Article: Dell has no plans to use AMD chips

[WackyDan]

Your only half right, Just think of all the stuff companies "CANT" do that they HAVE been doing in the past 3 years. IMO intel is a lawsuit waiting to happen. There are documented cases of Intel using what we consider "strong arm tactics." Did we NOT see what influences INTEL had in the intro of the Opteron with the motherboard Fiasco last year. That is simply one of a dozen things. I have a friend that works at Intel. We all saw stories on Cnet and ZDNET how intel was giving away FREE itaniums and Xeons to combat AMD and there have been "rumors" were companies have gotten CPUs at 5% of the price. NO, not a 5% discount, that 5 % of the price - lets hope thats simply a rumor. I just read an article last week were somebody simply removed the words "intel" from an intel compiler and it boosted the scores of the AMD64 by 30% or so.
Yes AMD does have a problem with shipping large volume. They also have little market share. But just like when i tryed to break in to IT - "you need experience and we cant hire you" This is getting AMD'ed - IF everybody says this then................ - And yes the Tbird - some years ago was hot as hell but saying that the northwood core is cooler than the tbred or barton is simply a myth. We all know what the precott is doing and lets see how there problem will last. I rarely see people complaining about the thermal characteristics of the prescott like they did the tbird - I think only a few reviews even show the temps. There are problems on both sides, but i guess we see more of the things that INtel is doing wrong while strong arming than we do AMD with their problems. From what i have seen it is like a 60/40 relationship. 40% amd problems 60% Intel muscle. I get pissed that the ONLY large OEMS that even have amd laptops are HP and Emachines. and the only big OEM that has 64 lappies is Emachines - and they were just bout by Gateway and i hope that gateway doesent be a Hoe and sell out too. But we will see. Sooner or later it will all hit the fan. When it comes down to it Intel has been doing some of the same stuf that MSFT got in trouble for. Is it legal to drop the price of OFFICE and XP to 30.oo just for the Thiland Govt. to combat linux? Can Intel give Dell a % procs for the low low to be anti-AMD? Dont know. But we will find out later. Things are happening but some refuse to see.[/quote]


" And yes the Tbird - some years ago was hot as hell but saying that the northwood core is cooler than the tbred or barton is simply a myth. "

Again.... read what I wrote.... I'm not disagreeing that Procs run hot.... I'm lamenting on the death via over heating of the AMD's... Something Intel solved long ago, and now so has AMD--- But it's still a memory of many people who ever had to deal with it, from ownership to support.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: dullard
Dell probably has some of the most strict requirements of anyone. Can AMD honestly handle Dell's business model? Dell doesn't buy the chip until the day Dell will use it. Can AMD (1) provide a sufficient quantity of chips to handle Dell's needs and (2) supply that quantity within a day's notice? I was under the impression that many of AMD's chips are in short supply (AMD is nearly maxing out their production capabilities) making both #1 and #2 impossible for AMD.

My other thought is that computers with AMD chips are always considered 'Value computers'. There is far less ability for markup in the value computers - meaning that Dell won't make much profit even if they did sell AMD chips. In fact, they'd probably canibalize Dell's higher margin sales. Dell is #1 in profits in the computer business for a reason...

Your close.... but not quite. IBM, HP, Dell, and any other major system vendors... ok even gateway... sigh... Has to project NEED in advance to their suppliers. If Dell projects that they will sell *X amount of systems with the AMD 3200 in the 2nd quarter, then they have to inform AMD that they will need *X amount of procs plus *X amount of service/warranty procs shipped in timed schedule for late 1st qtr, 2nd qtr builds. But you are right that AMD had a notorius past of not having capacity.

Also.... Please... DELL is not a computer company, nor a technology company for that matter.. Dell IS a PC company.

Ok I'll call Dell a PC company and not a computer company for you (I've never thought of any difference - if you could explain it to me that would be great). Yes Dell and AMD would have estimates of NEED any reasonable company would estimate what they will need. AMD could expect to need to supply X amount of processors per day to Dell. But how Dell orders its chips is completely different than how any other PC company orders their chips.

