DailyTech - Report Claims AMD-Based Dell Notebooks Coming in Q4

Submit News

Hardware Report Claims AMD-Based Dell Notebooks Coming in Q4
Brandon Hill (Blog) - August 1, 2006 2:02 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

47 comment(s) - last by abakshi.. on Aug 3 at 1:09 AM

Dell to expand its use of AMD processors

DigiTimes reports that sources close to Dell are reporting that the company will release a new range of consumer notebooks that use AMD's mobile processors in Q4 of this year. The notebooks will use the full range of AMD's mobile offerings including Sempron, Athlon 64 and Turion 64 X2 processors.

Those looking for ultra-portable AMD systems akin to Dell's popular 12.1" XPS M1210 may be disappointed, however. Dell's first AMD-based notebooks will come in larger 15.4" and 17" form-factors and will be manufactured by Quanta. DigiTimes reports:

The anticipated launch of AMD-based notebooks means that the cooperation between Dell and AMD will cover all the segments in the PC market. In May, Dell already introduced its AMD-based servers, and the company is expected to launch AMD-based desktop PCs in September, the sources indicated. The sources also remarked that competition between Dell and Hewlett-Packard, which is the biggest client for AMD notebook CPUs, in the US market is expected to be fiercer ever after Dell's launch of AMD-based notebooks.

The 15.4” notebooks will first arrive in October according to the sources with the 17” models coming towards the end of the year according to the sources. Dell first announced that it would produce servers using AMD Opteron processors back in May of this year. There have also been reports that Dell would use AMD processors in desktop machines, but those rumors haven’t been verified yet.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why now?

By MrDiSante on 8/1/2006 2:09:52 PM , Rating: 5

Is what I don't get. When Intel finally releases a processor line that is more powerful and more energy-efficient than AMD's they start putting AMD in. Anyone care to explain to me why on earth they're doing this now?

RE: Why now?

By smitty3268 on 8/1/2006 2:16:08 PM , Rating: 5

Opteron still has some significant advantages in the server space. Perhaps Dell just decided that if they were going to sell some AMD processors they might as well sell in desktops and laptops too?

Parent

RE: Why now?

By Samus on 8/1/2006 5:42:38 PM , Rating: 3

two words: proven reliability. conroe still needs time to prove itself.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By retrospooty on 8/1/2006 2:17:38 PM , Rating: 2

Dell is extremely slow to react. It took over 2 years of AMD superiority to make a choice to use them. This descision was likely made long before the Conroe was known to be as fast as it is.

Or... Dell is aware of something we all are not about the performance of future AMD offerings

Parent

RE: Why now?

By eetnoyer on 8/1/2006 2:19:05 PM , Rating: 2

Please reference Intels' new tiered pricing structure. Dell no longer gets the sweetheart deals that are better than everyone else. Ergo, their motivation for staying Intel-only is gone.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By JackPack on 8/1/2006 5:33:12 PM , Rating: 2

LOL.

I can't believe people are buying into the pricing story. Do you sincerely believe NewEgg and Dell get the essentially same price?

Even AMD calls it a "smokescreen" and that there is "no fundamental change in the price structure of OEMs versus distribution."

Parent

RE: Why now?

By mino on 8/2/2006 2:55:47 PM , Rating: 2

No, but Dell and HP probably do.
A year ago Dell got seriously better deals than HP, thus giving them the advantage and reason to stay Intel-only.
Those deals are gone now.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By rushfan2006 on 8/1/2006 2:33:37 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Is what I don't get. When Intel finally releases a processor line that is more powerful and more energy-efficient than AMD's they start putting AMD in. Anyone care to explain to me why on earth they're doing this now?

Yeah someone tapped the Michael and the should and said, "Hey boss, you know what my kid told me...there is actually another CPU company in the world.....".

;)

Seriously though....why NOT now? Since when is providing your customers more options a bad thing?

Parent

RE: Why now?

By bob661 on 8/1/2006 2:42:19 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Anyone care to explain to me why on earth they're doing this now?

I don't know. I always thought the CPU market was based on which company had the fastest processor. I just don't get it either.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By Phynaz on 8/1/2006 3:01:01 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I always thought the CPU market was based on which company had the fastest processor.

If that was the case the high end market wouldn't be as puny as it is.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By bob661 on 8/1/2006 4:55:18 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I always thought the CPU market was based on which company had the fastest processor.

That was a little sarcasm there.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By fxyefx on 8/1/2006 3:58:05 PM , Rating: 2

Intel screwed Dell when it started pricing its chips very, very cheaply. This removed most if not all of any price advantage that Dell could offer on its products by getting exclusive discounts. HP and Dell on an even plane, pricing-wise, is not good for Dell. Dell, realizing this, has probably decided that it is safer to offer a greater variety of solutions so as not to be stuck with a single supplier that can screw up Dell's business model at the drop of a hat.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By Tom Tom on 8/1/2006 6:15:58 PM , Rating: 3

Multiple reasons. Availability would be one. Intels not ramping their new cpus that aggresively (20% of total production by 2007). That leaves Dell sellin the old netburst and beggin for core. I doubt Dell likes that. AMDs interesting roadmap is another. They claim they will have a 60% increase in performance per watt in 2007 due to K8L and the 65 nm shrink. They claim 150% increase in 2008. Thats pretty interesting in my book anyway.

Parent

RE: Why now?

By IamKindaHungry on 8/1/2006 7:14:17 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
Is what I don't get. When Intel finally releases a processor line that is more powerful and more energy-efficient than AMD's they start putting AMD in. Anyone care to explain to me why on earth they're doing this now?

Actually, I've thought alot about this same question in recent months. I've never been one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, but if you look back at recent AMD/Dell history, the one thing that I have always believed to be the key that starts this engine is the AMD suit against Intel.

The following is pure speculation, but given all the events that have unfolded since AMD filed suit it does make for an interesting conversation.

We all know that Dell was the #1 recipient of Intel's exclusionary discounts. Suddenly AMD files suits and claims Intel is being anti-competitive.

Who stands to gain more?

Dell:
Many would like to believe Dell always had a desire to use AMD products but the deals that it received from Intel were just too good. AMD's suit then frees Dell to use non-Intel parts without fearing the wrath of the Santa Clara monster, knowing full well that if Intel were to lash out at Dell, it would provide AMD with even more evidence.

or Intel
When Dell finally switched to AMD, that allows Intel to claim that OEMS were always free to chose which processors they used in their products. Dell would then become Exhibit 1. Intel would state that many OEMs were still tentative about AMD products and that is why many CHOSE to use Intel exclusively.

Considering what the benchmarks indicate about Conroe, I tend to lean towards the belief that this entire AMD/Dell situation has Intel as a pupet master.

I know there are doubters out there that would then ask, what does Dell get from all of this. My response would be that Intel has already stated Conroe wont be produced in massive quantites, what if there was some sort of "gentlemans agreement", which would make sure Dell would be first in line for the conroe parts. Such an arrangment would work perfectly for Dell.

Hmmm... I know this all sounds crazy, but this is one of those instances that is sounds so crazy it might actually be true... (Unlike all those AMD/Ati rumors) ;)

Parent

RE: Why now?

By cgrecu77 on 8/2/2006 1:02:02 PM , Rating: 2

i actually doubt this kind of arguments will be used in court. AMD is the one sueing and they MUST prove their claims with more than just saying "Intel is the bad boy, judge, they won't let Dell sell our CPU even though it's faster ... ". IF AMD will manage to obtain physical evidence that Intel "bribed" OEMs to not sell AMD products then it basically wins the potential trial, otherwise it will probably lose. So in the end it'll come down to physical evidence.

Parent

Why would anyone buy one?

By abakshi on 8/1/2006 3:15:51 PM , Rating: 2

I can see why Dell would do this given Intel's newfound rejection of its old Dell-first behavior (and their huge shift towards Apple -- I was at an event where Craig Barrett came in to talk for a few minutes, and he described the development of the PC in the 1970's as "Steve Jobs in his garage...and a few other guys" lol.)

But why would any consumer buy one? AMD's Turion 64 and Turion 64 X2 are slower and consume more power than their Intel counterparts - Pentium-M, Core Duo, and now Core 2 Duo (Merom). They have only two things going for them, pricing (and given that it's easy enough to get a nice deal at Dell with current Intel parts, I don't see how that's going to change anything) and the fact that for systems with integrated graphics, Turions tend to be paired with ATI chipsets, which are far ahead of Intel's integrated "Extreme Graphics" crapsets. But in the market that this affects, not many people are going to know the difference, unless there's a big marketing effort on Dell's part...

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By Rage187 on 8/1/2006 3:25:06 PM , Rating: 3

I think you hit the nail on the head in a bent hammer kinda of way.

Dell must know something about the whole ATI/AMD merger thing that we don't know. Probably that they will offer a one stop solution for Vista support that Intel can't offer with it's IGP. Vista is a big deal to Dell as most of their customer base who purchased computers with in the last 3-5 years will be looking to upgrade and that will require another PC purchase with new hardware.

If Dell can save tens of millions of dollars by being able to offer an all integrated CPU/GPU solution then they are sure going to plan on doing it now.

With AMD/ATI coming out and saying that the CPU/GPU will soon be a one die solution it only adds validity to this argument.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By allnighter on 8/1/2006 3:39:25 PM , Rating: 2

And I'm blown away with how my post actually ended up above the one I was replying to, lol.

and, no i didn't hit the wrong reply link. :)

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By epsilonparadox on 8/1/2006 3:42:12 PM , Rating: 2

Intel has a Vista ready IGP in the GMA 3000 series. The AMD CPU/GPU solution is atleast 2 yrs away and is a desktop solution, so why would Dell look to add the AMD lineup to its notebook line?

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By White Widow on 8/1/2006 4:04:12 PM , Rating: 2

There can be only one answer: price.

AMD gave Dell as sweet-as-hell price and swore up and down that their manuafcturing capacity could support whatever order Dell makes.

The C2D CPU's *are* better and more power effeicient, and dell *does* care about those things. The implication that Dell is somehow slow and clumsy and just missed the boat on the C2D's is dead wrong. Dell knew full well exactly what these chips and their "platform" could do, and decided it made more fiancial sense to go with AMD.

This whole argument about ATI/AMD and having Vista-ready systms (and Intel not) just doesn't hold water. AMD/ATI won't have a truly integarted platform (GPU on CPU) for a year or two, and Intel will have full DX10 Vista-ready integarted video by the middle of 2007 (GMA 3000). Besides, Vista with Aero3D will run on the GMA 950 anyway:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aTdTdTELZj4

Dell just lost the sweetheart pricing from Intel, and AMD slid in to take their place.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By bob661 on 8/1/2006 5:45:54 PM , Rating: 2

You guys are STILL thinking from a geeks/performance is all perspective. Dell and HP and others don't give a shit about that. Like another poster said, it's all about the money! And if Dell can make more MONEY by including AMD, then they'll include AMD.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By fishmonger12 on 8/1/2006 4:04:42 PM , Rating: 2

didn't intel say they wouldn't produce enough core 2's to put them in every system, and netburst/core 1 would still be around? the a64 spanks both of those older architectures, so maybe dell is using them in low-mid end notebooks.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By epsilonparadox on 8/1/2006 5:21:51 PM , Rating: 2

Even if Intel can't provide enough C2Ds, their Yonah processor is more efficient and readily available than the Turions since its not based off of netburst. I mean when Merom launches, Dell's going have their best laptops based on that. So are they relegating AMD to budget laptops? That would be a cruel joke to AMD since in the last 5 yrs they've equalled and bettered the performance of anything Intel released in that period.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By bob661 on 8/1/2006 5:49:32 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
That would be a cruel joke to AMD since in the last 5 yrs they've equalled and bettered the performance of anything Intel released in that period.

There is no joke because, with any other business, Dell is all about making MONEY!!! If they're including AMD, it's because there's more MONEY to be made by including them.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By mino on 8/2/2006 3:05:24 PM , Rating: 2

Yonah done NOT have 64bit capability. In the Vista scenario this kills IT completely.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By smitty3268 on 8/1/2006 4:04:35 PM , Rating: 2

There is something very wrong with the comments here. Sometimes when you try to reply you get an error, and other times it replies to the wrong comment.

Parent

RE: Why would anyone buy one?

By TomZ on 8/1/06, Rating: 0

"learn2journalism" +1

By MercenaryForHire on 8/1/2006 2:30:55 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
Although those looking for ultra-portable AMD systems akin to Dell's popular 12.1" XPS M1210, Dell's first AMD-based notebooks will come in larger 15.4" and 17" form-factors and will be manufactured by Quanta.

... will be dissapointed? Dismayed? Disinsterested? Disillusioned? Discombobulated? Decaptitated?

For the love of FSM, please finish your thoughts.

And in the ultraportable segment, I don't see anything from AMD that will rival the stupidly low power consumption and healthy performance of the Core ULV series - so I'm none of the above adjectives where it relates to that.

- M4H

RE: "learn2journalism" +1

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 8/1/2006 2:37:02 PM , Rating: 2

The XPS 1210 doesn't have a "low-power" ULV option either. There are a number of 12.1" notebooks on the market that use AMD Sempron, Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 processors.

Parent

RE: "learn2journalism" +1

By allnighter on 8/1/2006 3:09:24 PM , Rating: 2

you need to look at this from a "product line" offering point. for Dell (or any other business in the same position) it doesn't really matter what cpu is the fastest. it is the bottom line. AMD is recognizible brand name now and it makes sense to offer it to their customers at "Dell's" prices, as long as they're able to make profit. the product will be configured and sold as "Dell" and as long as they're not on the hook for excessive service and support, the bottom line is fine.
Imagine a scenario where AMD would continue to eat into mkt share and simultaniously gaining more and more rcognition, and one day they offer pricining incentives to go "AMD only", with production capacity standing ready - Dell would ditch Intel like an ugly bastard child. This is all scf-fi, of course, but goes to say - it's all about the bottom line.

Parent

ULV and tiny notebooks

By MercenaryForHire on 8/1/2006 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The XPS 1210 doesn't have a "low-power" ULV option either. There are a number of 12.1" notebooks on the market that use AMD Sempron, Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 processors.

True, I suppose the XPS is about 180 degrees from the conventional ultraportable market of "tiny, not a real heavy lifter, but the battery lasts all day" since it is their "gaming" lineup. Still, the Core lineup, ULV or not, seems to have the AMD mobile offerings outgunned for this round.

- M4H

Parent

Why Not Now??

By othercents on 8/1/2006 5:48:51 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Is what I don't get. When Intel finally releases a processor line that is more powerful and more energy-efficient than AMD's they start putting AMD in. Anyone care to explain to me why on earth they're doing this now?

There are those people who refuse to understand what most business owners understand. This decisions is purely economics. HP is growing at a faster rate than Dell. The only fundamental difference between these two companies is that HP has been using AMD for quite a while. There have been numerous requests for Dell to start using AMD. Why wouldn't they use AMD even if there is a faster processor?

Remember most people buying these machines are not gamers. They want cheap reliable computers to do business or school type processing. This means that the AMD64 3800+ is at a great price and performs just as well for them as the new Core 2 processors.

The fact is that this should have been done earlier for Dell to stay up to speed with the market. Granted they still need to fix their tech support and their support image. Fixing the image is going to take much longer than actually fixing the support issues. This is one thing that failed to realize when they outsourced their support overseas.

Other

RE: Why Not Now??

By abakshi on 8/1/2006 6:14:00 PM , Rating: 2

The main difference between HP and Dell is not that one uses both AMD and Intel and one is Intel-only. It is that their sales models are completely different. Dell does direct-only, build-to-order configs, while HP is mostly focused on retail sales.

