Check out these results. The results speak for themselves.

CNET prizefight: AMD vs. Intel dual-core CPUs - CNET reviews
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:38:46 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Check out these results. The results speak for themselves.
>
>CNET prizefight: AMD vs. Intel dual-core CPUs - CNET reviews
>http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav

Hey Mickey Dell, Steve Jobs! Can you read?
;P

NNN

I'd always thought the issue for Dell was that AMD couldn't manufacture
enough of their CPUs. I'd heard the problem was that Dell produces so many
systems that they could take all of AMD's production and that wouldn't be
enough.

--
there is no .sig
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:38:46 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Check out these results. The results speak for themselves.
>>
>>CNET prizefight: AMD vs. Intel dual-core CPUs - CNET reviews
>>http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav
>
> Hey Mickey Dell, Steve Jobs! Can you read?
> ;P
>
> NNN
>

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:19:51 GMT, "Doug" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'd always thought the issue for Dell was that AMD couldn't manufacture
>enough of their CPUs. I'd heard the problem was that Dell produces so many
>systems that they could take all of AMD's production and that wouldn't be
>enough.

Maybe AMD has not enough output for Dell's Celeron-class volume.
However, AMD can package enough [dual]cores into 940 to cover all of
PowerEdge volume, and then some, without squeesing any existing
customers, leaving some remaining [dual]cores to package into 939 -
enough to cover the whole XPC line.

;-)

NNN

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:38:46 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Check out these results. The results speak for themselves.
>
>CNET prizefight: AMD vs. Intel dual-core CPUs - CNET reviews
>http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7....html?tag=lnav

They should of added power usage and CPU temps too , I just upgraded
to a X2 4200+, amazing how cool it runs and the whole system at idle is
only using 117W, with CnQ enabled it drops to 71W! Compared to the s754
I just upgraded the X2 system is using about 60W less at idle without
CnQ enabled.

With 2 copies of Prime95 running, (most power usage setting) one copy
per core, it peeks at around 205W.

Ed
--
PARTS: -Re-Use *New /Replace
--------------------------------------
- Antec SX-1040BII ATX-Full Tower Case
* Enermax EG495P-VE SFMA 485W PSU /Antec 400W SmartPower
* ASUS A8N-E s939 Nvidia nForce4 Ultra /VNF3-250 s754
* AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Dual Core) /Newcastle 3200+
- Crucial Ballistix PC4000 (2 * 512MB)
* eVGA Geforce 6800GS 256MB GDDR3 PCI-e x16 /9800 pro 128
- Creative Labs Audigy 2
* WD Raptor 74GB 8MB SATA150 10,000 RPM /WD 120GB PATA100
- Seagate 160GB 8MB PATA100 7,200 RPM
- NEC ND-2500A 8x DVD-RW
- Lite-On 5238S 52x CDRW
- 8 in 1 Flash Reader (5" bay)
- Alps Floppy 3.5" Disk Drive
- 2 thermal controlled case fans.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:19:51 GMT, "Doug" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'd always thought the issue for Dell was that AMD couldn't manufacture
>enough of their CPUs. I'd heard the problem was that Dell produces so many
>systems that they could take all of AMD's production and that wouldn't be
>enough.

HP and Dell have basically the same volume (give or take 5% on any
given quarter). HP has had little trouble getting sufficient volumes
of AMD chips, so why should Dell be any different?

As usual, the answer is that Dell (both the man and the company) are
just feeding a nice easy line that doesn't tell the real story. I've
managed to gain a bit of an insight into the behind-the-scenes
workings of the computer industry of late, and I've learned an
important characteristic about both Dell and about HP. In the case of
HPaq the one thing I've learned is that no one seems to know what
anyone else in the company is doing. The one thing I've found about
Dell is that what they say in the media and what happens in reality
usually have little in common with one another.

Dell has some good (and some bad) reasons for not using AMD chips, but
manufacturing capacity is NOT one of them.

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

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:36:27 -0500, Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:19:51 GMT, "Doug" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I'd always thought the issue for Dell was that AMD couldn't manufacture
>>enough of their CPUs. I'd heard the problem was that Dell produces so many
>>systems that they could take all of AMD's production and that wouldn't be
>>enough.
>
>HP and Dell have basically the same volume (give or take 5% on any
>given quarter). HP has had little trouble getting sufficient volumes
>of AMD chips, so why should Dell be any different?
>
>As usual, the answer is that Dell (both the man and the company) are
>just feeding a nice easy line that doesn't tell the real story. I've
>managed to gain a bit of an insight into the behind-the-scenes
>workings of the computer industry of late, and I've learned an
>important characteristic about both Dell and about HP. In the case of
>HPaq the one thing I've learned is that no one seems to know what
>anyone else in the company is doing.

