PDA

View Full Version : Dell moving to AMD for better performance


MacBytes
Feb 3, 2006, 08:28 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Dell moving to AMD for better performance (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060203212850)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

iMeowbot
Feb 3, 2006, 08:33 PM
*Yawn.* No one cares about Dell and AMD (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29422) :)

bousozoku
Feb 3, 2006, 08:51 PM
Knowing that Michael Dell hates Apple so very much, I wouldn't be surprised if he would use AMD processors. Spite is a strange emotion. :D

swingerofbirch
Feb 3, 2006, 08:59 PM
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html?tag=lnav

CNET seems to think AMD is better

law guy
Feb 3, 2006, 09:06 PM
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html?tag=lnav

CNET seems to think AMD is better

As AMD struggles to make the move from 65nm from 90, Intel is shipping 65nm chips and showing its first pre-production 45nm chips. Technology writers have noted that the two companies have flip-flopped roles on look-ahead with Intel now being the very talkative one regarding the future pipeline with 20 new processors over the next 8 quarters with as many as 8 cores by 2008, and AMD becoming more quiet then they have been. It will be interesting to see how the technology lead may help Intel over the next year or two.

iMeowbot
Feb 3, 2006, 09:13 PM
It will be interesting to see how the technology lead may help Intel over the next year or two.
Bingo. This year's crop of Intel chips is lining up to be itty bitty stupid fast with power consumption under control. AMD, meanwhile, still don't have the production capacity to hit the server market in the serious numbers a Dell contract would bring them. For suppliers like Dell who want to have a predictable, reliable product supply for their core business customers, sticking with Intel still makes sense.

DMann
Feb 3, 2006, 09:23 PM
Unless AMD is willing to produce chips for LESS than
Itel can, which is somewhat unlikely, then how is
Dell gonna make a the slim profit he's accustomed
to making?

joelc
Feb 3, 2006, 09:23 PM
AMD is improving their capacity. They keep growing. I can't speak to the 65 nm transition, but I think they're still felt to have the technology lead, even with Core Duo chips available now.

As for why we should care about Dell moving to AMD, it is a sign that Intel no longer has the stranglehold on the PC makers like they used to. Now that Apple is using x86 chips, the more competition in that market the better for everyone, including Mac users

SiliconAddict
Feb 3, 2006, 09:33 PM
Nothing new here. Dell does this once every few years so they can get some nice discounts. Itís a bluff. Never mind the fact that the CPUs Intel will be bringing out in the next 12 months are going to do an admirable job at *****slapping them.

scu
Feb 3, 2006, 11:35 PM
Actually I find this to be a very interesting piece of news. Apple is always looking for the best chips for its systems. One issue at this point is not speed but rather supplies. Intel can provide plenty of chips. Maybe in 8 years or earlier AMD can supply enough chips to satisfy Apple's growing base and appetite for speed.

nagromme
Feb 4, 2006, 12:14 AM
Apple still has two--potential--suppliers for chips, and that's a good thing. They can use AMD any time they need or want to.

Meanwhile, though, what does AMD have to compete with Core Duo in laptops?

homerjward
Feb 4, 2006, 12:19 AM
Apple still has two--potential--suppliers for chips, and that's a good thing. They can use AMD any time they need or want to.

Meanwhile, though, what does AMD have to compete with Core Duo in laptops?
turion 64. it's backwards compatible (i believe--same socket at least) with socket 754. only single-core out right now, dual-core later. 64 bit.

nagromme
Feb 4, 2006, 12:42 AM
Is Turion a good match for Core Duo (er, Solo) in performance and power efficiency?

dwd3885
Feb 4, 2006, 12:44 AM
it's amazing to me how much AMD kicks Intels butt in ALL benchmarking. From a marketing standpoint, Intel was the way to go for Apple. But do not let anyone tell you that Intel makes better chips than AMD. Hasn't happened for the past 3 years. The AMD X2 kicks anything to the curb.

Not saying Apple didn't make the right decision to go to Intel, but there is no argument. AMD makes better chips, period

shadowfax
Feb 4, 2006, 12:48 AM
AMD makes better chips, periodnot period; comma, for now.

macnulty
Feb 4, 2006, 09:18 AM
This about leverage in negotiations with Intel as well as expanding sales to the AMD fanboys. Dell's "mission statement" is how do I decrease cost while increaseing sales and this fits neatly while creating free advertising.

Yvan256
Feb 4, 2006, 09:31 AM
Apple still has two--potential--suppliers for chips, and that's a good thing. They can use AMD any time they need or want to.

Or, to put it more broadly, Apple now has the exact same limitations as PC makers. They have access to the same companies, same technologies, etc.

