Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Dell to use AMD processors in desktops


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 of 15 OFFLINE   Christ Reynolds

Christ Reynolds

    Producer



  • 3,597 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 2002

Posted August 18 2006 - 04:22 AM

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
And then when I feel so stuffed I can't eat anymore, I just use the restroom! And then I CAN eat more!

#2 of 15 OFFLINE   AjayM

AjayM

    Screenwriter



  • 1,227 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 22 2000

Posted August 21 2006 - 02:46 AM

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

#3 of 15 ONLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,737 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted August 21 2006 - 03:41 AM

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.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#4 of 15 OFFLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Executive Producer



  • 14,099 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted August 21 2006 - 09:18 AM

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.

#5 of 15 OFFLINE   Christ Reynolds

Christ Reynolds

    Producer



  • 3,597 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 2002

Posted August 21 2006 - 01:41 PM

Quote:
You realize the latest Intel processors offer A LOT more speed for the dollar than AMD, hence the latest price crash of AMD stuff.
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
And then when I feel so stuffed I can't eat anymore, I just use the restroom! And then I CAN eat more!

#6 of 15 OFFLINE   Scott L

Scott L

    Producer



  • 4,466 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 29 2000

Posted August 21 2006 - 04:26 PM

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.

#7 of 15 OFFLINE   Ray Chuang

Ray Chuang

    Screenwriter



  • 1,055 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2002

Posted August 21 2006 - 05:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Raymond in Sacramento, CA USA

#8 of 15 OFFLINE   Rommel_L

Rommel_L

    Second Unit



  • 355 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2000

Posted August 21 2006 - 06:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
This means the mid to low end line just got better...

#9 of 15 OFFLINE   AjayM

AjayM

    Screenwriter



  • 1,227 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 22 2000

Posted August 22 2006 - 01:32 AM

Quote:
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.

The lowest end Intel Core Duo CPU is under $200 and widely available right now (Newegg has them in stock), and will give you performance at very high end AMD levels (should slot in between a 64/4600+ and an FX-62 with the lowest end Core Duo).

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

Always a good thing.

#10 of 15 OFFLINE   Kimmo Jaskari

Kimmo Jaskari

    Screenwriter



  • 1,529 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 27 2000

Posted August 22 2006 - 06:56 AM

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.
"If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?"
"Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area." -- "BlackAdder 4"

#11 of 15 OFFLINE   Scott L

Scott L

    Producer



  • 4,466 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 29 2000

Posted August 22 2006 - 08:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AjayM
The lowest end Intel Core Duo CPU is under $200 and widely available right now (Newegg has them in stock), and will give you performance at very high end AMD levels (should slot in between a 64/4600+ and an FX-62 with the lowest end Core Duo).
+1

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

#12 of 15 OFFLINE   AjayM

AjayM

    Screenwriter



  • 1,227 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 22 2000

Posted August 22 2006 - 08:54 AM

Quote:
The Cores are nice, but an Athlon X2, say 4800+, is no slouch.

Core Duo 6300 = $193
Athlon X2 4800+ = $307
Prices from Newegg.

Granted I agree that for most people any of these are overkill.

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

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.

#13 of 15 OFFLINE   Sami Kallio

Sami Kallio

    Screenwriter



  • 1,035 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2004

Posted August 23 2006 - 03:11 AM

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.

#14 of 15 OFFLINE   Scott L

Scott L

    Producer



  • 4,466 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 29 2000

Posted August 23 2006 - 05:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sami Kallio
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.
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.

#15 of 15 OFFLINE   Sami Kallio

Sami Kallio

    Screenwriter



  • 1,035 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2004

Posted August 23 2006 - 06:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott L
Both systems using (2) X1900XT's in Crossfire. 40 frame increase from a CPU ain't too shabby.
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.


Back to Computers



Forum Nav Content I Follow