4 tasks are run at the same time, we see all Intel blue at the top. The only exception is the FX-60, which leads the pack, but mainstream X2 processors fall decidedly behind. (I'm ignoring overclocking results since those would vary depending on who's overclocking, their cooling, voltage, etc.)

An even more difficult comparison is running 4 heavy background processes as well as gaming. In this situation Intel processors do very well. The 955EE is able to have an average fps of 77.2 compared to the 66.9 of the X2 4800+ and more importantly the 955EE has a playable minimum fps of 32.5 while the X2 4800+ only manages 10.5 fps. This is with a virus scan, a LAME encode, a Windows Media encode, and an unarchiving going on in the background.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=265...

I know that comparison may not be entirely far since a X2 4800+ was used, but sadly Anandtech didn't update the heavy multitasking comparison when the FX-60 was released.

So, if we want to be more fair we'll compare the 840EE to the X2 4800+. We know that in most cases the X2 4800+ is faster, but the situation changes in heavy multitasking. In this comparison, the user is playing Far Cry while running LAME encoding, archiving in 7-Zip, PDF Converting in Distiller, and Xvid encoding. This is in the chart at the very bottom.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/amd-athlon-64-x...

The X 4800+ maintains the lead in bitasking, but the 840EE leads in 3 to 5 tasks. This is where HT really benefits. Whats even more interesting is the comparison between the 3.2GHz 540J and the A64 4000+. The A64 4000+ leads in one task, but as soon as a second task is added, it's performance drops like a rock. When running 4 tasks, the 540J actually performs as well as the X2 4800+ in fps. It should also be noted that the Intel's are only running DDR2 533 in 3-3-3-8 while they could have been using DDR2 667 in 3-3-2-8. Comparatively, the AMD's were using DDR 400 at 2-2-2-5. HT definitely helps Intel processors hold it's own in real world multitasking which is exactly what HT is supposed to be doing.
February 18, 2006 4:13:01 PM

What are you talking about? Do you honestly think Intel gives a @#$% about the consumer? They overcharge for their product and idiots like you drinking the Intel Kool-Aid eat them up. AMD is dominant in desktops and servers. The only thing Intel has is mobile chips. I own both p4s and Athlons 64s and they are equally reliable. I can bet you only own p4s so everything you speak in regards to AMD is hearsay. You can justify buying overpriced equipment however you want in your mind but don't try and sell us on your BS. Intel fanboys like you are loosing on every front. It used to be multitasking, video editing, and encoding were the benchmarks people like you would bring up when in the AMD vs Intel war. Now that AMD dominates most of those benchmarks you now talk about reliablility. What's next the color of their heatsinks.
February 18, 2006 4:14:06 PM

It. does make software every now and then.
But overall these chip manufacteurers are EVIL. They make profits from out weakness.
It's sad but really it's true.
I know i'll fill some one else's pocket but at least i know they somewhat deserve it.
Anyway,i'm calm now. Sry for sensless posting in this thread.
February 18, 2006 4:20:05 PM

Quote:
You would have a better chance of getting a free copy of Vista for everyone in the USA from Microsoft before finding a Corp. that really cares for it's customers.

Bad analogy; AMD would be the same way if they controlled the industry.
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 18, 2006 4:54:31 PM

You can find marks for both sides. It just a fact that a program designed/optimized for Intel will run better on Intel. As for reliability I have never had a CPU die yet. Luck?

