Rumour from Taipei: Dell to sell more of AMD line

[Macattak1]

I wont believe Dell is shipping AMD product until I see it. Intel has locked them into Intel only and they have both hugely bennifited from it.

If Dell starts shipping AMD systems they will likely loose their 1st place Tier 1 Buyer sheet (or what ever it is called, I forget). As Intel's largest buyer they get huge discounts. Intel can sell to them for just about what ever Intel wants to sell for. Dell makes a killing being at the top of the buyer list. They get first crack at every deal in the pipe line.

Now, in a catch 22 - Dell may be close to loosing thier top spot to a big builder in the Channel market. Intel's greatest fear for a while is that the channel market would get so big that they would be able to dictate pricing and volume. Intel does not want anyone telling them what to make or how to price it.

Amd, if they were going to jump, should have done it 12 to 18 months ago. However, the real window of value for them was probably much smaller. More like 6 to 9 months. That is where the average customer might have seen a difference worth noticing between Intel and AMD. What every you guys notice takes at least 6 to 9 months for the general market to undcerstand.

Peace

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: Macattak1
I wont believe Dell is shipping AMD product until I see it. Intel has locked them into Intel only and they have both hugely bennifited from it.

If Dell starts shipping AMD systems they will likely loose their 1st place Tier 1 Buyer sheet (or what ever it is called, I forget). As Intel's largest buyer they get huge discounts. Intel can sell to them for just about what ever Intel wants to sell for. Dell makes a killing being at the top of the buyer list. They get first crack at every deal in the pipe line.

Now, in a catch 22 - Dell may be close to loosing thier top spot to a big builder in the Channel market. Intel's greatest fear for a while is that the channel market would get so big that they would be able to dictate pricing and volume. Intel does not want anyone telling them what to make or how to price it.

Amd, if they were going to jump, should have done it 12 to 18 months ago. However, the real window of value for them was probably much smaller. More like 6 to 9 months. That is where the average customer might have seen a difference worth noticing between Intel and AMD. What every you guys notice takes at least 6 to 9 months for the general market to undcerstand.

Peace

except the debut of the 7800GT and GTX. but that's another story.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Man, just a few months back the Inq stated things that were actully(or more than likely to happen). But nnow, they're just dishing out some serious ******.

 

[zephyrprime]

Dell being Intel only is over. Once a cracked appeared in the dam, it was only a matter of time before the whole thing would bust.

I wont believe Dell is shipping AMD product until I see it. Intel has locked them into Intel only and they have both hugely bennifited from it.

Dell has already officially said that they will be shipping AMD servers.

 

[Macattak1]

http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3607596

"...Dell announced it plans to use AMD's Opteron processor in certain multi-processor servers due out by the end of this year. "

Did find this.

But remember, things have switched at the last minute. Who lost and wonthe xBox chip last time around? That was as i recall not expected.

I would say at this time there is actaully a 40 to 50% chance of Dell using AMD. And I really dont know how much better the Intel Server chips will be than current AMD or what they put out later this year. But if they loose their edge. Dell may just junk those plans.

Peace

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Macattak1
I wont believe Dell is shipping AMD product until I see it. Intel has locked them into Intel only and they have both hugely bennifited from it.

If Dell starts shipping AMD systems they will likely loose their 1st place Tier 1 Buyer sheet (or what ever it is called, I forget). As Intel's largest buyer they get huge discounts. Intel can sell to them for just about what ever Intel wants to sell for. Dell makes a killing being at the top of the buyer list. They get first crack at every deal in the pipe line.

Now, in a catch 22 - Dell may be close to loosing thier top spot to a big builder in the Channel market. Intel's greatest fear for a while is that the channel market would get so big that they would be able to dictate pricing and volume. Intel does not want anyone telling them what to make or how to price it.

Amd, if they were going to jump, should have done it 12 to 18 months ago. However, the real window of value for them was probably much smaller. More like 6 to 9 months. That is where the average customer might have seen a difference worth noticing between Intel and AMD. What every you guys notice takes at least 6 to 9 months for the general market to undcerstand.

