Finally....Dell's AMD numbers

[BaronMatrix]

As everyone was curious as to

1.Whether the AMD systems were selling

2. How many are they selling

The answer comes in the form of a 2007 Semi Outlook article in BusinessWeek.

It looks like the numbers are bearing out as to the numbers that Dell was said to have purchased - ordered.

According to the article AMDs mobile share went from 0% - 11% and desktop share went from 0% - 21%.

These numbers are said to be mirrored in the server space, which is reasonable since Dell posted their TPC-H numbers for PowerEdge 6950 nearly the day they were announced.

Honestly, I am seeing Dell AMD ads even on CNN, so I guess people can find a use for Athlon/X2 after all.

Linakge!

 

[spud]

As everyone was curious as to

1.Whether the AMD systems were selling

2. How many are they selling

The answer comes in the form of a 2007 Semi Outlook article in BusinessWeek.

It looks like the numbers are bearing out as to the numbers that Dell was said to have purchased - ordered.

According to the article AMDs mobile share went from 0% - 11% and desktop share went from 0% - 21%.

These numbers are said to be mirrored in the server space, which is reasonable since Dell posted their TPC-H numbers for PowerEdge 6950 nearly the day they were announced.

Honestly, I am seeing Dell AMD ads even on CNN, so I guess people can find a use for Athlon/X2 after all.

Linakge!

They always could I don't know anyone that has based a machine purchase off of a ad they seen they do it for the price and whatever the salesman wants to sell them.

 

[1Tanker]

As everyone was curious as to

1.Whether the AMD systems were selling

2. How many are they selling

The answer comes in the form of a 2007 Semi Outlook article in BusinessWeek.

It looks like the numbers are bearing out as to the numbers that Dell was said to have purchased - ordered.

According to the article AMDs mobile share went from 0% - 11% and desktop share went from 0% - 21%.

These numbers are said to be mirrored in the server space, which is reasonable since Dell posted their TPC-H numbers for PowerEdge 6950 nearly the day they were announced.

Honestly, I am seeing Dell AMD ads even on CNN, so I guess people can find a use for Athlon/X2 after all.

Linakge!

Contrast that with this article.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20061214070131.html

It looks like numbers are all over the board. :?

 

[BaronMatrix]

As everyone was curious as to

1.Whether the AMD systems were selling

2. How many are they selling

The answer comes in the form of a 2007 Semi Outlook article in BusinessWeek.

It looks like the numbers are bearing out as to the numbers that Dell was said to have purchased - ordered.

According to the article AMDs mobile share went from 0% - 11% and desktop share went from 0% - 21%.

These numbers are said to be mirrored in the server space, which is reasonable since Dell posted their TPC-H numbers for PowerEdge 6950 nearly the day they were announced.

Honestly, I am seeing Dell AMD ads even on CNN, so I guess people can find a use for Athlon/X2 after all.

Linakge!

Contrast that with this article.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20061214070131.html

It looks like numbers are all over the board. :?


What contrast? This post was about the numbers Dell is doing. Everyone wanted to know.

AMD still gained in the wksta market. But then it only accounts for 623,000 units per year.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

The fact that Intel makes better products (currently) is not a factor in 90% of Dell sales. People buy Dell for low prices. People don't upgrade Dells (for the most part). So if AMD can provide a volume of great products (their products are still great, even if Intel's are better), at a low price, then it's a win-win-win (dell, amd, consumer).

 

[BaronMatrix]

The fact that Intel makes better products (currently) is not a factor in 90% of Dell sales. People buy Dell for low prices. People don't upgrade Dells (for the most part). So if AMD can provide a volume of great products (their products are still great, even if Intel's are better), at a low price, then it's a win-win-win (dell, amd, consumer).

You mean because 20-30% of Intel's chips are better. The other 70-80% is not better than even the low end.

God, I hate Intel fans. Not that you are.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Excellent point Baron. Intel does have better chips, but Dell is selling a lot of the pre-Conroe crap which is not as good as AMD's offerings.

 

[heartview]

So let me get this straight... If AMD's chips are slower than Intel's then they're not crap but the slower-than-AMD chips from Intel are crap?

Color me confused from this lack of logic.

 

[WR2]

Dude! It's still a Dell. And the systems you're referencing are "low end" Dells at that.
Some people only look as far as the bottom line price and don't worry about stuff that they could care less about (AMD vs Intel).
And it appears that all Dell's Quad Core offerings are from Intel.

 

[Fulmar]

You mean because 20-30% of Intel's chips are better. The other 70-80% is not better than even the low end.

God, I hate Intel fans. Not that you are.

Aww muffin, lets not get upset over the internet.

 

[TSIMonster]

We say this because NETBURST is horrible, we all know that. AMD's cpus are still good CPUs, just not as good as Core2

 

[the_vorlon]

</political correctness>

Arguing over the internet is like competing in the special olympics.
Even if you win, you're still retarded.

<political correctness>

I think the contrasts between the gains Intel/Nvidia are showing in the workstation market, conrasted to AMD gains in the low end Dell/Bestbuy universe is almost self explanatory.

The guy buying a $3K workstation tends to actually know and understand what she/he is buying. At least up to 2P, The Intel is a better product right now, so people are buying it for the same reasons last year they bought Opterons.

The guy who thinks "dude - you're getting a Dell" buys what ever high margin / low quality piece of sh*t Dell advertises or the trained seal at Best Buy is programed to sell.

'nuff said 8O

 

[BaronMatrix]

So let me get this straight... If AMD's chips are slower than Intel's then they're not crap but the slower-than-AMD chips from Intel are crap?

Color me confused from this lack of logic.

The difference is that AMD set the standard for game perf in DX9 and OpenGL. They still get more than adequate frame rates at low clocks and low power usage. That is not and never was the case with NetBurst.

Tom's HW just did a story on the Top 10 2006 products. If you read the Core 2 section, you will see that everyone knows that being faster than X2 does not mean X2 can't run the same games just as fast as it did in May.

 

[evilr00t]

So let me get this straight... If AMD's chips are slower than Intel's then they're not crap but the slower-than-AMD chips from Intel are crap?

Color me confused from this lack of logic.

The difference is that AMD set the standard for game perf in DX9 and OpenGL. They still get more than adequate frame rates at low clocks and low power usage. That is not and never was the case with NetBurst.

Tom's HW just did a story on the Top 10 2006 products. If you read the Core 2 section, you will see that everyone knows that being faster than X2 does not mean X2 can't run the same games just as fast as it did in May.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

So let me get this straight... If AMD's chips are slower than Intel's then they're not crap but the slower-than-AMD chips from Intel are crap?

Color me confused from this lack of logic.

Netburst gives me indigestion. AMD spanked the crap out of NetBurst for the longest time. Those chips run hot and don't give as good of performance. They are yesterday's technology. That's why I say they are crap. However, you are right, saying that they are crap isn't totally fair. So allow me to restate:

Good - Netburst
Better - Athlon 64
Best - Core 2

People who don't care or don't know about computer will buy dells with Good or Better processors. People who do care and for some reason want to buy Dell will by the Best.

 

[heartview]

Let's disregard the loyalist community for a moment. The other 95+% of people only care about two main things as far as computers go. Can it do what I need it to do fast enough and can it do it reliably? A poorly built computer that crashes (from overheating, let's say) is just as frustrating for the average Joe as a computer that is too slow to play solitaire in 256-color mode. Outside those two factors very little matters to most people, when it comes to computers.

Having said all that, the good/better/best argument only applies to enthusiasts who are generally biased to begin with. Case in point, NetBurst only started to "suck" once it got close to the limits of the technology. Prior to that point it was merely faster at some things and slower at others compared to AMD's technology. Once NetBurst started to hit its limits, suddenly AMD's technology looked a whole lot better. Now that Core2 is out, AMD's technology is starting to "suck" by comparison.

Do you see the point here? On it's own, none of it really sucks. It is only compared to other technologies that these various bits of "suckiness" come to light.

In my opinion, technology truly sucks only when it is released to compete with existing technology that it cannot possibly compete with. If someone suddenly releases a 386-class CPU today and tells people it is great for running Vista on, that would truly be a sucky product. If AMD claims the current version of 4x4 competes with Intel's current "quad core" product then AMD has a sucky product. If they aren't claiming that then great, buy it and be happy that your purchase does everything you need it to. Technology moves too fast to wait for the perfect product to appear.

It is funny how history is continuously rewritten by hindsight. It is even funnier that the new versions of history are often presented by people who's skill with hindsight are directly related to the relative locations of their head and their arse.