HP for example will order a large order of 2800+ chips, AMD will ship them, and HP will store it in a warehouse where those chips will sit until HP is ready to use them. I don't know how frequently HP orders from AMD but for this example lets just say once a week. Thus AMD knows ahead of time from their NEED estimations about how many chips they will probably ship for next week. AMD makes sure they have this amount of chips ready for HPs weekly order. When the weekly order comes in, AMD adjusts the quantity from their NEED estimate and ships the amount that HP actually ordered. Then AMD has one week to prepare for HPs next shipment.

Dell isn't as kind. Dell would require AMD to build a warehouse near Dell (whether it is on Dell's property or not I do not know). Dell orders their chips daily from the warehouse - just sends over a forklift (or similar transportation device) and picks up the chips. If AMD doesn't have the chips there ready that morning, Dell is screwed and is quite angry at AMD - and Dell's customers must wait for backordered CPUs. AMD must be able to provide these backordered CPUs immediately (which I don't think AMD has the production capacity to handle). AMD must then keep a huge stockpile in that warehouse sitting unused hoping that Dell will need them. AMD wouldn't have the luxury of having a week to prepare a shipment.

Dell simply feels that with AMD already maxing out their production capabilities, that AMD won't be able to keep a warehouse stocked just for Dell. And Dell feels that if the warehouse runs out of a chip that AMD won't be able to provide that chip quick enough (again since AMD has already maxed out their production capability) so as not to anger Dell's customers.

Dell sells primarily PC's, they don't contribute much to the technology space other than their sales and distro model-- so they are not a technology company other than slapping some tech together and putting a Dell logo on it. Yes, they have servers... but they've backed away from large enterprise servers as they just couldn't seem to get them right, which goes hand in hand with not being a technology company. When large enterprises look at mission critical servers, they are going to look at HP, IBM, and perhaps SUN. These are technology/true computer companies ( SUN is struggling ). It's reflected in their product offerings and R&D budgets. Ask yourself why IBM is rated the #1 company in tech, the largest server vendor...... Their R&D budget is still one billion higher than that of the merged HP/Compaq. Where do you think Dell fits into that picture?

Your viewpoint of Dells supply chain I'm afraid is a bit dated. IBM and HP have both moved to very similar supply chain cycles in their in house as well contract manufactured environments.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: boran
well, they'll have to switch to built in prometia cooling if they wanna keep their new intel proc's decently cooled

Cooling wasn't the issue.... It was thermal death. Every proc gets hot.... BUt AMD was notorious for getting hot and baking itself dead as there were no protections built in like the Pentiums had.

That was so long ago - are we still saying Memory for intel computers are Expensive because of RDRAM?

In reality... No- It wasn't that long ago, and people's memories don't fade that fast.

When did that happen, what chips are we talking about?? Tbirds?

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: boran
well, they'll have to switch to built in prometia cooling if they wanna keep their new intel proc's decently cooled

Cooling wasn't the issue.... It was thermal death. Every proc gets hot.... BUt AMD was notorious for getting hot and baking itself dead as there were no protections built in like the Pentiums had.

That was so long ago - are we still saying Memory for intel computers are Expensive because of RDRAM?

In reality... No- It wasn't that long ago, and people's memories don't fade that fast.

When did that happen, what chips are we talking about?? Tbirds?

Unless you enjoy taking the heatsink off while your computer is running, I don't see a problem with a cpu that will bake itself without a heatsink.

 

[boran]

Cooling wasn't the issue.... It was thermal death. Every proc gets hot.... BUt AMD was notorious for getting hot and baking itself dead as there were no protections built in like the Pentiums had.

better get to read some P4e reviews, these babies generate more heat than yer average nuclear power plant.
(slight overstatement to express very very hotness in a very negative way)

 

[Ardan]

Why is it so hard to believe that the Opteron is selling? He is not smoking anything when he states that. Here are the facts he didn't show:

Originally written by: C|Net
"In the third quarter, around 10,700 Opteron servers left factories compared with 5,000 Itanium servers, according to IDC. Revenue from the Itanium servers, however, came to $123 million, compared with $61 million for Opteron servers."