It doesn't matter who's better for a given task (Intel, AMD, VIA, etc), Apple now can use them (unless they've signed an exclusive contract with Intel).

Before the Intel switch, Apple was limited to "something else" and had to rely on them to compete with others in a different market. Now, they choose between companies competing in the exact same market. And it should end at least one side of the Mac vs PC debate (processors, computing power, etc).

Yvan256
Feb 4, 2006, 09:32 AM
it's amazing to me how much AMD kicks Intels butt in ALL benchmarking. From a marketing standpoint, Intel was the way to go for Apple. But do not let anyone tell you that Intel makes better chips than AMD. Hasn't happened for the past 3 years. The AMD X2 kicks anything to the curb.

Not saying Apple didn't make the right decision to go to Intel, but there is no argument. AMD makes better chips, period

Yes, but at what cost? (in the power department)

I don't care if my computer is twice as fast if it's four times louder.

emaja
Feb 4, 2006, 10:39 AM
Unless AMD is willing to produce chips for LESS than Intel can, which is somewhat unlikely, then how is Dell gonna make a the slim profit he's accustomed to making?

AMD chips cost a lot less than Intel for the same level of performance. Take a look at the CNET (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav) bechmarks. In seven of seven test, the AMD won - easily in most cases.

In the gaming benchmark, the slowest AMD 3800 x 2 was faster than the Intel EE840. That's the CPU that costs $1002 at New Egg - for the chip. The 3800 x 2 costs all of $313. That kind of showing is pathetic.

I agree that this is all about negotiations. Dell does this every few years to Intel to get the best prices and then forgets about AMD - and therefore their customers - for the next few years.

MacFan782040
Feb 4, 2006, 04:24 PM
So who, besides Apple, does Intel make for now?

nagromme
Feb 4, 2006, 04:38 PM
Also note that comparisons of AMD to Netburst (Pentium 4, Xeon, Celeron) are relevant to PC shoppers but not very relevant to Mac users: Intel is scrapping that whole line, and Apple won't be using it.

Pentium M / Celeron M and now Core Duo/Solo are the current chips that actually relate to future plans. (Merom/Conroe is whole new generation about to hit this year. But they're advancements growing from the Pentium M lineage, not from Netburst.)

emaja
Feb 4, 2006, 05:13 PM
So who, besides Apple, does Intel make for now?

Uhhhh, everyone.

I might be wrong, but I don't think that there is a single AMD exclusive PC manufacturer out there. With the notable exceptions of the Intel only Dell, Toshiba, and Sony, most companies use a mix of both AMD and Intel in their lines like HP/Compaq, and Gateway/eMachines.

Timepass
Feb 5, 2006, 01:27 AM
well in the simple side
Intel chips are the best laptop chips out there. Minus the die hards AMD people (even a lot of them think intel laptop chips are the best)

Desktop side AMD is the best in most areas. Some areas Intell better.

Now for Gaming AMD is the kind and has been for a while now and more than likely will stay that way.

ezekielrage_99
Feb 5, 2006, 05:33 AM
I can see Dell going the AMD in there crumby Desktop, Gamer and Pro Machines, let's face it when Vista is released you will need as much power as you can to run it.

But putting AMD in their Laptops I can never see happening honestly AMD portable CPUs are complete rubbish, that's why Apple didn't go AMD.

Sceadufax
Feb 5, 2006, 06:32 AM
Surely this can only be a good thing, firstly it makes things fairer in the market, and secondly ,AMD's processors are cheaper and faster than anything than iNtel can offer right now, there still stuck on pentiums and there only WOW chip is the presler which costs something like £750 over here in the uk. I think it's true to say that iNtel have the laptop/portable edge and AMD have the desktop edge and I don't see why apple couldn't have used AMD desktop processors in the iMac/Powermac

steve_hill4
Feb 5, 2006, 06:58 AM
Is Turion a good match for Core Duo (er, Solo) in performance and power efficiency?
AMD obviously claim it is, but booting a 64 bit Turion 37 alongside a 1.73 Pentium M saw the Intel boot quicker and generally feel a bit faster. So the 3700+ AMD seems to perform slower than the 3400+ Pentium M, which puts me off a little. Once both are dual core, as Yonah is for Intel, I expect to see similar results, but only if AMD uses the same L2 cache that's shared, which it will.
it's amazing to me how much AMD kicks Intels butt in ALL benchmarking. From a marketing standpoint, Intel was the way to go for Apple. But do not let anyone tell you that Intel makes better chips than AMD. Hasn't happened for the past 3 years. The AMD X2 kicks anything to the curb.

