Dell to use AMD processors in desktops (1 Viewer)

[Christ Reynolds]

this should force intel and amd to get more competitive about performance and price. i still won't buy dell computers, but i think everyone wins in this deal.

CJ

 

[AjayM]

You realize the latest Intel processors offer A LOT more speed for the dollar than AMD, hence the latest price crash of AMD stuff.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm of the belief that competition is good. Yes the new Intels are better than the AMDs. But if AMD hadn't become a considerable player in the market, you wouldn't have the new Intels.

I agree with Christ, the consumer wins in this respect.

 

[DaveF]

This is pretty exciting for the consumer, overall. I've noticed the HP and Gateway lines sold at BestBuy with AMD processors have significant price advantages to the Intel lines. Assuming AMD can regain their competitive edge in mid- to high-end performance, this will be a big boon to the consumer.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

yes, and i also realize that until recently, it was the exact opposite. when two giants clash, consumers win. the LAST thing we want is one manufacturer with 95% of the market share, so they can get complacent. let them compete, increase the needs for both companies to put out something faster, and drive costs down. whoever you choose, you'll benefit.

CJ

 

[Scott L]

Just as an aside, my folks love their HP w/ AMD chip. Very stable, quiet, and speedy.

Glad to see Dell take this route too. A big company like Dell sticking with one chip manufacturer was making Intel less competitive.

 

[Ray Chuang]

The latest Intel Core Duo 2 CPU's are very good, but they are also very expensive, too. Don't expect them to be widely available until late this year.

 

[Rommel_L]

This means the mid to low end line just got better...

 

[AjayM]

Always a good thing.

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

The Cores are nice, but an Athlon X2, say 4800+, is no slouch. In fact, quite a few people don't need that much power at the moment. Gamers and people who do other compute-intensive stuff can use that, but most others don't.

This is great news for the low-end. The low-end isn't that low anymore, and you can buy a ton of computing power for next to nothing these days. Happy days.

 

[Scott L]

+1

As much as people love AMD, it's hard to find anything bad to say about the Core 2 Duos.

 

[AjayM]

Intel really hit one out of the park with them, amazing performance, lower power requirements (less heat), etc. And sooner or later AMD is going to fire back, so it looks like we'll soon be back to the rapid pace of processor's as we were for such a long time.

Of course the downside is that sooner or later software developers are going to start really using the new found performance, so those of us right now with even "mid range" machines are going to be hurting, but I've gone longer on my last PC upgrade than any other before it.

 

[Sami Kallio]

Even gamers can do without the latest processor, it's the video card that makes most of the difference nowadays. I just put together a E6400 machine and since the X1900XT I bought didn't have power adapter in the package (going back today) I had to put in a spare 6800XT card. My 3.4GHz P4 (550 so it's an older model) with 6600GT ran faster with games (BF2, Oblivion) than the Core Duo with the slightly lesser video card...

Will be interesting to see how the two machines compare with X1900XT inside them.

Of course there is use for these processors but gamers are not the ones that need them the most.

 

[Scott L]

You can view the benchmarks out there for comparitive purposes:

Dungeon in Oblivion
2.6ghz Core Duo 2 = 102fps
3.6ghz Pentium 4 D = 60fps

Both systems using (2) X1900XT's in Crossfire. 40 frame increase from a CPU ain't too shabby.

 

[Sami Kallio]

That's pretty good. I'll propably be looking at 20fps/30% difference between the two. That should be more than enough. I am eager to see how well it takes MS Flight Simulator at full details in NYC. Is this finally a machine that can smoothly take that flight? I hope so.