HP was always a highly divisionalized company - kinda like a wannabe
mini-IBM; also, traditionally, companies which valued OEM resellers & ISVs
as part of their business model had to present an image which did not
threaten those important 3rd parties. Some of those divisions, dating back
to the days of minicomputers, have faded way, or, as in the case of
Agilent, been spun off but the corporate culture has stuck to a certain
extent. At one time they had at least three separate divisions making
PC-type devices targeted at different vertical sectors - they used to
exhibit at conferences separately.

During the darkest days of the Carleton era I suspect that they came very
close to a spin-off/management buy-out of the printer division... something
I would not totally rule out even now.

> The one thing I've found about
>Dell is that what they say in the media and what happens in reality
>usually have little in common with one another.

Has DFS gotten over its hump of bad rep yet? They came pretty close to a
legal catastrophe there AIUI.

>Dell has some good (and some bad) reasons for not using AMD chips, but
>manufacturing capacity is NOT one of them.

I think the problem for Dell with AMD is that the CPUs they covet, for
servers, are the ones which will hurt their relationship with Intel the
most. I find it hard to believe that Intel would put up with Dell selling
Opterons into the high ASP sector while at the same time allowing Dell to
dump low-end Intel CPUs in desktops. It breaks the Dell-Intel equation.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:09:15 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:36:27 -0500, Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>As usual, the answer is that Dell (both the man and the company) are
>>just feeding a nice easy line that doesn't tell the real story. I've
>>managed to gain a bit of an insight into the behind-the-scenes
>>workings of the computer industry of late, and I've learned an
>>important characteristic about both Dell and about HP. In the case of
>>HPaq the one thing I've learned is that no one seems to know what
>>anyone else in the company is doing.
>
>HP was always a highly divisionalized company - kinda like a wannabe
>mini-IBM; also, traditionally, companies which valued OEM resellers & ISVs
>as part of their business model had to present an image which did not
>threaten those important 3rd parties. Some of those divisions, dating back
>to the days of minicomputers, have faded way, or, as in the case of
>Agilent, been spun off but the corporate culture has stuck to a certain
>extent. At one time they had at least three separate divisions making
>PC-type devices targeted at different vertical sectors - they used to
>exhibit at conferences separately.
>
>During the darkest days of the Carleton era I suspect that they came very
>close to a spin-off/management buy-out of the printer division... something
>I would not totally rule out even now.

It was rather interesting that one of the last things that Carly did
was to merge the PC and printer divisions into one. And one of the
first things that was undone after she was unceremoniously booted was
to unmerge these two divisions!

FWIW there have been some positive rumblings in this regard since Mark
Hurd took over, though it's way too early yet to know if it will
translate into anything meaningful.

>> The one thing I've found about
>>Dell is that what they say in the media and what happens in reality
>>usually have little in common with one another.
>
>Has DFS gotten over its hump of bad rep yet? They came pretty close to a
>legal catastrophe there AIUI.

I'm not too sure, I don't see that side of things too often. All I
remember of it is a few articles I read back when the whole class
action suit came out some time back.

>>Dell has some good (and some bad) reasons for not using AMD chips, but
>>manufacturing capacity is NOT one of them.
>
>I think the problem for Dell with AMD is that the CPUs they covet, for
>servers, are the ones which will hurt their relationship with Intel the
>most. I find it hard to believe that Intel would put up with Dell selling
>Opterons into the high ASP sector while at the same time allowing Dell to
>dump low-end Intel CPUs in desktops. It breaks the Dell-Intel equation.

The other obvious market for AMD chips in Dell products is their XPC
desktops (ie their "luxury" line of high-end PCs). Again it's
substituting high-end/high-cost Intel chips for AMD ones.

At the low-end it kind of makes less of a difference who's processors
you are using. If you're looking at a Celeron 2.8GHz vs. a Sempron
2800+, it's pretty much a toss-up when it comes to performance and
both chips cost less than $50 (for Dell that is, not for you or I). A
savings of $1 here or there or a performance difference of 5% isn't
going to matter much to most of the customer's buying these systems.

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