Peace

A fairly sound response...if things in Intel-land were remaining the same. I don't believe that they are...(warning, long post ahead)

History

Intel has long maintained a very clever marketing scheme. They design rebate levels individually for their customers instead of a flat rebate level. This allows them to analyze the number of PCs their customers actually sell, and set a rebate level that insures they are close to the only vendor for product.
Unfortunately for Intel, because they are the vast market leader (a monopoly by US legal definition), this is illegal and AMD filed suit mainly on this very fact a year ago (yes, there are many other reasons, but this was the biggest).
This rebate program is the vehicle by which Dell has received their huge "discounts" over the years.
Most everyone agrees that Intel is guilty, the question is how long it will take to actually resolve (10 years+?) and how much the payment would be (analysts predict at least $4 billion)...therefore, the real question isn't who will win the case, but when and how will Intel settle the case (they're really too smart to let it finish in court after all).
From AMD's standpoint, any settlement would absolutely have to include the dismantling of Intel's rebate program...

Today

Intel knows that at some point they are going to HAVE to swallow the "Jagged Little Pill" and change their rebate program to a flat pricing scheme. The only real consideration here is when...keep in mind that all delay costs an incredible amount of money (unlike other lawsuits, anti-trust suits have a triple damages penalty which includes interest on the amount).
It is therefore in Intel's best interest to choose a time for settlement (including the change in rebates) when they have a chip that is better on performance than AMD...this is because what they lose in customer appeal from the rebates, they hope to make up for in product appeal.
Charlie D at The Inq recently wrote a piece confirming that Intel is moving to a flat pricing scheme according to multiple sources at Computex. While he doesn't think it's because of the lawsuit, I believe he is not thinking in terms of a behind-the-scenes settlement negotiation with AMD.
Either way, the move to a flat pricing scheme is certainly enough to push Dell into a multi-vendor situation across all of their lines...if there's no longer a financial incentive, then Dell would have to be very stupid not to at least offer competitive AMD products.

 

[imported_Questar]

Unfortunately for Intel, because they are the vast market leader (a monopoly by US legal definition), this is illegal and AMD filed suit mainly on this very fact a year ago (yes, there are many other reasons, but this was the biggest).

Two problems with this argument.

1. Intel has not been found guilty of anything in the US. Therefore at this time they have done nothing illegal.

2. AMD filed a civil suit, not a criminal suit. There is no such thing as "illegal" in a civil suit.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Questar

Unfortunately for Intel, because they are the vast market leader (a monopoly by US legal definition), this is illegal and AMD filed suit mainly on this very fact a year ago (yes, there are many other reasons, but this was the biggest).

Two problems with this argument.

1. Intel has not been found guilty of anything in the US. Therefore at this time they have done nothing illegal.

True...you see, that's why settlements occur, so that a person/entity never has to divulge whether they are guilty or not.

2. AMD filed a civil suit, not a criminal suit. There is no such thing as "illegal" in a civil suit.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, but a little reading will get you an actual definition of illegal...
"Something is illegal when it violates a statute, regulation or other law"
Legal definitions
Certainly a civil suit filed under US anti-trust laws (i.e. The Clayton Act and The Sherman Act) would comply with this definition...
The violation of a civil law is every bit as illegal as the violation of a criminal law.
The difference between the DOJ filing anti-trust proceedings and AMD filing them is that the DOJ would need to show that the public at large was harmed, and AMD only needs to show that they were harmed.

 

[imported_Questar]

The difference between the DOJ filing anti-trust proceedings and AMD filing them is that the DOJ would need to show that the public at large was harmed, and AMD only needs to show that they were harmed.

Incorrect.

The difference between the two types is the amount of proof that is required for a guilty verdict. A criminal suit requires evidence beyond a resonable doubt. A civil lawsuit only requires a preponderence of evidence.

Think of the OJ trial. Criminaly he was found not guilty, but civily he was found guilty.

This is why AMD filed a civil suit instead a criminal suit. They knew they couldn't win a criminal suit.

 

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: Questar

The difference between the DOJ filing anti-trust proceedings and AMD filing them is that the DOJ would need to show that the public at large was harmed, and AMD only needs to show that they were harmed.

Incorrect.

The difference between the two types is the amount of proof that is required for a guilty verdict. A criminal suit requires evidence beyond a resonable doubt. A civil lawsuit only requires a preponderence of evidence.

Think of the OJ trial. Criminaly he was found not guilty, but civily he was found guilty.

This is why AMD filed a civil suit instead a criminal suit. They knew they couldn't win a criminal suit.

AMD cannot file a criminal suit. Only the state (in this case it's the feds) can file a criminal suit.

And the decision to bring a criminal charge against a company does not entirely hinge on the level of evidence available, but whether or not the charges are in the "serious" category. It needs to be in the serious category, and have enough evidence (BARD). Congress did not want to place a burden on business and improvement, and if every act carried possible criminal charges it would introduce legal uncertainty, therefore hindering business.