Dell to use AMD Chips in Desktop PCs 125
bain writes "MarketWatch reports that Dell has decided to use AMD chips in its Dimension desktops due next month. The move to use AMD chips signals a break from its long standing reliance on Intel chips. The information slipped out of Dell's quarterly earnings report." From the article: "Before the announcement, which had been speculated in the financial community and the press, Morgan Stanley analyst Mark Edelstone wrote in a research note: 'It should have a negative impact on Intel and it could be a large offset to the expected benefits from Intel's restructuring efforts.' AMD, which has become a more formidable competitor to Intel, has been expanding its manufacturing capacity, a sign that it expects to be shipping more chips. Its chief goal is to put itself in position to supply 33% of the global microprocessor market by 2008. "
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm excited.
though I'm still not going to buy any computers from Dell)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt they made that mistake, I think it's more likely they saw that raw GHz was the biggest influence on purchasing decisions. Why do you think AMD revised their processor numbering scheme to emphasize "apparent" processor speed? Do you honestly think your average computer buyer would pick a dual-core 2.2GHz processor over a 3GHz single-core, even though the dual-core may have 40% better
Re: (Score:2)
Did NB gigahertz not scale, or was the intense heat (and subsequent system design decisions that flow from such heat) the big problem, when AMD systems were not as hot?
Re: (Score:2)
There's an interesting explanation of the whole situation here [bit-tech.net].
Hyperthreading and multicore are different idea (Score:5, Informative)
While in the end, both hyperthreading and multicore enable you to run more task concurrently without buying extra chips, they don't have anything in common. HT isn't Multi-cores precursor, it's completly different idea.
The basic idea of HT is to fill-in the hole that happen in the pipe. Very often, the CPU waits a few cycle, while instruction are comming through the pipeline stage. The basic idea of HT is instead of a given stage stay idle, wainting on the previous to complete, we can feed it with data from another thread. 1 logical unit, but 2 threads run in parallel, the first one as usual, the second only serve to avoid staying idle each time a prediction turned out wrong. Over-all speed : almost the same, but background task "feel" more responsive.
The basic idea behind multicore is to try to takae the advantage of 2 CPU, but sharing some part : 1 packaging, 1 interface, 1 socket on a single-socket motherboard some times even 1 of the lowest level cache (and some times it is just two chip packaged together and using 1 interface), except from that sharing, it behaves mostly like two CPU. Over-all speed : doubled.
So the idea are basically different : HT is "try to keep the CPU busy even in case of pipe-line stall (and thus avoid wasting time)", Dual-Core is "try to make SMP by making two-processors-on-a-chip (and thus increasing theoretical max speed)".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But what you're missing is that hyperthreading often slows things down, although I honestly have no idea why. Still, the P4 is a pile of crap. The pipeline is miles long - it's even got "twiddle my thumbs" stages,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't say for certain, but I have some educated guesses. Basically, resource sharing and resource splitting.
Resources like the L1 data cache are shared. If your two threads have working sets that fit in the l1 cache, then a 'traditional' time-slicing approach allows each thread to work entirely out of the cache. If you run them both at the same time, then they share the cache and neither can fit
Re: (Score:2)
Nice sig, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you really like ISAs and register architectures, you'll most likely like CPUs other than x86, anyway (any of the load/store ones and/or those that are more orthagonal like the 68k and/or VAX, for example).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but depending on the task in question, the benefits might not be--not that I've benchmarked this yet, mind you. :)
Who knows, I might do some of that too...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'm with you - I banned the purchase of Dell machines in our company due to horrible quality and horrible customer service.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Power usage is comparable, from the tests I've seen, with the Core 2 using a little less power at full load, but more power idling. Do note that this is against 3 year old tech.
I'll be eagerly awaiting next year's releases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Honorable mention to IBM, based on a now-ancient Pentium III that is still working perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Big stinking deal. Unless, by 'punish', you mean you regularly dropped it off tables, spilled coffee on it, etc.etc.
I've got an IBM that a customer's kid spilled orange juice on. Consider how acidic orange juice is, and the fact that it was a full glass. Then consider
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Lenovo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "good".
Good for 5-8 years of use? Go with a business-class machine from Toshiba (Tecra M5), Lenovo (Thinkpad T60/T60p) or Apple (MacBook Pro and maybe the MacBook). All of those options are going to cost you $2000-$3000 for a fully configured and well-built machine with a 3 year or 5 year warranty.
Good for playing games on? Look for a machine that has lots of bells and whistles but will only last 2-3 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In some be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD's offerings probably won't significantly change either, since the 4x4 architecture it's been touting is irrelevant in the low-end desktop market.
Unfortunately, innovation doesn't occur on-demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure that it will be impressive innovation, like coming up with a new copyrighted name for a processor or something. As someone who worked in the semiconductor industry for many years, it is my opinion that Intel's greatest innovations have been in the area of hard-nosed marketing strategy.
Re: (Score:1)
It's opposite land! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
- Dr. Peter Venkmen in Ghostbusters
Re:It's opposite land! (Score:4, Funny)
"This man has no disk"
Re:It's opposite land! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry too much. "Dell switching to AMD?" is announced every six months for the last umpteen years. I usually see it as an opportunity for Dell to make a new deal with Intel.
Maybe it'll actually happen this time, but if it does it'll still be 6 months or more before you see them for sale.
But if it doesn't happen, you'll know that Intel (or Dell) caved. Again.
Purely from a business standpoint, it's certainly easier and cheaper to support, stock, and build based on one architecture. Further, most businesses want to purchase Intel products, rather than AMD - it's the safe bet. "you'll never get fired for recommending wintel..."
-Adam
Re:It's opposite land! - RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft could go Linux but in it's own way. It's called reverse engineering and rebuilding NT Kernel from ground up. It's called putting Linux's best features into a new NT Kernel.
Strange timing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strange timing? (Score:5, Insightful)
While AMD's recent performance leadership (and more importantly 64-bit and server infrastructure leadership) have definitely had an impact on Dell's decision, the only thing that really would have made Dell change their tune is customer demand. Dell is selling AMD parts because their customers want it, and they're going to continue to do so as long as their customers want it.
I think what's happened is that AMD has earned respect and is now seen as a true viable second source by even the most conservative of agencies, and given the choice most really would prefer to have a second option -- even if they buy all their computers from Dell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that has been there for several years now. Perhaps because of the AMD lawsuit, Intel has had to tone down their vendor-bribing, and the revenue from AMD demand now outweighs the check Intel cuts to Dell.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But I agree that Intel bribes definitely are relevent. Dell has threatened to sell AMD in the past, almost certainly as a way to keep Intel on their toes and giving freely from their coffers. Dell's decision to switch would have to t
Re: (Score:1)
Finally, Dell has a lit
Re: (Score:1)
If you know where to look - being a geek, I can get a Dell with Linux but for your average user it's no where to be found and part of the reason Linux scares/intimidates the average user is that they would need to configure their own system, which requires a not insubstantial familiarity with how comp
Re: (Score:2)
Intel have the lead now, but for how long. AMD is promising a better Quad-Core product, which may give them the advantage in the server space. Can Dell afford to ignore this? The people at Dell say no.
Price (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering the new Intel chips coming out now (Core 2 Duo) seem to be destorying AMD performance wise, this would seem to be a price based decision on Dell's part. They are (for the most part) a discount hardware vendor so the recent, aggressive price cuts from AMD must have been too appealing for them to ignore.
Also, ever since they introduced AMD on some of their servers it's seemed only a matter of time before that relatioship transfered to their desktop offerings. I would imagine, though, that their notebook lines will continue to use Intel as Intel continues to have the (perceived?) lead in that market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cheapest of these chips (the E6300) is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Revolutionary? The POWER4 was sharing L2 cache between cores way back in 2001, followed by the UltraSparc IV+ in 2005.
Hopefully more R&D Budget now for AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope the progress for AMD will now be volume -> cash -> more R&D - > better products.
Over the years, I've gotten the vague feeling that AMD has better engineers who can do more with less. I hope the new volume will not only allow AMD to gear up the foundries, but all expand their R&D. I don't know the real figures, but I've always suspected the Intel has a lot more money to spend on research and development, and they still are only now starting to pull ahead on performance. I hope this deal will give AMD enough money to ramp up their R&D.
If AMD could be competative with a smaller program, consider what the should be able to do with more money.
Re:Hopefully more R&D Budget now for AMD (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully more R&D Budget now for AMD (Score:2)
It seems like Intel has better manufacturing engineers, while AMD has better design engineers... or at least design engineers who aren't held back by marketing
Re:Hopefully more R&D Budget now for AMD (Score:2)
Might be true, but I've always suspected that AMD just have fewer managers to screw up the research.
AMD owns server market, and 65nm coming (Score:5, Informative)
Plus AMD hasn't done their 65nm trasition yet (shipments start end of this year). That should be enough to leapfrog Intel, depending on how many architectural tweaks they do while they're at it. AMD doesn't switch process nodes until they've figured out how to get mature yields (which they say they have), then they do a rapid changeover.
Intel's C2D chips have got to be expensive to produce, what with their 2MB and 4MB L2 caches. I wonder what their yield rates are? Dell was probably worried about getting enough supply, especially with Apple getting first dibs now. Intel's strategy of throwing capacity at problems has to be becoming unsustainable, looking at their deteriorating balance sheet. (Ignore their income statement, that's much easier to manipulate. Cash is tougher to fake.)
