POPE meets THE MAN FROM DELL

[GIPNOR]

I bet you really mean VIA crap.

Well, with AMD processors you HAVE to include another manufacturer's chipset... that has historically been a drawback with AMD processors all along.

Heck, I'd say the KT333 was competitive and then the nForce2 chipset rocked... until then, Intel always had better chipsets.

I've got an Athlon 64 rig right now myself and IMO, the platform is junk. I look forward to nForce4 because nothing available right now is very good (IMO). Sure, the processor is fast and I've got 64-bit architecture ready to go as soon as Microsoft sees fit to release their 64-bit OS.


Also, when you compare Dell to a home built AMD machine, you need to think about support. Don't get me wrong, I have no delusions regarding Dell's support, or ANY OEM's support for that matter... but I'd probably rather be stuck with Dell than Gateway, HP, eMachines, or whoever.

My advice to people is:

If you can build and support your own machine - do it. If you can't, suck it up and buy a Dell.

You might find a cheaper machine than a Dell, but people WISH they had a Dell when they start having problems with their machine and they have to wait in line at Best Buy for an hour so they can come back and pick up their machine 2 weeks later.

I like AMD and the best value I think I ever got from a PC was an nForce2 and OC'd Mobile XP sproc AMD machines have a lot of things going for them... but you can't discount all the advantages you get with Intel and a decent OEM like Dell. There are other aspects like customer support, chipset reliability that are factors.

No, I wouldn't buy a Dell for myself, but I made sure my Dad (who lives 800 miles from me) bought one.

 

[trooper11]

yeah i agree with you there, the business ive worked for insisted on soemhting like dell, not becuase they knew anyhting about intel vs amd, but becuase the related dell to being reliable and cost effective. but that is nto true, ive had to repair and service many dell pcs 1 and 2 years down the road. amd's problem is that intel painted na image that is ingrained into this generation of IT ppl and those that run these businesses.

marketing amd more owuldnt solve the problem, what it will take is the next generation, the pl that are now learning about things and hopefully getting the true info about both companies and are more open to another option.

 

[GIPNOR]

AMD has another problem besides Intel's massive PR campaigns... distribution.

When companies like Dell decide who their distributors are going to be, I can guarantee that they aren't basing their decision on the FPS in Doom. Enthusiest certainly care, but the general public does not.

Dell keeps an amazingly small amount of parts in inventory and they have strict requirements of their partners. It's one of the reasons Dell has been so successful and profitable, while companies like the former Compaq have suffered with huge amounts of rapidly depreciating inventory.

I'm siding with you guys... an AMD machine would/could certainly be a better value than whatevere Dell was pushing... BUT, there's more to buying a PC than the speed of the CPU (I think support is a big factor), and there is also more to manufacturing and successfully selling a CPU than your architecture.

Don't be blinded by Sandra benchmarks and FPS in Doom3. AMD has a ways to go before it can compete with Intel in many aspects.

 

[trooper11]

well you see thats wher ei think your wrong. you seem to point the finger at amd, whne many of these things we are talking about are out of thier control. For one hting, dont downplay the fact that its more then 'Sandra benchmarks and FPS in Doom3' there are more features besides performance imporvements over the p4 that could be great reasons to buy them.

amd is doing everyhting it can, short of bankrupting itself, to gain that distribution you spoke of. you can admit they have made more progress now then they ever had. it hasnt shown big numbers yet, but as we all know, positive results often take a long time in this industry. they are also working hard to increase thier production capacity wiht the new fab, they cant just build up fabs and catch up to intel. but i also know that they have enough room wiht the fab they have that they could provide more cpus then they do now, and of course the new fab will help that.

i just odnt see this as intel winning a competition with amd, the fact is intel got there first and staked its claim early. amd came in later with real competative products that now position it as a real power in the industry. this takes time to sink in for companies that might pick it up, so the fact amd has made moves now is a sign of a good future. they have to start a solid rep some time, they cant have everything at once. i know most consider market share to be the way of saying how intel or amd are competeing, but seriously, both coampnies are making money, amd for the first time in a while has had consecutive profitable quarters. thats a good sign for the future. i always think of things more as future investments in this field, and intel and amd both work that way. in that respect i think amd is competing on intel's level, if they lay the right groundwork, the market share and dsitributors will follow. amd has to slowly but surely slip into areas and get a foothold.