Those who wanted Dell to use AMD chips were mainly from the enthusiast lot (most of whom now just want them to ship Core 2 Duos as fast as possible haha), and of course 4-way or greater servers, where AMD's still at an advantage with certain Opteron configs vs. Woodcrest. Neither of those is important enough sales-wise to cause any change.

Parent

RE: Why Not Now??

By mino on 8/2/2006 3:07:46 PM , Rating: 2

There are no 4-way woodcrests ...

Parent

RE: Why Not Now??

By abakshi on 8/3/2006 1:07:09 AM , Rating: 2

which is what I said...

Parent

Low-end is what really matters

By dagamer34 on 8/1/2006 6:01:43 PM , Rating: 2

It's quite simple really. AMD still wins in the low-end sector, and that's where using AMD gets Dell the price/performance ratio.

Sure, the high-end is where you make the most profit, but the sales there pale in comparison to the low-end, and I'd hardly call the Core2 Duo low-end.

Besides, looking at the market now, most people don't need a computer that costs more that $650 w/ the monitor. I don't think you can get a C2D with that price.

RE: Low-end is what really matters

By abakshi on 8/1/2006 6:26:36 PM , Rating: 2

The cheapest desktop C2D, the E6300 at 1.86 GHz, costs $183, which is a bit under what a comparable A64 X2 4200+ costs and about $30 more than a 3800+. What complicates things for AMD, though, is that Pentium-D is still there, and still heavily sold by Dell and the rest, and now it costs almost nothing, from a 2.66 GHz 805 at $93 to a 3.4 GHz 945 at a 3800+ price level, not to mention Celeron-Ds and the like. So Intel can still ship low-end dual-core processors at lower costs and higher volumes than AMD, and it dominates the mid and high-range with the C2D lineup.

At the low end, AMD is only competing with its single-core A64s and Semprons essentially - the X2 is still much more in mid-range than low-end machines.

Parent

RE: Low-end is what really matters

By DallasTexas on 8/2/2006 8:31:20 AM , Rating: 2

Agree. AMD basically dropped their pants on prices to Dell to ramp the low end. Business is business. It's a good move for both AMD and Dell. AMD gets to crow about winning Dell and Dell gets turions at a bargain.

Separating the two offerings for Dell is easy. Centrino is the premium brand and AMD is for the bottom feeders. Looks like a winning strategy.

Parent

Seeing is believing...

By microAmp on 8/1/2006 2:03:33 PM , Rating: 2

Seeing is believing...

RE: Seeing is believing...

By Samus on 8/1/2006 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 2

I'm glad to see Dell is no longer Intel's bitch.

Parent

alienware?

By bagrit on 8/1/2006 3:09:26 PM , Rating: 2

I wonder if sources are just confusing dell offering AMD CPUs under the Alienware brand?... Given that Dell bought Alienware?

RE: alienware?

By allnighter on 8/1/2006 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 2

Well you've pretty much answered your own question. An average Dell customer will not focus on which CPU is more powerful What they'll want to know is if they can buy it for $100 less. And I can see a simply "...for a true HD video experience..." simple slogan tacked on to the usual run-of-the-mill product description that will invite enough attention to a Turion based notebook with ATi graphics, over say a Merom one with intel's. And the average Dell's customer is happy.

Parent

Best of Both Worlds

By dev0lution on 8/1/2006 10:32:13 PM , Rating: 2

Wow, so now you can get a dell with below average battery life AND it blows up on you ;)

RE: Best of Both Worlds

By margon on 8/2/2006 10:33:43 AM , Rating: 2

And weighs at least 6.5 lbs

Parent

you're all wrong.

By ForumMaster on 8/2/2006 12:30:15 AM , Rating: 2

dell just always likes to use the inferior cpu. in the desktop segent, AMD was superior for 2 years atleast. not a single computer with AMD. in the notebook segment, Pentium M is better then turion so let's use AMD. not that Conroe has come out and is kickning AMD's, they decide to use AMD. pattern here?