I mean AMD last just as long as anything else from what I can see. As for heat I have an old Duron 1000 that idles at like 38 load at 43 or so... I don’t see any heat problems. Also had an 1800+ idled at 35 load maybe 40-45(that was before the OC to 1930mhz). Not too bad either and I know for a fact that thing walks all over the P4 1.8 both at stock speeds. Just happen to have one of those too Idle 30-3 load 37ish. And it multi tasks no where near the 1800+. My 64 3200+ just killed everything when I got it. That was a while back. This thing idles at 35 thanks to cool and quiet and loads around 46-7 with fans at full speed and 52 at low. Is it too hot? No. Have any of these computers ever been unstable? No. I think this is more a benefit of Windows XP then anything. I think the Duron 1000 will go through at least one more hard drive long before the CPU goes. Hell I think its hard drives that need to be discussed not CPU's. CPUs just never seem to die. Still got a P133 and even it is still going. I say if Dell wants AMD why not go for it? But they may have to feel the wrath of Intel.
February 18, 2006 5:04:52 PM

I dont want to start a flame war or anything so lets calm down... I belive that intel's have the upper hand for mainstream user's. But once people want multi-tasking and video editing and they want dual core. Intel hasnt got a chance and since dual-core CPU's are becoming big, Dell is losing alot of customers becuase AMD is clearly the choice in that department. (Im not an AMD fanboy or INTEL fanboy, looking at the numbers will decide who wins) Now people who want there dual cores are going to go to HP or another company.
And to those who say "Dell sucks" or "Dell should crawl in a hole and die" thats not true... They do provide DECENT computers for average users cheaper than what u can go onto newegg or another such place and put together. Try to spec out a comp for less than $300... and tell me how it goes...
February 18, 2006 5:12:47 PM

Im a not Dell fan or anything but how long is Dell with AMD before? What's could be the reasons for them to change? Money? :?
February 18, 2006 5:47:44 PM

Dell or anyother oem/brand of pcs = NO OVERCLOCK ...F_CK THAT!
February 18, 2006 5:57:54 PM

IMHO dell is a ripoff... a huge one.

My uncle who runs a business just purchased a Dell Dimension 1100 and boy oh boy did he get ripped off.

For 900$ (without shippin, wasnt sure if there was any) he got:

Windows XP PRO
256MB RAM
Intel Celeron D 325 ( 2.53ghz 533mhz FSB)
80 GB HDD
One regular CD-RW ( DOES NOT READ DVDS AT ALL )
No Floppy Drive
Intergrated video
Intergrated Ethernet and 56K modem
Shitty Dell mouse and keyboard


Thats about it right there.... that is such a rip off it isnt even funny.

Windows XP = <90$
256MB RAM = 20-30$
Celery D 325= 75$
80GB HDD = 50-60$
Cheap Peice of Crap CD-RW = 20$ at best
The only othe thing is the shitty mouse and keyboard which are worth less then 30$ combined.

The thing itself has alittle over 300$ in it.... add in maybe 50$ for a case and 200-250$ for a monitor and look where your at. 600$ vs 900$ IMHO thats a big ripoff and so is dell


I told and told him not to buy from dell, but hey he dosen't listen and his other worker felt he knew every thing about PC's and he doesnt know shit.
February 18, 2006 6:03:33 PM

That sucks, I just thought that you wuold get a deal when you order stuff for business. :?
February 18, 2006 6:34:01 PM

Quote:
Dell or anyother oem/brand of pcs = NO OVERCLOCK ...F_CK THAT!

Err... no, you just dont know how.
February 18, 2006 6:40:51 PM

I do think AMD has the better architecture but I don't think they can match Intel's marketing presence or manufacturing capabilities to supply Dell with the CPUs they need.
February 18, 2006 7:30:52 PM

Quote:
You would have a better chance of getting a free copy of Vista for everyone in the USA from Microsoft before finding a Corp. that really cares for it's customers.

Bad analogy; AMD would be the same way if they controlled the industry.

I said ALL corporations not just Intel.
February 18, 2006 7:43:29 PM

I can run tens of programs, but not work with them...
February 18, 2006 7:50:25 PM

Rob should have included this option: I don't care what dell does, because I'm not stupid enough to buy one! :wink:
February 18, 2006 8:26:47 PM

Well that not what im getting at. Its more like from a business standpoint is it a good idea. If you had a huge corperation like dell would u use AMD's. Think of it that way. Also Prozac26 what programs are u running are u running? With multi tasking im talking about Encoding video/audio, listening to music, web browsing, defrag, etc, etc. heavier stuff.
!