Desktops: Why is AMD Quiet
(NT) dummies?
by pcguru4u - 6/18/05 5:03 AM In reply to: (NT) Look at the main group they target... Computers for dummy's by GotThumbsHardly. I suppose you were born a genius? Everyone starts their learning curve somewhere. (And some people tend to end theirs sooner) A basic computer, R&D'd to death and built to be STABLE only is what a Dell is. No OCxing, nada. Goof Proof. Why not offer that cheaply to the masses? If you're game, go build. That takes experience. I purchased a Dell thru E-Bay and got a new system for pennies on the dollar. The result...a solid, plain vanilla PC that works well. Why not? For gaming, I'll use a rig on the edge. But for now my pennies are well used for my kids .
As far as this discussion is concerned with (remember?), AMD puts their money into developing quality, not quantity. I hope they get big and give Intel a run for the money. Personally, I would think less of AMD if they started to saturate the market like Intel does, but being in busines means going for the money. And targeting niche users is not in the majority.
grow up
by IrisRose - 6/18/05 7:12 AM In reply to: (NT) Look at the main group they target... Computers for dummy's by GotThumbsThese posts are starting to sound like chat room shenanigans. The above post is offensive and putative. I have been buying Dell for years, and I am no dummy, not with an MA from Stanford. My expertise is not in computers, although I'm pretty darn good with them, relied upon for help among a circle of friends. Not bragging at all, just qualifying myself as "not a dummy." I buy Dells because at this point, I cannot build my own.
That lack of skill does not make me a dummy, does it.
Nonsense! They hold the bulk of the corporate and university
by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
- 6/18/05 8:18 AM
In reply to: (NT) Look at the main group they target... Computers for dummy's by GotThumbs
market because of their high quality and reliability (they've tied or won in the PC Magazine survey for both laptops and desktops virtually every year for the last decade plus). My own university is standardized on Dell -- we have more than 6,000 of them, and when we ouitsourced computer support to a commercial oinformation service support company, they're standardized on Dell, too.
-- Dave K.
Other reasons for standardizing
by Karios Kasra - 6/18/05 11:37 AM In reply to: Nonsense! They hold the bulk of the corporate and university by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
Dell offers massive bulk deals for universities. Dell offers tech support (mostly from India, but I won't sweat the details). Dell uses proprietary parts in their systems so you will have to run to them every time you upgrade. Cheap computers doesn't necessarily equate to quality products. Dell is like the AOL of computers... and godforbid if anyone here is on AOL.
(NT) I gotta agree with that!
by skippyd333 - 6/12/05 10:37 AM In reply to: Good news, heh? by dagger906Thats Impressive
by Fouad Bakht - 6/10/05 11:02 PM In reply to: Why is AMD Quiet by Fouad BakhtDid someone say that AMD has just one fab as compared to Intel's 20 fabs. Man! imagine what a tough time AMD is offering Intel with a 1:20 ratio. Imagine what its gonna do (play havoc) with Intel when it reahces to a ration of 20:20
(NT) dats cuz most oems supply intels...not amds
by nerdyboy1234 - 6/11/05 10:37 AM In reply to: You guys... by dagger906RE
by dagger906 - 6/11/05 12:24 PM In reply to: (NT) dats cuz most oems supply intels...not amds by nerdyboy1234So? Good a reason as any... ^_^'
AMD vs. Intel :: Differences
by Cnet_Jin - 6/17/05 1:03 PM In reply to: You guys... by dagger906The main reason is because Intel and AMD focuses on different areas. Intel works on improving clock speeds, which to the average computer buyer, it looks good to. The truth is, even though AMD's Athlon64 3200 is only 2.0 ghz, it still competes with an Intel Pentium 4 at 3.0ghz (maybe some more too). I'm not saying Intel is bad or anything. Both companies are good, but they have different focuses on speed. And Since they are both faster in different areas, AMD is faster in some applications and Intel another. Gamers typicaly choose AMD over Intel because they are cheaper and faster in the gaming criteria. Unless you are a person that uses the computer for basic music and internet browsing, choose AMD.
and to me...
by bderou2 - 6/18/05 5:14 AM In reply to: AMD vs. Intel :: Differences by Cnet_JinEven if you're only doing the basics, like you said, why not go with a machine with the cheaper (but in my opinion, better) processor? I mean, why throw away your money, unless you've just got money to burn.
AMD vs. WinTel
by FredMars - 6/17/05 3:44 PM In reply to: Thats Impressive by Fouad BakhtLike it's "buddy" software giant, Intel uses "coercive" marketing practices to keep market share. Now with Apple switching to Intel CPUs, it may be tougher for AMD to gain market share.
Having been in the "business" now since well before there was a "PC" on a desktop, I watched as Intel one the battle over the Zilog chips that also were superior to what Intel made. The old Zilog Z80 was much superior to the Intel 8080, even the Z80000 which was a 32-bit CPU that was offerd BEFORE Intel/IBM got the first PC on store shelves, AT&T and Olivetti (Italy) produced a 32-bit workstation (probably running Unix) that was light years ahead of Intel and Motorola.
Mobil Oil bought Zilog months prior to the IBM/Intel PC was marketed. In fact, from the early days, IBM wanted to compare the two companies offerings, however, MObil sacked many of the engineers at Zilog, and when IBM started inquiring about the Zilog chip capabilities, nobody from Mobil could answer, so it was by default that Intel won the war. I even built a PC clone using a Zilog processor and it was 2 times as fast as the Intel machine that IBM was selling at the time. I used that old PC for years before "upgrading" to a "486" Intel PC, and it wasn't until I got my first Pentium 4 machine that I felt I was getting any value from what Intel offered. Then along came the AMD K6 and K7 CPU and I switched to AMD.
One other note of significance: When AMD started touting their CPUs as faster than Intel with slower clock speeds, Intel pooh poohed that as a "cheap marketing ploy" however Intel bagan using that same ploy when it realeased its Hyper Threading technology. The same technology that AMD had built into its new processors.
For me, it's simple. AMD makes a better CPU and the world will not "buy" it because they belive the hype from Wintel, that they are the CPU gods, and PC vendors must pay homage to them.
Fred M.
Systems Administrator (and Chief Cook & Bottle Washer)
Corvallis, Oregon
I Agree.
by Mendieta - 6/18/05 3:35 AM In reply to: AMD vs. WinTel by FredMarsAll you have said is just the truth, with AMD you run at lower Ghz. speeds & obtain a very high performance, I'm a computer store owner so I can compare both brands, I'm using AMD procesors (for me ever) & most times for clients since K6, AMD do more math operations at each cycle than Intel's, there is the main secret but there are more.
(NT) another good post
by Fouad Bakht - 6/18/05 8:30 AM In reply to: AMD vs. WinTel by FredMars
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
