Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

AMD 50% At Dell in 2007

Posted by Hemos on Mon Sep 04, 2006 08:13 AM
from the could-be-maybe dept.
AMD Intel Hardware
A reader writes: "Reports from Taiwan chipmakers indicate that AMD may make a very large percentage of Dell's sales this year." AMD, of course, has made no comments in regard to this; but if the reports are correct, then it's another setback for Intel in the server market.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

AMD 50% At Dell in 2007 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So there was no article but I found this [digitimes.com] online that I think I had caught on Digg once (can I say that here?).

    Anyway, this all goes back to our friends IDC who have this knack for claiming to be the industry experts in everything. I don't really buy that but they make these reports and then the article gets published and Slashdot usually caries them. In the particular link above, they estimate that 55 million CPUs will be used by Dell in 2007 and that, according to Taiwanese chipmakers, 20 million of them will be AMD chips. So that comes to a little over a third, not half if those estimates are accurate.

    Hemos, I know you're pissed because you have to edit Slashdot on labor day weekend but hang in there champ. You forgot a department on the last story and a link on this one but you'll get the next one right, I'm sure of it!

  • Slashdot effect? (Score:3, Informative)

    by MrNaz (730548) * on Monday September 04 2006, @08:17AM (#16037347) Homepage
    Umm... Where's the citation? How are we Slashdotters supposed to know who we're DDoSing next?

  • In other words ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by DaneelGiskard (222145) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:18AM (#16037350) Homepage
    ... their sales will explode! ;-)

  • I'm sure this number was yanked out of the ass of some analyst somewhere, but last I checked Woodcrest is still faster than Rev F for 98% of the applications out there. Intel is doing a full court press from a sales perspective with their teams out there and are going to introduce quad core by the end of the year.

    What makes someone think Dell can flip 50% of it's business to AMD? The best way Dell can do anything is to drop the price. I don't think AMD is in the position to want to go into a price war just yet...

  • Dell had to do something (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:26AM (#16037375) Homepage Journal
    IBM, HP, and Sun are all beating Dell in the server market. They all offer two things that Dell doesn't
    1. AMD servers.
    2. A server upgrade path beyond the X86.
    I think the last one is over looked. If you need big iron IBM can provide a Power based solution, Sun can upgrade you to an Ultrasparc based server, and even HP has the Integrity and Superdome lines.
    The other thing that IBM, HP, and Sun offer is real Linux and Unix support. IBM is heavy into Linux now and still is actively developing AIX, Sun has Solaris and more than a few FOSS projects going on, and HP has good support for Linux and not one but Two versions of Unix.
    The difference is Dell sells boxes, IBM, HP, and Sun are computer companies.
    • However, I expect Dell to be huge in the server market using Intel's new dual-core Xeon 5000 and 7000 series CPU's. Based on the same CPU core that made the Core Duo 2 CPU such a great CPU, the new Xeons will likely fight back successfully against AMD's Opteron CPU's.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ZachPruckowski (918562)
        Not really. Core 2 Duo is a boon on the desktop and laptop fronts, but beyond dual-socket servers, you're not getting much. I mean, at 4-way, 8-way, and n-way configs, Hypertransport allows AMD's offerings to be much more competitive. And when we move next year to 4-core chips squaring off against 4-core chips, bandwidth contention is gonna be a huge factor with Intel's MCMs and being on a 1333 MHz FSB for 4 cores.
        • Yes, I've made posts about this before. The Dual-Independent Bus (DIB) architecture introduced by Intel has only solved the 4-core issue. With Covertown expected to clock in with a miserly 1066 MHz FSB, I expect performance to improve %50 or less when moving from 4->8 cores. 16 cores is still a pipe dream.

          Meanwhile, AMD is preparing to launch the K8L. Not only will it feature many of the performance improvements seen in Core2, it will also feature a shared L3 cache and, most importantly, a 4th hypert
          • I haven't heard about a slower FSB - it's drop-in replacement on Xeon boards for the 50xx and 51xx series. But you're right in that the two 5160s on the MCM use the FSB to talk.
      • Except that both IBM and HP will have the same type of systems available. Also the 5000 series only holds it's own up to two sockets. After that the Operon has an advantage with it's hypertransport links.
        Even with the Xeon 5000 and 7000 with Dell you are at a dead end. If you ever want to go past four cores you have to get a new vendor. Dell really doesn't offer anything that compete with the high end servers from IBM, HP, and Sun. As I said they just move commodity boxes that anybody else can offer.
    • Dell would argue that #2 is it's strength, not a weakness. Offering it's own Unix (something it has done in the past) requires significant capital investment and Dell's business model specifically is against that. It's been said for Dell's entire existance that it can't compete in the server market because of #2 but it hasn't been proven so (yet).
    • I think you're quickly forgetting that Dell had, and dropped the Itanium. An upgrade path "beyond x86" is overrated.

      search for "dell 6850" for reference.
      • Except that Dell has fallen to number four in servers behind IBM, HP, and Sun.

