http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22676

woot now if only they would hurry up with virtulization, seriously though
is anyone else feeling sorry for intel and probably dell soon as well.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:00:31 GMT, epaton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22676
>
>woot now if only they would hurry up with virtulization, seriously though
>is anyone else feeling sorry for intel and probably dell soon as well.

Intel is expected to ship their dual-core Pentium4 D chips in May some
time. These chips are going to be priced in the same general range as
AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips and both chips should be in the same general
ballpark in terms of performance. As for Dell, they will likely be
able to purchase said P4 D chips for under $100 a pop, so they
probably don't need to worry much.

That being said, my money is still on AMD to have the better
price/performance to us mere mortals that do not buy in quantities
measured in millions. Where Dell's prices on chips are obscenely low,
the rest of us have to buy through retails channels where Intel's
prices tend to be relatively higher than AMD's.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

"Tony Hill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> As for Dell, they will likely be
> able to purchase said P4 D chips for under $100 a pop, so they
> probably don't need to worry much.

You know this because... ?

In business, it's common for larger (not just largest) customers to
have "most favored customer" clauses in their purchase contracts.
This means a supplier cannot play favorites and sell the same thing
for $100 to another customer for $1K, _if_ _any_ other customer has a
favorite-customer clause. I suspect that Dell pays the same as
anybody else in similar quantities, but gets extra support, marketing
help, and other perks that won't upset an auditor.

Just my guess. You could be right. ;-)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:05:43 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:00:31 GMT, epaton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22676
>>
>>woot now if only they would hurry up with virtulization, seriously
>>though is anyone else feeling sorry for intel and probably dell soon as
>>well.
>
> Intel is expected to ship their dual-core Pentium4 D chips in May some
> time. These chips are going to be priced in the same general range as
> AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips and both chips should be in the same general
> ballpark in terms of performance. As for Dell, they will likely be able
> to purchase said P4 D chips for under $100 a pop, so they probably don't
> need to worry much.
>
> That being said, my money is still on AMD to have the better
> price/performance to us mere mortals that do not buy in quantities
> measured in millions. Where Dell's prices on chips are obscenely low,
> the rest of us have to buy through retails channels where Intel's prices
> tend to be relatively higher than AMD's.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

i was more on about how amd's dual cores are clocked about the same as
current chips while intels are under-clocked and dell are in trouble as
you can get a quad(well dual core, two way) opteron server much cheaper
than a 4way xeon etc

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:00:31 GMT, epaton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22676
>
>woot now if only they would hurry up with virtulization, seriously though
>is anyone else feeling sorry for intel and probably dell soon as well.

You can pre-order X2 from Monarch, ship May 20th, another place is
saying May 15th, so looks like by June the chips should start pouring
in.

I'll feel sorry for Intel when they drop to 49% market share, until then
I'll keep feeling sorry for AMD.
Ed

In article <sPB9e.9545$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> "Tony Hill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > As for Dell, they will likely be
> > able to purchase said P4 D chips for under $100 a pop, so they
> > probably don't need to worry much.
>
> You know this because... ?
>
> In business, it's common for larger (not just largest) customers to
> have "most favored customer" clauses in their purchase contracts.
> This means a supplier cannot play favorites and sell the same thing
> for $100 to another customer for $1K, _if_ _any_ other customer has a
> favorite-customer clause. I suspect that Dell pays the same as
> anybody else in similar quantities, but gets extra support, marketing
> help, and other perks that won't upset an auditor.

You mean like rebates on advertising?

> Just my guess. You could be right. ;-)

My bet is not directly, but there just sooo many recipes for books.

--
Keith

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:24 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Tony Hill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> As for Dell, they will likely be
>> able to purchase said P4 D chips for under $100 a pop, so they
>> probably don't need to worry much.
>
>You know this because... ?

Because I've had some exposure to the insides of big OEMs and know
that they pay dick-all to actually purchase parts? Keeping parts in
stock, moving parts around to the right place, providing support for
parts, etc. etc., that costs money. But to simply buy a bunch of
processors from Intel (or AMD)? That's easy and cheap.

Obviously I don't know the exact details of any contract that Dell
will have worked out with Intel for any chip, let alone one that isn't
released yet. However I would be very surprised if they have more
than a very small handful of desktop chips for which Dell pays
3-figures for.

>In business, it's common for larger (not just largest) customers to
>have "most favored customer" clauses in their purchase contracts.
>This means a supplier cannot play favorites and sell the same thing
>for $100 to another customer for $1K, _if_ _any_ other customer has a
>favorite-customer clause. I suspect that Dell pays the same as
>anybody else in similar quantities, but gets extra support, marketing
>help, and other perks that won't upset an auditor.

Yes, I'm quite sure that Dell pays about the same as HPaq... Pretty
much no one else buys in even the same order of magnitude as these two
companies though, so all other companies would probably be in a
different pay-class.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:23:16 GMT, epaton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:05:43 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:00:31 GMT, epaton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22676
>>>
>>>woot now if only they would hurry up with virtulization, seriously
>>>though is anyone else feeling sorry for intel and probably dell soon as
>>>well.
>>
>> Intel is expected to ship their dual-core Pentium4 D chips in May some
>> time. These chips are going to be priced in the same general range as
>> AMD's Athlon64 X2 chips and both chips should be in the same general
>> ballpark in terms of performance. As for Dell, they will likely be able
>> to purchase said P4 D chips for under $100 a pop, so they probably don't
>> need to worry much.
>>
>> That being said, my money is still on AMD to have the better
>> price/performance to us mere mortals that do not buy in quantities
>> measured in millions. Where Dell's prices on chips are obscenely low,
>> the rest of us have to buy through retails channels where Intel's prices
>> tend to be relatively higher than AMD's.
>>
>i was more on about how amd's dual cores are clocked about the same as
>current chips while intels are under-clocked


I don't know that the difference is going to be all that great for
most of the chips. The slowest offerings Intel has planned are 2.8GHz
dual-core chips, and they already have 3.2GHz chips out. Not quite up
to the 3.73GHz of their top-end single core chip, but not too far off.

> and dell are in trouble as
>you can get a quad(well dual core, two way) opteron server much cheaper
>than a 4way xeon etc

Now this is where Dell might well be in trouble, especially since AMD
might have a full lead over Intel with dual-core server chips. HP
announced immediate availability of dual-core Opteron chips for a
couple of servers today.

To tell you the truth, I'm really not sure why Intel pushed the
dual-core release date forward so much and doesn't seem at all
concerned about their Xeons. While I'm personally much more excited
about dual-core desktop chips (either P4 or Athlon64), it seems to me
like the real money to be made is in dual-core workstation/server
chips like the Opteron.

<sigh> I just noticed that AMD did today announce their pricing for
dual-core Athlon64 chips (to be released in June), and it looks like
I'll have to wait a while before they'll be able to fit my budget.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca