backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by hstewarth.. on May 3 at 5:58 PM

Costing tax payers in the hundred millions of dollars, is the premium worth the cost? AMD says no

Government bodies are starting to become more strict about buying specific brands of computer equipment -- notably Intel-specific hardware. Recently, there has been much talk about software coding with specific features for one processor and limiting something else for a different processor. Skype was on the front page for giving more features to users who used Intel processors than those who were using AMD processors. AMD itself has been handing out subpoenas to companies that it believes to be unfairly favoring Intel.

Now, AMD says that some government bodies are buying Intel-specific products for big price premiums but technically, the products offer identical or less features and performance. AMD says that being brand-specific costs more tax payers' money. In fact, AMD says that a whopping $563 million could have been saved in taxpayer dollars, had the government been brand-neutral in its purchases. AMD's press release claims:

Governments around the world have recognized the problem of closed procurement in the IT sector and the Argentine, Austrian, Belgian, Canadian, Finnish, French, German, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Swedish, U.K., and U.S. governments have all issued guidance calling for neutral specifications and the elimination of brand names in contracts. The European Commission noted in a 2004 study that application of its new procurement rules has reduced prices by approximately 30 percent.

Some analysts say that if AMD was more competitive, it wouldn't need to be raising these issues. Others disagree, and say that companies with a market dominance similar to Intel, use their considerable size and resources to "buy" customers. Interestingly, AMD's market share has grown significantly in the past year while Intel's has dropped. Both companies performance in the stock market also reflect the change in market share. 



Comments     Threshold


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

AMD vs Intel
By rwolf on 4/26/2006 7:06:13 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know what AMD is complaining about. First they copy Intel's product and then they complain about unfair competition.




RE: AMD vs Intel
By mendocinosummit on 4/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: AMD vs Intel
By Bluestealth on 4/26/2006 7:19:53 PM , Rating: 3
They are an x86 clone.... all of the IP they founded their company on is Intels.... that isn't to say that they deserve to be tread upon now....


RE: AMD vs Intel
By Bluestealth on 4/26/2006 7:38:54 PM , Rating: 3
"founded their company" should be "founded their companies current products" :P we need an edit function.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By dgingeri on 4/27/06, Rating: 0
RE: AMD vs Intel
By Phynaz on 4/27/2006 4:46:03 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
People seem to forget back in the days when the 286 was being designed that Intel and AMD worked together to develop a standard so that multiple companies could make chips compatable with each other so that the market base would grow.


Wrong.

IBM demanded a second source for the 8088. Intel sold a license to AMD.

quote:
Many of the chips in the IBM 286 systems were AMD.


Wrong again.

quote:
Many of the early 386's were as well.


Strike three. IBM actually had a license to manufacture the 386's.

quote:
They helped develop the 16-bit x86 instruction set as well as the 32-bit extensions.


No, they did not. All of the x86 instruction set was designed by Intel.

I'm assuming you are young enough to not remember the 286 and 386 cpus, so please do you research before you post incorrect facts.







RE: AMD vs Intel
By thisbrian on 5/1/2006 3:52:18 AM , Rating: 1
I have an AMD 286-10mhz CPU and it is Intel branded as well as AMD and appears to be pin-compatable with Intel 286 sockets.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By Bacon Bits on 4/27/2006 7:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have had superior products for a couple of years now and have dominated the dual core arena.


You say that like it is objectively true and always will be objectively true. Look at ATI and nVidia. First it was nVidia, then ATI, then nVidia, and now more or less a dead heat.

quote:
There is nothing wrong with benchmarking on another companies products if AMD did; all companies benchmark on competitors.


Presumably, our government spends most of it's time in MS Office or Office-like applications. Certainly nothing more demanding than a large Excel worksheet or Acrobat. In any case, nothing they do is CPU bound. So which CPU you pick is basically a wash.