Worst case, Dell has seen what's coming at wants to get on AMD's good side now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Granted though, I'm amazed how well AMD's chips compare to the C2D's considering their aging design and lith process. A shift to 65nm will make them even more competitive, althoug
It's like WOW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
intel released the new chips much earlier than planned due to their yields. intel got lucky in being able to ramp up yields in their 65nm manufacturing compared to 90nm.
Re: (Score:2)
the 3600x2 might get squeezed into a system at that pricepoint.
I always felt that if AMD chips were going to get used by Dell it would be to push the low end price even lower than before. Right now that 299 desktops and 499 laptops. With AMD cutting prices perhaps Dell sees these numbers even lower. Bottom end single cores for 249 and laptops 449?
Can't wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the X2 3800+ sells for ~$148, does anyone have information as to what the X2 3600+ chips are going to sell for? ne article [tgdaily.com] says that they're being released into the channel for $149 but that there would probably be price cuts.
It would have to be down around $100 retail in order to compete with the low-end clearance of the old Intel 805 dual-core Pentium 4s.
Re: (Score:2)
it is amd's purchase of ati that finally sealed the deal with dell. amd can now provide their own integrated all-in-one platform just like intel: chipset, integrated video, processor and board design all from the same company. dell only has to deal with one vendor from engineering and board design to processor supply and drivers. amd could not singlehandedly do all of that, like intel can, until now.
EVIL AMD! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
With Intel slowly loosing its soft monopoly, people are starting to like Intel for it Linux commitment.
Re: (Score:2)
let me gebin..A-Hem:
Cyrix is great! the same speed but cheaper.
Intel is using their monopoly to prevent vendors from use Cyrix!
Damn. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh well.
Impact on Enthusiasts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reduced power consumption. (Score:5, Funny)
Dell figured the reduced power consumption would leave more available for more effective explosions.
Perfect timing, Dell! (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing that would be better would be for you to "repent" and go back to exclusively Intel as soon as AMD's next gen launches.
But you're not that stupid. Are you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also wonder how I
Re: (Score:1)
Fair 'nuff, though I think the new Xeons are pretty competitive with Opterons, at least at the 1-2 CPU part of the market. It's all a matter of leapfrog, and I have to wonder if the money they saved by being Intel's favored bride was more than the money they'd have earned selling AMD systems to enthusiasts and those who value enthusiast recommen
Amazing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, cute. (Score:2)
However, for companies like Dell, it's all about their bottom line--and in combination with whatever deals they may have in place with vendors and manufacturers, that's a vastly different computation.
New deal with Intel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting.
Anyhow, here's what I expect happened:
Once Dell committed itself to AMD servers, then the deal with Intel was invalidated. This was a known: Dell gambles that the increased sales will offset the lost savings. Also, the move towards AMD will (Dell hopes) reinvigorate Dell's image. Currently, we think of Dell as being a boring, greedy company producing yesterday's solutions.
Ironically, this happens at a time when Core 2 Duo finally seems to win Intel the performance upper hand for the first time in a long while.
Re: (Score:2)
They just desperately want to hold on to that image
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another big blow to them was the whole overseas support thing. Imagine hordes of people having problems with defects, bugs and spyware trying to get good support from
Cutting down HP and Gateway (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cutting down HP and Gateway (Score:5, Insightful)
deja vu? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This one seems to be a tad more official though. Good, I won't buy anything that Intel touches.
Re: (Score:1)
My 2 Cents. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't put it past other manufacturers to also try this, thinking that they can make more extra money selling both types of systems, rather than save a few bucks per CPU being exclusive, under contract.
AMD Marketing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
*where* can I buy AMD servers from Dell? (Score:2)
Dell & mergers (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'm more interested in is what'll happen because of the ATI and AMD merger.
Re:Dell & mergers (Score:1)
Magic Genies (Score:3, Insightful)
My mother spent 6 months on the phone to India 'tech support' trying to get her box to stop hanging until the Dell tech finally came and swapped her NIC.
Put what you want in the box, Dell, I and anyone else in the know ain't buying.
Re:Magic Genies (Score:5, Funny)
Well yeah, but that's just common sense. Djinnis sound great, but anyone who has ever read any mythology involving them knows that their wishes always come with unexpected twists and downsides.
For example, you might ask your djinni to compute the turbulence vectors around the air intake of the fighter jet you are designing. And he would instantly do so using single-precision floating point and the wrong rounding mode! Whoa betide those who trust in the djinni!
Re: (Score:1)
It's all about market share and profitability (Score:5, Insightful)
For businesses, decisions about what to buy are made on a large scale, based more on budgetary and standardization factors than on which chip has the absolute top performance in its price class this week. My company picks a standard model and sticks to it for months at a time, sometimes more than a year. It might buy thousands of desktops and laptops during that time, as well as dozens or a few hundred servers.
