Finally, Dells With AMD Inside

Anybody out there feel any differently about Dell based on today's news?

As a mattr of fact - Yes I do. I spent a lot of money on a Dell computer about 5 / 6 years ago, and it was great but it never made sense to me, why not buy a computer that was faster and cheaper (AMD) - because Dell never offererd AMD, I've never considered them since, erased their bookmark from my computer as well. Every computer since has been AMD, but if Intel ever catches back up, and I'm sure they will, I'll go back to Intel. Its my money.

5/6 years ago, intel was better, only in the recent 2/3 years has amd been better. even then, it depends what your using it for. the intel systems tend to be a bit smoother overall. if your a gamer amd is a no brainer. so it really depends what your using your computer for. but in recent years, yes, amd has shown to be a better choice in a lot more categories then before. but they are talking about servers, which amd scales way better then an intel server can. i am not really surprised they made this move, only surprised they didn't do it sooner.

you say it scales better, and perhaps it does for an Oracle RAC system. most CPU's are averaging <10% utilization. real people with real businesses generally don't make a business decision based upon the few percentage points that the processor outperforms its rival. XEON chios will continue to be the processor of choice for the forseeable future.

Scaling is absolutely an issue. I agree with the second poster that intel does a little better in some areas but in the server space, you should be fired for buying a Xeon. Seriously. This <10% utilization nonsense is ridiculous. Why do companies buy literally hundreds of blades? Because they're stupid? No. AMD and Intel are competing in the precious rack space and when you can run 8 dual-core Opterons on a single instance of Linux and they each have their own memory controller and the entire configuration runs processes with memory coherency you have a revolutionary technology. Versus a Xeon which when it runs in a multiple cpu configuration has to use the same memory controller that is strapped in a one cpu configuration much less 2+ OR give each Xeon a separate memory controller at which time you have to run a separate instance of the OS. The software architecture is dramatically simpler and CHEAPER with the inter-cpu bus AND the configuration makes much better use of each cpu. Think about using a precious $50,000 site license for VCS on a miserable Xeon that is memory constrained versus a Opteron configuration with 16 cores and 40GB of memory. Which will better use that license? Not to mention databases and web servers. This person knows nothing. Go ahead and buy a Pentium M for your low-end, power conscious laptop, if you must, but if you buy a Xeon, you're incompetent and/or ignorant. Period. There is no excuse.

AMD IS POWERFUL PERIOD AND DELL DOESNT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MAKING POWER PCS, EVEN HP MAKES MORE POWERFUL PCS FOR LESS,, WHILE DELL CHARGES SO MUCH ARM AND A LEG SO SIMPLE ADDONS, THEIR PCS ARE TOO OVER PRICED

AMD is the king when it comes to processors. Whether its the opteron, XP, 64, 64 X2, FX, etc., AMD is the king. Now that Dell is changing its mind, its shows you how the public is viewing AMD. Everyone knows that AMD is superior to Intel. Intel has been riding the monopoly train for too long. Intel hasn't really had to try hard to get new chips out and work on new technology because the only chips people used were intel based. Now that AMD is here, Intel has really had to work (for a change) on trying to keep up. The only difference is that AMD is actually trying to give what customers want, intel just got lazy. I love AMD! I have 3 computers at home (XP, 64, and a dual core Opteron server) and I have had no problems. I recommend to everyone to buy AMD based systems (Dell, HP, Alienware, Sun, ABS, etc.) rather than intel. GO AMD!!!

Is INTEL ever going to manufacture a True 64bit processor. The only true 64bit processor is the AMD. Intell says its processors are 64 bit compatible. I thought it was only able to access 4gigs of memory. How can it be compatible with VISTA wich is a 64 bit platform

Not every company can afford blades. Not every company needs the premium associated with opteran vs. xeon. Granted, the opteran is better than the intel dual core (for now), but it all depends on what the use is for. You would be fired if you bought nothing but opterons or AMD chips for file/print servers and paying the premium on those servers.

Its been around two years building systems based with AMD processors...and truely those systems are running smoothly and steadly. When heard Dell gonna use it too WOW AMD you gonna be the leader sooner or later. Thumbs up !!

If you carefully read Dells' statement, then you'll see that the Opterons will ONLY be used in multi-processor servers. That will count to about 4000 chips per year. That?s a drop in the pond.
The only thing that AMD has is the Opteron, and that's why Dell chose it. Otherwise it's no big deal.
The decision from Dell has nothing to do with chip manufacturers. It's just strictly business, and who has the best server chip wins. Today is AMD? tomorrow is Intel. Being fanatical about a chip manufacturer is just stupid. The chip is just part of the larger picture.
AMDs roadmap for the next 3 years is just a joke. Enhancing existing chips with different packaging is just the marketing BS AMD is famous for.