        • Large SMP is a market that Dell could not realistically address because there is no commodity interconnect for >4 module Itanium/EMT-64 leaving them with the option of cutting a deal with Unisys or one of the other >4 way Itanium vendors.

          You don't even need a module if you're willing to have a nonconventional interconnect layout. Having every processor connect to every other processor is great, but if you're willing to give some of that up, then you can connect more AMD processors. If you wanted t

  • >>put if the reports are correct

    Slashdot only has 15-20 stories a day...would it be too much to ask someone to proofread the briefs before posting them?
    • Put if they do that, then it's another setback for editor's game time!

    • >>put if the reports are correct

      Slashdot only has 15-20 stories a day...would it be too much to ask someone to proofread the briefs before posting them?

      Not only that but, there isnt even an article linked in the summary, I mean, WTF has happened here?.

      The sad thing is that I only realized that *after* reading the comments (maybe the Editors already gave up as nobody RTFA anyway).

  • TFA? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Carewolf (581105) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:28AM (#16037379) Homepage
    What? Is this such a loose rumor that you can't even link to someone spreading the rumor?
    • Ha!

      One point of sanity, exactly 50% down the page! Everybody above and below completely oblivious to the fact that they are arguing over fuck-all content-wise. It must be the general attitude of the 'article' that gets everybody revved up.

  • What about supply? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brucmack (572780) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:29AM (#16037387)
    I think it's great that AMD is more in demand, but will they have the manufacturing capacity to keep their customers supplied?
    • Actually the supply of Conroes and mermoms is pretty tight at the moment. Offering AMD dual core chips will releave that (I mean who will want a Netburst, or single core, when you have affordable dual cores)
    • It's irrelevant because no way is Dell going to have 50% of its sales, or even server sales, running
      on AMD. I'd be surprised if it got to 10%.... less on the Desktop.
  • This shows how well the AMD anti-trust case worked. Intel backed of their preditory discount schemes for fear of being ruled anti-competitive and then it no longer made sense for Dell to be an Intel only shop
    • So Intel backed down on predatory pricing and now Dell is selling slower CPUs? This does seem to really benefit the consumer ::insert eye roll here::
      • The CPU core may be slower, but in 4+ core SMP systems, the AMD isn't strved for bus bandwidth like the intel is, and we're talking about servers here. Nice try, though.
    • That is PURE speculation. Please provide us with said documents you have showing what Dell is paying per chip from intel. Until you provide such documents, please go back to your armchair expert corner.
        • Hrmm, we could start with market trust. There was a time not too long ago no self respecting IT manager would let an AMD chip within a thousand feet of his DC. Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel...

          We could then move to "best tool for the job". Last I checked, AMD was never ahead in EVERY benchmark. Was it the better chip overall? Sure... but that doesn't mean it was the best for EVERY job.

          Pricing? Core2 wipes the floor with A64 and is still priced lower, turns out Intel has 10x the fab capac

  • Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acherrington (465776) <acherrington@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Monday September 04 2006, @08:36AM (#16037411) Homepage
    I before you start calling your dell rep for details, or your broker to buy stock. Just remember one thing. Dell has been rumoring this for YEARS and they still aren't seriously carrying AMD products. They like to use this to try and negotiate the best possible deal from Intel. Incorporating AMD would in theorey be easy to do, but integrating it into its supply line would take some time... plus dell would have to pour marketing dollars in to make customers feel comfortable with the change (think of the experience with coca-cola classic and coke II).

    Personally (and off topic), I would love to see this happen. But don't count on it any time soon.
    • Why don't you slow down there yourself, cowboy? Read. [hardocp.com]

    • It is true that Dell has been rumoring this for years. But today it's different: Dell has promised to their customers and shareholders that they will start selling AMD-based desktops in September 2006, and AMD-based servers by the end of 2006, as you can read on one of the many dell.com's webpages about the subject [dell.com].

      You can't say "it's still a rumor". This is wrong. If they don't do it now, they will get severly sanctionned by their shareholders this time.

  • Maybe.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Junta (36770) on Monday September 04 2006, @08:41AM (#16037434)
    If Dell took AMD seriously in 2006 that would have happened, but not so sure about 2007..

    Same with IBM, both only just now really started taking AMD seriously and did so just in time for Woodcrest to come and tip price-performance back to Intel systems. AMD still has the memory performance advantage, but Woodcrest/Conroe's 4 ops per clock and relatively aggressive pricing mean AMD has to do something. I don't know AMD's schedule for quad-core offhand, but know Intel Clovertown is supposed to be probably 2nd quarter of 07. It's possible that in going to quad-core Intel's memory architecture could choke them and give AMD a more thorough advantage, or that AMD also gets similar performance while going to quad-core as Intel gets with Woodcrest/Conroe and the scales tip to AMD again.
    • Sure, the quad cores will be great for high end systems. Think E-ATX systems with two sockets and a total of eight cores.
      But for the average buyer, I think AMD moving to 65nm manufacturing will be more relevant. It should result in lower manufacturing costs and hopefully higher clock speeds, making the Athlon X2 more competitive compared to Intel's Core 2 Duo.
      The shrink to 65 nm will also arrive sooner than the quad cores. Others in this thread have speculated that Dell might be the first to get some of the
  • This isn't so much tech news as it is financial news, and despite the popular support which AMD has among the nerd community, this hardly warrants a mention at tech-centered news sites (though many of those bring increasingly financial related news). Move on, nothing to see here.