"What choice do they have? Very few organizations are buying Itanium systems. AMDs are flying off the shelf," RedMonk analyst James Governor said. "Any server company that does not have an Opteron strategy is not listening to the market."

The link is there. It also points out that they don't compete directly, something that *some* people in this forum should acknowledge. However, it points out that the growing market is the market that the Opteron is in, not the Itanium. Dispute that if you want, but it won't be with me because i'm not subscribed to this topic. I just wanted to point that out because nobody knew it...I would think it could help the discussion.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Ardan
Why is it so hard to believe that the Opteron is selling? He is not smoking anything when he states that. Here are the facts he didn't show:

Originally written by: C|Net
"In the third quarter, around 10,700 Opteron servers left factories compared with 5,000 Itanium servers, according to IDC. Revenue from the Itanium servers, however, came to $123 million, compared with $61 million for Opteron servers."

10,700 Opteron systems isn't what I called selling, when its systems based on its direct competitor, Intel Xeon sold in the hundreds of thousands. Most likely, more Itanium 2 processors were sold in 2003 than Opterons while generating significantly more revenue. Opteron processor sales in 2004 should exceed Itanium, but the difference in the value of Itanium systems versus Opteron should only continue to increase.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Ardan
Why is it so hard to believe that the Opteron is selling? He is not smoking anything when he states that. Here are the facts he didn't show:

Originally written by: C|Net
"In the third quarter, around 10,700 Opteron servers left factories compared with 5,000 Itanium servers, according to IDC. Revenue from the Itanium servers, however, came to $123 million, compared with $61 million for Opteron servers."

"What choice do they have? Very few organizations are buying Itanium systems. AMDs are flying off the shelf," RedMonk analyst James Governor said. "Any server company that does not have an Opteron strategy is not listening to the market."

The link is there. It also points out that they don't compete directly, something that *some* people in this forum should acknowledge. However, it points out that the growing market is the market that the Opteron is in, not the Itanium. Dispute that if you want, but it won't be with me because i'm not subscribed to this topic. I just wanted to point that out because nobody knew it...I would think it could help the discussion.

Nobody says the Opteron isn't selling... What we are saying is that it's sales are nowhere near that of Itanium and Xeon.

Taken from Xbit Labs...

Last year the Santa Clara, California-based chipmaker supplied around 100 thousand of its IA64 processors. The number may seem relatively huge, unless we do not take into account sales of Intel Xeon processor that amount in millions.

I can't personally vouch for the article's accuracy, but both articles are based on IDC's numbers.

 

[Sohcan]

Originally posted by: Ardan
Why is it so hard to believe that the Opteron is selling? He is not smoking anything when he states that. Here are the facts he didn't show:

Originally written by: C|Net
"In the third quarter, around 10,700 Opteron servers left factories compared with 5,000 Itanium servers, according to IDC. Revenue from the Itanium servers, however, came to $123 million, compared with $61 million for Opteron servers."

"What choice do they have? Very few organizations are buying Itanium systems. AMDs are flying off the shelf," RedMonk analyst James Governor said. "Any server company that does not have an Opteron strategy is not listening to the market."

The link is there. It also points out that they don't compete directly, something that *some* people in this forum should acknowledge. However, it points out that the growing market is the market that the Opteron is in, not the Itanium. Dispute that if you want, but it won't be with me because i'm not subscribed to this topic. I just wanted to point that out because nobody knew it...I would think it could help the discussion.

1.18 million Xeon servers left port in Q3, over 100X that of Opteron. That's why people were raising their eyebrows when AlexWade said that Opteron is outselling Xeon.