A drop in the pond makes many ripples, Domino. If this works for Dell, it could go further. There is nothing wrong with us dreaming that one day we will be able to buy AMD powered desktops and notebooks from Dell. As for the marketing BS-the proof is in the benchmark "pudding". Dell, thanks for taking the baby step.

Pam, benchmark "pudding" only shows what a chip can do under certain conditions. It's just like an IQ test. You pass that if you comply.
I'm not sure what Domino means by marketing BS. Doe he/she mean the ?warmonger? behavior coming from the AMD camp?
By the way, have you seen the latest Turion? Who cares about 64 bit computing on mobile platform? Nobody. I don't know why AMD bothers to make mobile chips. Maybe Dell will use Turion on low end laptops.
Dell has other problems to worry about than AMD or Intel.

And in come the stupid Intel fanboys and AMD fanboys.

Intel fanboys...AMD fanboys...? Well, let's get with the topic here.

Well, since Dell's a custolmer of AMD, it's great that Dell have already heard from the public saying that businesses need a high-performance AMD Opeteron for their needs. But for me, I don't really care about Dell. If I wanted to build a server for me, I 'd go with AMD Opteron...mostly a 2xx series Opteron. In my opinion, I don't really think that business and enterprise will touch Intel anytime soon and I don't think that Woodcrust will live up to its hype, so business shouldn't have confidence with Intel's bunchmark on how their Woodcrust will take on Opteron. The internal parts of the processor are very important and how they work depends on the manufacturing process when a manufacturer, like AMD, are designing processors. Careful attention to detail must be manufacturer's top priority to ensure that the processor performs clock-by-clock, as accurate, and fast as they can. But there's the catch: manufacturers can't be fond of clock speed. Even transistors! All it takes is for the CPU to do lots of work per clock, but at the time, increasing the clock speed of the CPU without to much of a power consumption and heat problem. (Continue to the next post.)

Of course, having 2 or 4 cores per processor and having 2 processors work better than 1, but a dual/quad-core processor are sufficient for multi-task applications and applications having 2 or more threads, but most applications (and some business applications) are single-threaded and use only one thread, so one processor are sufficient. But because Intel have tried to push the processor to higher than 4GHz, Intel stopped being a fond of clock-speed (yet AMD always do the right thing, too), Intel have worked on improving certain areas of the processor. However, AMD does a better job with constructing processors, but not very perfect. You can't be clear on how many generations Intel have falled behind AMD, but maybe true that Intel's a few generations behind AMD, but Intel's trying to compete with AMD. Also, there's more than what CPU performs: memory controller and the memory that you hook up to any of 2 or 4 memory slots. The memory controller, the HyperTransport or the FSB (front-side bus) is the bridge between the memroy and the CPU. However, for AMD processors comes with an integrated controller. Having multiple memory controllers per processor enables the two to perform faster and each of the memroy controller communicates with the chips in memory module(s) and because the memory controllers are integrated into each of their own AMD CPUs, each of the memory controllers can communicate with their own CPU. But if in the Intel systems the memory controller are external, in other words, built-in to the motherboard, then other CPUs cannot communicate to the main memory controller simultsaniously. It's kind of hard to explain, but I think it's easier for me if I have a diagram. Now...please correct me if I'm wrong, In AMD systems with AMD CPUs in a multi-processor motherboard, each of the memory controller can communicate with their own CPU, am I correct? I mean...something like this:

Memory controller 1 built-in to CPU 1
Memory controller 2 built-in to CPU 2

If the memory controller 1 in CPU 1 wanted to communicate to CPU 2, will the memory controller have to transmit the data to CPU 2 and CPU 2 can respond back to CPU 1's memory controller 1? I mean...something that are done from an assembly programmer. Can an assembly programmer do that if they have a 2 AMD processor system? (Continue to the next post.)

I know this is very fascinating but all we know is this: CPUs have to work faster clock-by-clock, with a very fast clock speed, but without much of a heat/power consumption problem.

If I am wrong, pleas direct me to any resources in the Internet by providing links but please seperate the letters via spaces (well, not too many spaces, but enough to get the URL with spaces shown in your price. Thanks.

To come to a conclusion: Don't be convinced by Intel. Benchmark any processor in your own before you convince us that Conreo/Meron/Woodcrust are better than AMD's current processor, because when you say that, this shows me that there's too much of a hype.

And one last thing: Please excuse my triple-posting in here. I needed to get by with the 1000-character limit. Plus, about not posting URLs, it's because PC World doesn't allow the posting of URLs for security reasons so users don't get fooled into thinking that a link is legitimate and get misdirected for taking over to legitimate website but instead, to a malicious website or to get them to download a malicious file.

>>Who cares about 64 bit computing on mobile platform?<<

Well if they wanted to try out Windows Vista in their laptops when it comes out, then if they have an AMD Turon 64-bit processor, then they can upgrade their laptop to Vista. Same with desktops. But right now, or at the time of writing, Intel's EMT64 processors are not truly 64-bit processors, but maybe just a partial-64-bit processor.

I prefer AMD over Intel, they have better performance CPUs that are better for both gaming as well as high end processing. I was wondering if Dell would ever sell computers with something besides Intel in them. Although Dells are overpriced, so many other computer manufacturers are cheaper.

Obsessing about processors is a waste of time. The processor is just part of the equation. The issue here is not about AMD or Intel. Dell goes for whoever has the best chip. This issue has to do with Dells' poor performance in the PC industry. Like all OEMs high volume PCs are for businesses only and proprietary hardware drivers are the norm. Dell shot themselves in the foot by selling PCs at the lowest possible price, and the quality of parts used has been compromised. It is true that Dell makes great servers. But the rest is just a bit better than e-Machines. Even CompUSA can put together a good PC that is better than Dell, Gateway or HP. Ask any computer technician about Dell, Gateway or HP low end PCs and the headaches you get when upgrading parts. If you are a true gamer or designer you don't buy Dell. Apple, Boxxtech, VoodooPC, Velocity Micro are just some of the few good computer companies. Dell needs reinvent its reputation.

Today is AMD, tomorrow is Intel. Then AMD, then Intel, and so on. Don't you people get it? Innovationh goes in cycles. Do you people suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)? If you go wako with AMD or Intel, then you need to get a life. The only good thing AMD has is the Opteron, and Intel has the Celeron.
One more thing, why do you think AMD is suing Intel from Delaware? If the case was in California it would be thrown out of court due to intellectual retardation. Remember, lawyers win and the consumer looses.
OK, one last thing - Vista hardaware requirements are 256MB video card and 2G RAM. Thats about $200-$300 worth of upgrades. That's bad news for both Intel and AMD since people don't need to get a new chips and motherboards. We all know that everytime MS released a major Windows improvement version, people were forced to get new systems. Not with Vista. If your PC is 10 years old that's another story.

I think you also suffer from ADD too, pi! 256MB of video memory and 2GB? Haven't you look at the requirements, lately? Proove your facts. There's no way that you must have a minimum of 2GB. 512MB = Minimum. 32MB = Minimum. 1GB = Recommended. 128MB = Recommended.

Have a good time with your Attention Deficit Disorder! :)

Pi, I don't suffer from ADD. This is just my input. I'm sure that fanatics of any kind suffer from ADD. I couldn't care less about AMD or Intel. I agree with Pi that "The only good thing AMD has is the Opteron, and Intel has the Celeron". And by the way Grayson Peddie, if you are so specific with numbers, that's OK with me. But I think Pi got part of the info about Vista from iTWire site. Regardless of numbers, Vista is bad news to both AMD & Intel. MS is trying to make things easier for developing economies that can't afford disposable PCs like the ones from US OEMs. Natacha has a very good point about Dell, Gateway and HP. For most part they are all crap.
Now, the reality with both AMD and Intel is that they can?t keep up with the demand. If one of them has problems with supply, the other will take the lead. OEMs don?t care about Las Vegas style ads from either chip manufacturer. As long as they get the chips needed, they can built more PCs and make money.
Unfortunately AMD and Intel are obsessed about OEMs because of volume of sales. Can AMD meet both consumer and corporate demand? The answer is simple ? NO. If AMD wants Dell then they better build more fabs. That means $2-3 billion a fab, and around 2 years construction per fab. Does AMD have the money? NO, because thay are spending too much in diva marketing. AMD needs a reality check about what it can do, and stop complaining. You can't eat 2 cakes at the same time. DAH...

mental balance is not an attribute in geek-cults. therefore geek-cults fall into one category - you can't fix stupid.
some of you people need go go to a pub and have your own st patrick's day.

Since its Monday, I needed something to laugh at. Pi is right about ADD in the hardware geek community, and Larry gave me a reason to go to an Irish pub.
I don?t know why I read this blog. Everything is just one sided. I out of here.

Clarification: Most hardware geeks that I know are good "balanced" people. ADD applies to hardware loony bin geeks.
Adio!

Well I'd suggest everybody to think again before criticizing Intel and Microsoft. These are the two giants who shaped the modern computing world. The world would have been COMPLETELY different if these two companies were not present. I'd always stick with leaders. I'd not go for products from any other company. You Bet!

Intel has the superior 64bit cpu, the Itanium. Unfortunately the world wanted x86 compatability & 64 bit, some knew it in advance, others found out later. AMD produced what the customers wanted, Intel, like many monopolistic companies, figured they knew better. Intel's claims that the A64 is a kludge may well be true. Technical authorities agreed that beta was better than VHS, anyone still got a beta VCR? Watch the Itanium go the same way. Intel's best chance is build a true 64biy X86 cpu to compete with the Opteron/A64. EMT64 is a joke, many of the motherboards won't take more that 4Gb memory anyway, so it generally offers nothing over Intel's 32bit range.