  • Apple (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sohil (981376)
    If only Apple moved to AMD ...
  • Yeah right.

    Here comes my standard AMD+Dell troll, which has held true for years. But that never prevents it from being moderated as troll.

    Dell will never ship an AMD CPU (in a PC). I had to add the parenthetical part recently because someone pointed out that Dell does sell individual AMD CPUs. Intel and Dell are the same company. Intel makes the chips, Dell makes the plastic boxes that hold them. Move along.
    • You're a moron.

      In all cases prior to now it's been strictly rumor.

      That is NOT the case today. Today, Dell has promised, PROMISED, product delivery. Not said "we're thinking about going amd", but "We will be delivering multiple desktop SKUs in September and server SKUs by EOY."

      Failure to deliver on that promise, or to backtrack on it, will result in Dell seeing their share price slashed, and the history of the Intel/Dell relationship being so closely scrutinized by the FTC that Intel should be scared shitles
      • Yep, you're right. This is the one. All the others have just been hype, but this one is real. My bad. I'm wrong this time, for sure. Apologies.

  • This article puts it at closer to 1/3 (Score:3, Informative)

    by heli0 (659560) on Monday September 04 2006, @03:12PM (#16039513)
    http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060904A1001.html [digitimes.com]

    Dell reportedly to use about 20 million AMD CPUs

      Celia Lin, Taipei; Jessie Shen, DigiTimes.com [Monday 4 September 2006]

    Market sources say that about 20 million Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processors will be used in Dell's servers, desktop PCs and notebooks between the fourth quarter of 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2007. Dell will use four million AMD CPUs in its notebook line while sixteen million AMD CPUs will appear in Dell's desktop and server products, according to the sources.

    Sources in the Taiwan notebook industry pointed out that AMD has progressively expanded its presence in the notebook sector, by adding Dell as one of its major supporters in addition to Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Acer. Obtaining Dell's support would better convince domestic notebook manufacturers to divert more R&D facilities and resources to AMD-based products, the sources indicated.

    AMD declined to comment on the report and denied to reveal any details of the company's relationship with customers.

    On May 18, AMD announced that Dell stated in its quarterly earnings statement that it intends to offer AMD Opteron Dual Core processor-based servers. According to Dell's August 17 press release, the PC vendor will launch Dimension desktop computers with AMD processors in September and will introduce a two-socket and multi-processor server using AMD Opteron processors by the end of 2006. So far, announcements of Dell's notebooks with AMD processors have not yet been made, though various rumors have circulated that Dell's first AMD-based notebook will be introduced in the fourth quarter of 2006.

    According to International Data Corporation (IDC), Dell shipped 37.78 million PCs (including desktops, notebooks, ultra portables and x86 servers) in 2005, up 18.9% from the 31.77 million units that the company shipped the previous year.

    With an average annual growth of 20% in full-year shipments, Dell is aggressively estimated to hit the 45 million mark in PC shipments this year and 55 million units in 2007, according to market sources. Accordingly, the 20 million AMD CPUs are expected to be used in a third of Dell's overall PC shipments, jumping from 0% at present, the sources found.

    According to Mercury Research, AMD's overall market share stood at 21.6% in the second quarter of 2006, with on-quarter growth in the desktop and server sectors reaching 0.6- and 3-percentage points, respectively. In the meantime, AMD's share of the notebook CPU market had a sequential drop of 0.3-percentage points in the second quarter to 13.3%, data released by the research firm showed.

    In related news, market sources speculated that AMD may face a situation where demand exceeds supply. Instead of a tight capacity concern, a shortage is predicted to surface in the channel market, as the chip vendor will give priority to PC vendors Dell, HP and Acer, according to the sources. An August 7 article cited sources as revealing that AMD aims to ship 12 million notebook CPUs in 2006, accounting for 15% of the world's notebook CPU market.
  • Where's the link? This is obviously an unsubstanciated rumor.
    • The only item under AMD on that site is:

      Outsourcer of jobs to overseas, according to CNN's Lou Dobbs, at a time when huge numbers of US tech workers are unemployed.

      In other words, they do exactly the same as most other tech/IT companies (including Intel).

      By the way, why do you keep linking [slashdot.org] to that site?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      AMD is now a bargain bin low cost cpu, much as it was 10 years ago.

      4+ core Opteron systems blow 4+ core Intel systems out of the water because of Hypertransport; processors can communicate intelligently. Intel is still using a single-memory-controller model for their hardware design, while AMD using using NUMA. Like all the rest of the big boys.

      also, intel chipsets do not suck ass consistently like amd platforms. you'd think nvidia/ati/whoeverthefuck makes their chipsets can do it with less bugs.

      I

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.