Dell is just trying to grab market share. AMD owns 20% of the desktop market now. That Intel's Core Duo is the price/performance winner this month is a blip on the screen - the larger trend is all that matters to Dell. They need to get at that 20% of the market they're missing, because it represents money left on the table in their primary sector. No business can stay in business if it is in the habit of leaving its customers' money on the table.
What has been holding Dell back historically is twofold - sure, there's whatever exclusive deal they had with Intel, and that is significant. But there's also the (historical) inability of AMD to ship large quantities of a given part on release. Dell does not want to be in the position of turning down or delaying shipment of large orders by its most important (corporate) customers, for lack of parts. AMD has only recently (in the last two or three years maybe) been able to show reliable ability to ship the kinds of quantities that Dell requires. So, now that it can, it becomes a Dell vendor.
So, it doesn't matter all that much to Dell if Intel's Core Duo is in the lead currently. That's a short-term question, of what to package on its current models next quarter maybe. Right now it is concerned with meeting the demands of existing customers, and those existing customers are working from certified models and budget numberes that were determined on paper months ago. I doubt any major company is purchasing Core Duo machines for its employees this week - very few are that proactive and quick with purchasing decisions.
As for next quarter, and the quarter after that - well, Dell will use whatever part makes the most sense, for each model in each product line at each price point and discount level. For some, that probably will mean a core duo platform - but assuradly, now that they have signed the agreement, they will have some Athlon models - and they'll sell some. I'd expect AMD single-chip (dual and single core) desktops to make up something like 5% to 10% of next quarter's shipped desktop units, and maybe a good 15% of next quarter's shipped server units.
Dell's home market will be mostly mid to low-end dell desktops, using whatever chip is at the $50 to $80-each (in 1000-tray quanitites) price point that month. Leaving AMD out of that equation would be a mistake, again irrespective of Core Duo vs. Athlon 64 x2 price/performance points. The cheapest Athlon 64 X2 is still well above $100 each in quantity - and Core 2 Duo is around $200 minimum. They are only a small portion of even the home desktop market at this point, so which of the two is fastest isn't really that relevant to Dell.
-Lep
Re: (Score:1)
So now AMD has both the chicken and the egg. Hopefully they won't blow it.
Cause or effect? (Score:3, Interesting)
Could it have been Dell trying to use AMD to haggle for lower prices from Intel and taking it a bit too far, and Apple seizing the opportunity to strike a deal with Intel?
And next thing you know, Apple gets a Dell-style deal from Intel, and Dell ends up with "humpty dumpty" on its face.
IBM and HP might now be having a moment of schadenfreude...
As for AMD's quad cores saving them, I don't see any significant core changes. No core changes = just the usual scaling = not going to beat Core 2 Duo or Woodcrest - which are now better per GHz and faster overall.
Maybe AMD stuff will win for 8 way servers (4 socket x 2 cores, or 8 socket), but the market for 8 way is pretty small at the moment.
As for 2 socket x 4 cores, AFAIK quad core means the 4 cores will share the socket's memory, so I don't see how that is going to be much better than Intel.
Perfect. Timing. (Score:2)
Yes, I suspect Dell isn't switching completely, but still the timing is particularly amusing.
This again? (Score:2, Informative)
Not [slashdot.org] this [slashdot.org] again [slashdot.org]. Come [slashdot.org] on [slashdot.org] editors [slashdot.org], really [slashdot.org]!
- Tash [tashcorp.net]
Not surprising. ATI and NY Fab were hints. (Score:4, Insightful)
First, Dell had already broken it's Intel only stance by committing to offering AMD Quad CPU servers.
Second, the ATI purchase and NY fab announcements were so close together that for the banks to finance the purchases (with loans rather than shares!), someone signing the loan offer had to be very convinced that business was going to be growing.
Third, Dell isn't stupid. AMD's share, especially in servers, was getting to the point where Dell would start to loose a noticable number of corporate sales. If a mid-sized company wants to standardize on one vendor for servers and workstations, then sooner or later Dell starts to loose workstation and laptop sales. The Opterons were that good in the server area -- and while Woodcrest servers seem to be excellent, it's a new server architecture, and it takes a lot of time for a company to validate a new CPU.
Lastly, AMD has all the pieces of the puzzle now. They've got more than one fab (granted they're next door to each other, but at least they've started production via a contract fab, Chartered). They've got the full range of chips -- the Turion mobiles are reasonably power competitive. And with the ATI purchase, AMD is able to offer the complete reference design and support.
So, IMHO it was a matter of time.
Tagged as (Score:2)
additional foundries (Score:2)
given this, i believe that dell has just been waiting for amd to be able to supply them with the chips they need. amd of course will not stop shipping to other vendors just to supply dell.
this is just timing on the products. i believe the product line for dell will increase as amd will be able to ramp up production through its own and 3rd party foundries.
How is that (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)