Not saying Apple didn't make the right decision to go to Intel, but there is no argument. AMD makes better chips, period
At the moment, and only really for Desktop machines, their mobile range is still horrible and while they continue to play catch up there, they take their eye off the Desktop business and lose there too. From the tests I have seen it appears that the Athlon X2 is a much better processor than the Pentium D is currently, but when it comes to multi-tasking, the tables are more than turned with Intel being far superior and that's before Conroe which at 64-bit will level the playing field and possibly swing it in their favour overall. Don't get me wrong, I've always been an AMD man, but I see that Intel's roadmap appears to be the stronger and as more buy portables than Desktops, Intel will stretch their lead in performance and performance per watt even further.
I can see Dell going the AMD in there crumby Desktop, Gamer and Pro Machines, let's face it when Vista is released you will need as much power as you can to run it.

But putting AMD in their Laptops I can never see happening honestly AMD portable CPUs are complete rubbish, that's why Apple didn't go AMD.
As I said above and this seems to be the general concensus it appears. Again, since mobile is the way forward and AMD are losing out big time on that front, they need to concentrate their efforts there. When they do, they may begin to lose gamers and such from their Desktops who find the AMD better at single tasks rather than multiple ones.

AlmostThere
Feb 5, 2006, 07:48 AM
At the moment, and only really for Desktop machines, their mobile range is still horrible and while they continue to play catch up there, they take their eye off the Desktop business and lose there too.

AMD's chips are not so much the issue but the fact that AMD rely on 3rd parties to build chipsets and motherboards. Their all round mobile performance is to a large degree out of their hands until someone, or AMD themselves, really concentrate on pushing an AMD mobile platform, making a similar level of investment as Intel did through their Centrino platform.

Not forgetting also that AMD rule the roost in terms of performance and price when it comes to low and mid range servers, which is I think most likely where Dell are feeling most pressure from their customers.

1macker1
Feb 5, 2006, 10:17 AM
So I wonder does this put pressure on Intel to stop giving apple new chips first and then everyone else. I love this move by Dell.

nagromme
Feb 5, 2006, 12:32 PM
It seems like this is the year when multiple cores become a mainstream consumer feature. That's a fresh incentive for everyday apps like games to make better use of multiple cores as time moves forward.

(Also re why Apple didn't use AMD in the current iMac: if it's true that AMD's laptop chips can't compete with Core Duo--in performance and energy efficiency (= heat)--then that's the reason. Putting 2 AMD DESKTOP cores in the thinnest iMac ever would then make a really LOUD machine--if it were possible at all. Instead, the Core Duo iMacs are quieter and cooler than the G5s it seems--despite adding a second CPU and higher GPU.)

freiheit
Feb 5, 2006, 04:24 PM
Pentium M / Celeron M and now Core Duo/Solo are the current chips that actually relate to future plans. (Merom/Conroe is whole new generation about to hit this year. But they're advancements growing from the Pentium M lineage, not from Netburst.)

And Pentium M was based on Pentium III (whereas Pentium 4 was an entirely different animal whose performance paled in comparison clock-for-clock to the Pentium III which it replaced). AMD's Athlon performed very well clock-for-clock against the Pentium 4, but fared pretty well against the P3.

I remember a Tom's Hardware Guide review of the 1GHz P3, 1.2GHz Athlon and 1.4GHz P4. The Athlon beat the (faster-ish) P4 in 6 out of 8 benchmarks. The amazing thing was the P3 also beat the P4 in 5 out of 8 benchmarks. The only advantage the P4 had was its clock speed could go ever-higher, but it was doing less work per clock cycle than the P3 and Athlon were.

Now Intel has abandoned marketing its chips by their MHz/GHz speed. Why? Because the Pentium M (and therefore Core Solo/Duo) have MUCH lower clock ratings than the Pentium 4 and yet perform better. They are in essence the true successor to the Pentium 3, with many of the P4's advancements added in and a newer, smaller design process. AMD should perform fairly well against this, though maybe not as well in all areas. As AMD moves to 65nm and whatever their next major chip design will be, I expect they'll improve again, but this is entirely debatable at the moment.

Either way, AMD is currently still very competitive with Intel's current offerings and their market share is growing, which means more competition, faster chips and lower prices for everyone. I like that. It sure beats $400+ for a sub-2GHz CPU update for my G4 PowerMac.

ReanimationLP
Feb 5, 2006, 04:51 PM
I'm sorry, but as a AMD fan, this news is awesome. :D

Too bad Apple wont adopt AMD... not yet, at least. >.> <.<

The Athlon 64 processor is amazing. It flies and multitasks like crazy and the integrated DDR controller offers a lot faster and better managed RAM. When I was rebuilding my computer, I was looking at 2 processors : The Intel Celeron D, or the AMD Athlon 64. I went with the 64 due to its 64-bit futureproof, plus the huge cache and the insane ability to overclock.