Here's a better argument:
Intel = American made
AMD = German made

I want my tax dollars to go to companies supporting American workers, thanks.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By phaxmohdem on 4/27/2006 8:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yet intels entire forthcoming product line (& current Pentium M's) were developed in Isreal. Tax dollars at work.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By rushfan2006 on 5/1/2006 3:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want my tax dollars to go to companies supporting American workers, thanks.


If you think Intel is an American company you are sorely mistaken. And before you shoot off something "smart" like "funny their corporate headquarters is in California"...A) where the HQ of a company is really means nothing anymore in a global economy, and B) Unless they changed in the last 5 minutes of me looking at AMD's website...AMD is also based in Cali.



RE: AMD vs Intel
By aggie02 on 5/3/2006 3:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
My Pentium4 511 (2.8ghz) is made in COSTA RICA, and my 630 (3.0) is made in MALAYSIA.

As far as I know, Costa Rica and Malaysia are not part of the U.S. If they are I'll have to have a serious talk with my history teacher.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By fxyefx on 4/26/2006 7:15:54 PM , Rating: 3
Intel licensed AMD for x86... and now Intel is forced to tack on the essentially AMD-developed 64-bit extensions... If there's some kind of "copying" going on, then it's working out to be mutual.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By Tsuwamono on 4/26/2006 8:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Its Licensing man... For example ATI owns rights to GDDR ram, Nvidia pays them to be aloud to use this technology. Just like AMD payed intel to get spec sheets on x86 architechure. JUST like Intel is doing now on AMDs 64 bit stuff. Its mutual, happens everywhere. You think only one company builds telephones? or printers with laser technology? or bullets?

Exactly. Thank you.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By cocoviper on 4/27/2006 12:29:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its Licensing man... For example ATI owns rights to GDDR ram, Nvidia pays them to be aloud to use this technology.


JEDEC developed DDR...its an open standard that everyone in the memory industry developed. But you are right for the most part...technologies are developed and openly liscensed all over the place.


RE: AMD vs Intel
By xdrol on 4/27/2006 5:14:47 AM , Rating: 3
GDDR != DDR


RE: AMD vs Intel
By Trisped on 4/27/2006 2:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
As stated above, GDDR != DDR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3


RE: AMD vs Intel
By gudodayn on 4/26/2006 9:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
The technology gets shared around....in CPUs, Vid cards, hard drives, etc.....its properly licensed so no complains there.
Whats wrong is that Intel buys their customers!
Offering discounts if they buy only Intel!! It would be alright if it was offering discounts if customers buy large quantities! But heck, every company offer discounts when people purchase large quantities.
If the AMD system you ordered is not working properly, then I suggest you change a system builder because there are millions and millions or people out there using AMD and they've had no problems doing your everyday office work, internet browsing, etc.
AMD is not making enemies with other companies, Intel is doing that for them under the table. I can confirm that company I work for is one of them, using celeron CPUs for every machine. Now, there's nothing wrong with Celeron, but for the same price or less, we could've bought a S754 Sempron with more memory that ran things quicker and smoother.
Same thing applies to the Government here, why spent more money to get something that performs the same or worst and pay more money??
1. The money is not coming out of Government official's pockets
2. Intel is probaby offering someone a slice of the cake somewhere along that food chain....but then again so are a lot of other things

While it is natural instincts to defend their property, Intel is just going the wrong way about it. Hopefully with their next generation CPUs, they can change and win the hearts of PC users with actual performance advantage. comparing to competitors, if it performs on par and the price is right.....I'll get it regardless of the brand.

For those that think there's a quality difference between AMD and Intel........unless you bought it at a $2 shop, I dont think you have to worry about the quality of it. The difference is all Cost/Performance!!!!!!!!!!


Not surprising
By RogueSpear on 4/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: Not surprising
By bigboxes on 4/27/2006 1:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't want to call you stupid, but it's inevitable. You speak like you know something that we all don't. In reality, you know very little. AMD is every bit as reliable and stable as Intel when it comes to CPUs. Remember that. Understand that. Know that. I pray that you don't have any say in the decision making process, because your judgement is suspect. I too work local government and can tell you that being "uninformed" will eventually get you unemployed. Sure, Intel has traditionally been "the" supplier. Well, not anymore. There is no monopoly strictly based on lack of competition. It's not singulary due to non-competitive practices. Think about it. AMD is faster and less expensive and just as reliable. Please tell me your irrational reasons for making that decision to continue to purchase Intel products.


RE: Not surprising
By MikeO on 4/27/2006 5:15:53 AM , Rating: 3
It absolutely boils my blood to see this same bs year after year. If you have reliability or stability issues with AMD systems you need to find another job, because you suck at what you do.


....
By Griswold on 4/27/2006 5:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
You're one of those people who should be fired for occupying a position that could be filled with somebody who has a clue or two.


RE: ....
By RogueSpear on 4/27/2006 1:32:03 PM , Rating: 1
These comments kill me. Especially the ones touting nForce boards. You may as well stick bubble gum in the integrated NIC of an nForce system. Now back to reality here.. personally I don't really care who makes the CPU. AMD seems to have wrung out any compatibility issues years ago. The problems I've experienced are mainly with the chipsets. And Intel is certainly not what it once was as far as stability goes. Now they're throwing Marvel Yukon NICs on some of their mobos. The whole scene is a joke, but not as much of a joke as the majority of fanboy weenies that frequent this place.


RE: ....
By Trisped on 4/27/2006 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
You are just saying that because everyone is trash talking you.

I too don't like nForce chipsets, but that dislike cost me $50 and 100 hours of problem solving when I bought an Intel CPU. I have built a few systems lately using the ATI CrossFire chip set and found that they work very well (and are well priced if you buy one from ASUS). The 100 hours I lost were trouble shooting an important program I have that causes a system freez if you are using with Hyper Threading. If I had AMD this would not be a problem since no Hyper Threading.

Since I pay taxes, I feel it important that I don't like my money being wasted. Last year it cost quite a bit more to build a reliable system on Intel then AMD with the same power.


RE: ....
By Lifted on 4/27/2006 5:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Don't waste your time trying to eplain the problems that can be encountered with deployments of systems hardware that isn't considered industry standard. Home users (99.999% of the people on this site) never have to deal with the issues we do, so they will never get it.


RE: ....
By Phynaz on 4/27/2006 4:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, you're still an idiot.


RE: Not surprising
By sparks on 4/27/2006 5:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't know how you are conducting these tests, but I find that stability and reliability of Opteron systems to be at least equal to Intel. I just rolled out a 42 quad core HP Opteron blade server environment and:

1. It far outperforms the Intel equivalent
2. It was far less expensive than the Intel equivalent
3. Its just as reliable as the Intel equivalent


Reliability? Bah
By customcoms on 4/26/2006 10:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
When was the last time you tried an AMD based system and who was it built buy? I agree that IN GENERAL, Intel has slightly more relibale chipsets/motherboards. Why? Because most of the Intel boards and chipsets are designed in house (i.e they make the processor AND the chipset), and their boards are built (read:not designed by) by a fairly high end and reliable motherboard company, Asus. Of course, you can by boards with Intel chipsets on them from manufacturers and they are just as reliable.

As for AMD, in the nForce2 days, reliability may have been a concern. After nForce3 and definatly nForce4 (and the latest ATI corssfire, RD580), reliability went out the window. It is no longer an issue and 99% of the board with a nForce4 chipset on it. And, the board+cpu combo is the same or less expensive than a comparable intel system. When was the last time a very popular intel motherboard regularly hit FSB/HTT speeds of over 350 like the DFI nForce4 series has done (plus set world records with FSB speeds>500)?




RE: Reliability? Bah
By ShapeGSX on 4/26/2006 10:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
"When was the last time a very popular intel motherboard regularly hit FSB/HTT speeds of over 350 like the DFI nForce4 series has done (plus set world records with FSB speeds>500)?"

I doubt the government cares.

There are good reasons for sticking with a particular brand across the board in a company or even in the government. Once you start mixing brands, you end up with an explosion of Windows and/or Linux builds that you suddenly have to support. It is much easier to support the limited number of builds required when you stick with a particular brand. In fact, it is even better to stick with one entire platform for as long as possible. Fewer builds mean fewer support and reliability issues.


RE: Reliability? Bah
By Missing Ghost on 4/26/2006 11:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
The cpu/chipset from the same brand does not make sense. The only communications that goes between the two is in the Hypertransport bus, and that is a strongly defined standard.
To all the people that think that AMD is less reliable than Intel, you are wrong. Remember that there is more to a computer than a cpu. If you have like a 20$ psu, a 60$ mobo, etc. don't be surprised if it's amd/intel and it's crappy.


RE: Reliability? Bah
By ATWindsor on 4/27/2006 3:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
So nforce4 hasn't had trouble with checksum errors on the gbit LAN? No trouble with maxtor drives? New Creative soundcards? And how about the fact that getting 4 1GB ram-sticks to work on stock speed isn't exactly guaranteed?

I find AMD to be a much better product nowadays, but nforce4 is not "stable" it has to many issues.


RE: Reliability? Bah
By NT78stonewobble on 4/27/2006 3:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
That is probably right.

I'm just wondering what you use gbit lan, creative soundcards and 4 gigs of ram for "ordinary" light business use? Thats more like a workstation right?

Additionally I haven't really seen any adverticements where anyone claims that the nforce4 supports 4 x 1 gig ram sticks at pc3200 speeds...


Treasury
By OrSin on 4/27/2006 9:27:06 AM , Rating: 3
I work for the treasury and we finally buying AMD. The reason the government buys intel is the same reasoont they buy IBM. Most people in charge are over 50. Shit most her are over 60. ANd thye have not clue what is good or not in the hardware area. It too me 4 month to even get them to get specs on daul core amd machine. The only reason we going adm is becuase IBM (they suck byt the way, HP much better for blades) BLade not care them. The only reason we buying plades is for power and heat savings. They had no choose but to go with AMD when they are 30% more effective.
9 months I finally win them over and they act like it was all thier idea.

You also have the remember that people in charge got that way from favores owed to them by polictians. SO they sue thier new clout to line the pockets of friends so they can line the polictians pockets ot thye can get more favors.




RE: Treasury
By Ghanda on 4/27/2006 9:49:51 AM , Rating: 1
are you sure you work for the treasury because you misspell more than a redneck with a 1st grade reading/writing level.
and I have to agree that HP is a much better PC than the other Brand made PC's but if you want the best performance you have to get a Custom made PC with all the perks of a Brand name +more also the IBM's are only good for servers i wouldnt have a PC by them if they were the only PC's available Personally my vote is for AMD all the way and intel as a last resort ....Dual AMD proccessors on a PCis the way to go


RE: Treasury
By Ghanda on 4/27/2006 9:50:22 AM , Rating: 1
are you sure you work for the treasury because you misspell more than a redneck with a 1st grade reading/writing level.
and I have to agree that HP is a much better PC than the other Brand made PC's but if you want the best performance you have to get a Custom made PC with all the perks of a Brand name +more also the IBM's are only good for servers i wouldnt have a PC by them if they were the only PC's available Personally my vote is for AMD all the way and intel as a last resort ....Dual AMD proccessors on a PCis the way to go


RE: Treasury
By OrSin on 4/27/2006 11:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
Your right my spelling sucks, but I'm tech and with spell check I have written 4 million dollar proposals. Either way no government organization will let you build your own PC or server so you ahgve to go with one of the big boys. I could but them a JABOD for 30% of the ocst of thier new new line stroage system but it will never happen.


RE: Treasury
By drebo on 4/27/2006 4:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
I sell hundreds of whitebox systems to government at the city and county level in Northern California.

Of course, we support them with a two- or three-year warranty, but there are whiteboxes in the upper echelons of many buyers.


hmm
By z3R0C00L on 4/27/2006 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 1
OMG... you guys are acting like a bunch of Backstreet Boys vs. nSync school girls.

Seriously.. the US government is being sm@rt. If a problem arises with Intel based desktops... the CPU, the motherboard, the network card... etc.. it's all MADE BY INTEL. So you only have ONE source to deal with. Also Intel has a larger capacity to make and ensure products are available when a product goes down. AMD is known for shortages and I don't think the US Military want to chance a shortage on a CPU that powers a computer used for the navigation of a xxxx tonne air craft carrier...

It's business.. AMD is doing well but now they're just complaining about everything. Also.. who cares about AMD64.. in a few months time it'll be obsolete. My X2 processor will turn into a value CPU and once again Intel will be top dog.. it's a cycle. AMD has never been top dog until now. The AthlonXP was garbage.

The K8 is awesome.. but Conroe is better ;)




RE: hmm
By Steve Guilliot on 4/27/2006 2:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, no. Having everything "MADE" (read: designed) by Intel is not an advantage. Support and supply is provided by your vendor, not Intel. That is exactly why you don't custom build stuff in a corporate or government environment.

And yes, HP > IBM or Dell for servers.


RE: hmm
By sparks on 4/27/2006 5:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't call Intel if I have a problem, I call the vendor, in my case that is HP. Why should I care what processor is running as long as there is support from my vendors, including HP and Microsoft.


RE: hmm
By lewisc on 4/29/2006 6:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Can I just say that I like the notion of 'Intel Inside' being stencilled on the side of an aircraft carrier.


By animedude on 4/27/2006 1:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you check out AMD's own statement, actually AMD Growth is because of expensive of other companies besides Intel and AMD. Intel shared is pretty much the same.


Where have you been? Living in a cave? In 2003(or 2002), AMD is stealing shares from Transmeta and VIA. Then in 2004-2005, AMD is stealing from Intel because the media are picking up that netburst is obselete.

"AMD over the past year has been stealing market share from Intel, as it produces chips that outperform its much bigger rival. Between the end of 2004 and the end of 2005, Intel lost 5.3 percentage points of share to AMD, according to Mercury Research."
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/12...



This article is about government favouring Intel over AMD because of Intel's brand superiority, but in fact Intel's chips cost much more in the long run. Intel's P4 chips are power hungry, and if the governments have purchased AMD chips, their electricity bill would have been greatly reduced. Not to mention AMD chips were a lot cheaper in the last few years.

I have a P4 Prescott in my house and it cost $15 - $20 more on electricity bill every month.




By obeseotron on 4/27/2006 2:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Prescott uses a lot of juice, but your electricity bill is most certainly not $15-$20 higher per month because of it. A prescott might use 50 extra watts on average compared to an athlon64. This is generous and assumes a lot of running the chip at full load.

50Wx24x30 = 36kwh, most places this wouldn't even be $5 extra. It adds up, but not as quickly as you say.


By NT78stonewobble on 4/27/2006 3:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
Dunno about US power prices but here in Denmark as far as i remember over 80 percent of the power price is made up of socalled energy tax and is thus somewhat higher.

Probably doesn't make it much more money you save but just thought i'd mention it.


Re: AMD has no cause of action
By patentman on 4/27/2006 2:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not the government is doing what AMD is saying it is doing, they have no legal cause of action, at least not in antitrust law anyways. The "harm" they are feeling is not a result of intel, but rather of government action. While the government can violate the spirit of the antitrust laws, they cannot violate the antitrust laws themselves.

That said, the #1 reason why the government is probably buying a single processor type is standardization. Even though it may cost more for the hardware up front, their are significant efficiencies obtained in the long term by having a uniform system structure..i.e. the government doesn;t have to buy from mulitple different companies to provide support for their systems. Having a uniform system strucuture also allows the government to buy replacement parts in bulk, which usually entails a discount of some sort. So even though it may cost more up front, in the end it may actually cost tax payers less to have the government have a unified system strucutre then a diverse one.




RE: Re: AMD has no cause of action
By NT78stonewobble on 4/27/2006 3:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
It just seems to me that exactly having a unified system structure is way overrated.

