HP Pavilion gives equal billing to AMD and Intel

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

HP's US website seems to feature an equal number of AMD and Intel-based
Pavilion systems now. I'm not sure how HP managed to do that, given that it
gets Intel Inside advertising dollars. Not only is it featuring an equal
number of systems between the two, it seems to use superior marketing
language for the AMD systems!

Also looking at the tea-leaves of corporate politics, does this show that
there is some kind of feud going on between HP and Intel right now?

Inquirer article: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16175

HP website:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:57:21 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>HP's US website seems to feature an equal number of AMD and Intel-based
>Pavilion systems now. I'm not sure how HP managed to do that, given that it
>gets Intel Inside advertising dollars. Not only is it featuring an equal
>number of systems between the two, it seems to use superior marketing
>language for the AMD systems!
>
>Also looking at the tea-leaves of corporate politics, does this show that
>there is some kind of feud going on between HP and Intel right now?
>
>Inquirer article: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16175
>
>HP website:
>http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do
>
> Yousuf Khan


Maybe HP's marketing guys figured that since Intel systems basically
sell themselves the AMD's needed some "superior" convincing words to
sell them to the same consumers they have brainwashed (with Intel's
help) for so many years.

Ed
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Ed <nospam@email.com> wrote:
> Maybe HP's marketing guys figured that since Intel systems basically
> sell themselves the AMD's needed some "superior" convincing words to
> sell them to the same consumers they have brainwashed (with Intel's
> help) for so many years.

Maybe, but that must mean that AMD is coming up with its own marketing bucks
these days. :)

Yousuf Khan
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:09:03 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Maybe, but that must mean that AMD is coming up with its own marketing bucks
>these days. :)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

I doubt it, but I'd bet HP is getting those AMD chips at ultra-low
prices. ;p

Ed
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Ed wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:57:21 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>HP's US website seems to feature an equal number of AMD and Intel-based
>>Pavilion systems now. I'm not sure how HP managed to do that, given that it
>>gets Intel Inside advertising dollars. Not only is it featuring an equal
>>number of systems between the two, it seems to use superior marketing
>>language for the AMD systems!
>>
>>Also looking at the tea-leaves of corporate politics, does this show that
>>there is some kind of feud going on between HP and Intel right now?
>>
>>Inquirer article: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16175
>>
>>HP website:
>>http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
>
> Maybe HP's marketing guys figured that since Intel systems basically
> sell themselves the AMD's needed some "superior" convincing words to
> sell them to the same consumers they have brainwashed (with Intel's
> help) for so many years.
>
> Ed
>


Intel systems most assuredly do NOT sell themselves.

Intel sells them.

Intel spends so much on advertising Intel processors that more
than half of the marketing job is already done before an OEM
starts banging parts together to build a system around an Intel
processor.

Intel vs AMD reminds of the Windows - 2.x, 3.x or 95 - vs OS/2
days: OS/2 was a vastly superior product but Windows had much
better marketing behind it. It is much the same today - only and
idiot would pick P4 or Xeon instead AMD64, but unfortunately
there are a LOT of idiots out there who are susceptible to the
kind of drivel Intel pumps out over the TV networks.
 

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote :

> Intel systems most assuredly do NOT sell themselves.
>
> Intel sells them.
>
> Intel spends so much on advertising Intel processors that more
> than half of the marketing job is already done before an OEM
> starts banging parts together to build a system around an Intel
> processor.

and I never EVER build P4 system, none of my friends or customers wanted
it either. Price comparison between P4 and AMD is obvious, noone wanted
"intel inside" sticker, they all wanted better Logitech keyboard and
mouse for the price difference.
All it takes is someone smart enough to count and Intel bubble bursts.
Poof.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:14:00 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net>
wrote:

>Intel systems most assuredly do NOT sell themselves.

Sure they do. ;p
>
>Intel sells them.

I never seen any Intel branded PCs here, just "Intel Inside". ;p

>
>Intel spends so much on advertising Intel processors that more
>than half of the marketing job is already done before an OEM
>starts banging parts together to build a system around an Intel
>processor.

YES, that was the point, HP doesn't have to bend over backwards since
Intel does most of that for them.

>
>Intel vs AMD reminds of the Windows - 2.x, 3.x or 95 - vs OS/2
>days: OS/2 was a vastly superior product but Windows had much
>better marketing behind it. It is much the same today - only and
>idiot would pick P4 or Xeon instead AMD64, but unfortunately
>there are a LOT of idiots out there who are susceptible to the
>kind of drivel Intel pumps out over the TV networks.

Well I always say, Intel is 90% marketing 10% technology. ;P
.... maybe 80/20?

Ed
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 11:05:09 -0500, Ed <nospam@email.com> wrote, in
part:

>Maybe HP's marketing guys figured that since Intel systems basically
>sell themselves the AMD's needed some "superior" convincing words to
>sell them to the same consumers they have brainwashed (with Intel's
>help) for so many years.

What I want to know is, how come the Itanium *doesn't* actually have
an operating mode where it can run PA-RISC binaries? Instead, HP is
just replacing PA-RISC systems with Itanium systems, and software has
to be *ported*.

But maybe HP's input, and not parallel processor orders from the NSA,
led to the Itanium including population count and halfword matrix
multiply (hey, it isn't bit matrix multiply, but it's a start).

It's still a very powerful chip, but they declined to use it to take
over the market... if the market were flooded with P4s that had the
ability to gain an extra 20% performance with native Itanium code, AMD
would be history. (It may be, of course, that Intel has to look over
its shoulder for antitrust issues as well, of course, and would have
to license the Itanium architecture in such a case...)

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html