Bad move by Dell?

[RowdyRob]

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 priceerformance 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...

 

[cisco]

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.

 

[linux_0]

Huge mistake!

AMD64 is so much better than anything Intel has.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1747228&mode=thread

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163

http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/extreme/em64t.htm

 

[endyen]

No choice really. Dell makes thier mark by buying bulk, and selling cheap. Splitting thier purchasing power is not an option.

 

[tcdude]

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.

 

[Ycon]

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?

 

[tcdude]

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...

 

[endyen]

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?

 

[linux_0]

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.

 

[tcdude]

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...

 

[tcdude]

...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...)

 

[Ycon]

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.

 

[endyen]

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.

 

[linux_0]

The Non-Opteron AMD64s perform very well too. Even running Intel optimized code AMD64s do very well.

 

[tcdude]

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

wouldn't be no 1/3 no more for intel... :twisted:

 

[chuckshissle]

I just hop they made the right choice for the company.

 

[CompGeek]

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.

 

[linux_0]

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?

 

[Ycon]

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.

 

[linux_0]

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.

 

[CompGeek]

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

 

[linux_0]

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.

 

[khha4113]

XPS is not for gaming

So how come Dell advertises them like gaming machines?
Dell's Gaming Systems

 

[linux_0]

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:

Dell sucks

I believe that is also a true statement.

 

[9-inch]

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.