Maxwell Smart
Feb 5, 2006, 05:20 PM
Just one more way AMD is surpassing Intel. Good news.

steve_hill4
Feb 5, 2006, 05:44 PM
I'm sorry, but as a AMD fan, this news is awesome. :D

Too bad Apple wont adopt AMD... not yet, at least. >.> <.<

The Athlon 64 processor is amazing. It flies and multitasks like crazy and the integrated DDR controller offers a lot faster and better managed RAM. When I was rebuilding my computer, I was looking at 2 processors : The Intel Celeron D, or the AMD Athlon 64. I went with the 64 due to its 64-bit futureproof, plus the huge cache and the insane ability to overclock.
Sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your CPU fan.:D

frogbat
Feb 6, 2006, 02:27 AM
think there are many factors why apple went to intel and not amd

they needed gurantees and resources that intel could provide in aiding apple's engineers. Having a single solutions provider was also important. The difference compared to their previous chip suppliers is that they have a back up.

AMD may be geat at releasing top of the range fly by the seat of your pants chips but as the consensus here is, they don't seem to be able to transfer that success to all other market areas. Apple isn't just about the high end. Its consumer machines are probably bigger revenue generators.

And another important factor is apple's likely move into connected devices. Intel can provide a chip for any type of machine apple wishes to produce from a server to a home pc to a liing room pc to a laptop and to a pda.

But I'm glad that AMD are making inroads.

Timepass
Feb 6, 2006, 07:08 AM
think there are many factors why apple went to intel and not amd

they needed gurantees and resources that intel could provide in aiding apple's engineers. Having a single solutions provider was also important. The difference compared to their previous chip suppliers is that they have a back up.

AMD may be geat at releasing top of the range fly by the seat of your pants chips but as the consensus here is, they don't seem to be able to transfer that success to all other market areas. Apple isn't just about the high end. Its consumer machines are probably bigger revenue generators.

And another important factor is apple's likely move into connected devices. Intel can provide a chip for any type of machine apple wishes to produce from a server to a home pc to a liing room pc to a laptop and to a pda.

But I'm glad that AMD are making inroads.

I agree on some of those but I think there a seveal very huge reason.
1.) Intel designs and makes there own motherboards AMD does not. The intel designed motherboards can be made so only apple gets these speical ones so no one else can install OSX on a homebuilt computer.
2.) Intel is a marketing machician and can more than likely undercut AMD to major corps. Heck do you really think Dell is going to go with AMD over intel. intel will just use it marketing power ot make sure of that. Plus intel just huge and has the power to make a lot more chips than they currently do.

bugfaceuk
Feb 6, 2006, 07:36 AM
I'm sorry, but as a AMD fan, this news is awesome. :D

Too bad Apple wont adopt AMD... not yet, at least. >.> <.<

The Athlon 64 processor is amazing. It flies and multitasks like crazy and the integrated DDR controller offers a lot faster and better managed RAM. When I was rebuilding my computer, I was looking at 2 processors : The Intel Celeron D, or the AMD Athlon 64. I went with the 64 due to its 64-bit futureproof, plus the huge cache and the insane ability to overclock.

So I think you've hit the nail on the head, the AMD desktop processors are fantastic. They run cool (hence over-clocking ability) and do seem much better when multi-tasking.

However, their notebook processors suck compared to Intel, and have for a while. AMD haven't moved to smaller processes because at the moment for their desktop solutions they don't need to.

What I really like about the apple switch (as someone has aluded to) is that they have a choice, if they want to build a PowerMac with AMD chips in the future, they can (contracts with Intel allowing).

SiliconAddict
Feb 6, 2006, 08:18 AM
I can see Dell going the AMD in there crumby Desktop, Gamer and Pro Machines, let's face it when Vista is released you will need as much power as you can to run it.

But putting AMD in their Laptops I can never see happening honestly AMD portable CPUs are complete rubbish, that's why Apple didn't go AMD.

Gah. Whatever. Benchmarks have shown the Core Duo to be able to stay in the ballpark of the AMD X2 which is a DESKTOP CPU. What do you think happens when Intel takes the architecture that works so well on the mobile platform and integrates it into the desktop side of things? You get Conroe is what happens. Conroe is going to monkey stomp all over the P4 and then turn and give the stinkeye to the X2. Dell is fully aware what Intel is about to release. They are bluffing to get a better deal plain and simple.

shamino
Feb 6, 2006, 03:34 PM
Sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your CPU fan.:D
Pity the joke isn't true. My Shuttle XPC has been using an A-64 for several years. The XPC uses a liquid-filled heat-pipe system to draw heat from the CPU, eliminating the need for much airflow within the case. When used in conjunction with AMD's "cool & quiet" software (which varies the CPU speed based on software's requirements), the fan rarely gets loud enough to even notice it.