And the Itanium market is definitely growing, and fast. IDC reported that Itanium server shipments grew over 70% in Q2 (from Q1) and over 50% in Q3 (from Q2). Yesterday HP reported that their Itanium revenue grew 60% in Q4. Keep in mind that Itanium is currently going into much larger systems than Opteron, so while Opteron shipped in twice as many servers in Q3, Itanium systems brought in twice as much system revenue.

 

[Texun]

Originally posted by: nycdude

Originally posted by: John
Dell = Intel's Bitch
They do not want to bite the hand that feeds them (advertising bucks, price breaks, etc).

I like that analogy. They have always been Intel.

Oh yea... Without a doubt! There's no way Dell is going to mess with "Big Daddy." And you can bet that the perks they give each other would blow your mind.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: cRazYdood

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: boran
well, they'll have to switch to built in prometia cooling if they wanna keep their new intel proc's decently cooled

Cooling wasn't the issue.... It was thermal death. Every proc gets hot.... BUt AMD was notorious for getting hot and baking itself dead as there were no protections built in like the Pentiums had.

That was so long ago - are we still saying Memory for intel computers are Expensive because of RDRAM?

In reality... No- It wasn't that long ago, and people's memories don't fade that fast.

When did that happen, what chips are we talking about?? Tbirds?

Unless you enjoy taking the heatsink off while your computer is running, I don't see a problem with a cpu that will bake itself without a heatsink.

Considering the area for colling that the AMD's had at that point as well the crappy clip in heatsinks, yes it was a problem-especially related to shipping.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: boran

Cooling wasn't the issue.... It was thermal death. Every proc gets hot.... BUt AMD was notorious for getting hot and baking itself dead as there were no protections built in like the Pentiums had.

better get to read some P4e reviews, these babies generate more heat than yer average nuclear power plant.
(slight overstatement to express very very hotness in a very negative way)

When is someone going to actually read within the context of what I wrote??? I'm talking about MELTDOWN of the prior Generations of AMDS..... Not the fact that YES they DO RUN FREAKING HOT>... I never said they didn't.

 

[OverVolt]

I can only hope that AMD can hold out, can you imagine a PC market without AMD, i don't know what i would do. CPU's would probably cost a small fortune, what scares me in that Dell have a sketchy business model, have you ever read resellerratings.com? Seems like Dell likes the good ole bait and switch tactic, and having a very poor customer service in terms of cancelling orders (first thing to my mind, i know theres more). I know my next PC won't be a dell, i've had bad experiences with there tech/customer support.

Anyway if AMD keeps losing PC companies like Gateway, AMD will suffer from it, and AMD is already losing money and thats not good.

EDIT: And about the heat thing, I don't think there's any way possible to make a quite PC with a CPU pushing 100w+ without watercooling.

 

[Lucky]

Also.... Please... DELL is not a computer company, nor a technology company for that matter.. Dell IS a PC company.

They may be the #1 PC company form time to time -->HP steals that title every few quarters.

If you want computer companies, go to IBM, HP, and SUN. ( no-not apple) If you want a technology company, goto IBM or HP. There is a difference.

1. HP is in the PRINTING business, one of the reasons it's core business model sucks compared to dell's. link

2. Dell, through 2003, had higher market share and twice the unit shipment growth of HP, even though HP did win out in the consumer driven 4Q.link

3. Both dell AND Apple sell high-quality business server solutions that include support.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Also.... Please... DELL is not a computer company, nor a technology company for that matter.. Dell IS a PC company.

They may be the #1 PC company form time to time -->HP steals that title every few quarters.

If you want computer companies, go to IBM, HP, and SUN. ( no-not apple) If you want a technology company, goto IBM or HP. There is a difference.

1. HP is in the PRINTING business, one of the reasons it's core business model sucks compared to dell's. link

2. Dell, through 2003, had higher market share and twice the unit shipment growth of HP, even though HP did win out in the consumer driven 4Q.link

3. Both dell AND Apple sell high-quality business server solutions that include support.

As for #3 read one of my other responses above.