I mean you buy especially certified systems right? So what does it matter that theyre either amd / intel based or mixed for that matter?

And when you have bought these certified systems how often do they have a hardware error that requires your own it department to fix it?

Sure theres the imaging systems at work that needs to be different but still?

PS: Aren't imaging just a second grade solution based on lazyness?


By zsdersw on 5/3/2006 3:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aren't imaging just a second grade solution based on lazyness?


Are you referring to imaging as in "Ghosting" computer hard drives?

If so, no.. it's not a "second grade" solution based on "lazyness". It's a very efficient and effective way to ensure the availability of computers and laptops.


By Oxygenthief on 4/27/2006 4:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
My experience is with the DOD so this may not pertain to the DOE, DOHS, or any of the other government departments. Currently no one in the DOD has the ability to drop by a best buy and purchase a new computer. No one has the ability to directly purchase computers from an online vendor like HP, Dell, or VoodoPC. The only option DOD personnel have available to them is to put in requirements and recommendations for computers as part of a contract purchase. This means that whoever has the lowest bid always wins. So you have your inexpensive intel powered Dell pieces of crap that always beat out AMD powered hp systems. That is a major issue for AMD!!!

Secondly a few of the military services are going towards a standard desktop solution where all PC's will be of the same type and configuration. This means that every computer for a specific service branch will undoubtedly be intel powered simply due to price and the up front savings the government will see.

I hope AMD can make enough noise with this to help get these policies changed. They truly are annoying.




By animedude on 4/27/2006 5:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
The up front saving does not offset the electricity bill in the long run. Each of those computer systems is ~$50 cheaper but they have to pay extra $5 every month, according to that guy on the top(I don't live in US). In 10 months, the up front saving is neglected.


By lewisc on 4/29/2006 6:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
The government is not going to be working with the same kind of marginal costs for electricity consumption as a home user would. Private individuals would certainly pay a much higher marginal cost per KWh of electricity used, because they consume it on a lower scale.

The savings that the government must be able to make through economies of scale by buying Intel over AMD would surely be large enough to justify buying Intel every time. We have to remember that, as far as performance is concerned, these systems are going to be used almost exclusively for office use and emails. The difference between using a low level Intel and a low level AMD is hardly going to be an issue. The real question is going to be which vendor can supply X number of systems at the lowest price.


Intel vs. AMD
By thai510 on 4/28/2006 12:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
First I have to make my opinion clear before I state the obvious about this situation. I have owned numerous AMD and Intel systems. Every time I am amazed by the price difference and the performance difference in-game, and out of game. I custom build computers on the side for people, and every time I get the question, "How many Ghz does it have"? I dont use Intel CPUs for anything, although I own a few, so when I end up saying "its 2 Ghz" (or something like that) and they consider that slow because they know Intel sells CPUs with at least 3 for their normal desktops, I have to explain to them that thats just the CPU frequency, and it doesnt matter as much as architecture and such.

Now tell me something, do you think they care at all what I say about CPU frequency? As far as they know or care, a number is a number, and 3 is higher than 2. The customer is always right, period. Do you honestly think the government doesnt know that AMD makes faster and cheaper CPU's than Intel? Do you think nobody ever thought "Oh maybe we can save some money by switching to this company"?

It would be a dumb decision on the Governments part to change from Intel to AMD. It would be like giving money away instead of saving it. All the money saved would be nothing compared to the amount given to German manufacturers, which I doubt is something the US government is really interested in right now. Its a smart decision for the government to stay with Intel, we want that money in OUR economy, not theirs. Porsche makes better tanks than Ford, but the government doesnt seem to care right?




RE: Intel vs. AMD
By ThisSpaceForRent on 5/1/2006 8:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
But it's a global economy, and if the US gave better tax breaks than the Germans you would see Fab 36 here in the states instead of there. Worrying about where the money from the CPU purchase goes is absurd anyway. Where is the motherboard that said CPU plugs into built? How about the power supply that allows it run? Those are all US built I take it? Don't tell anyone, but the plastic used is made from...oil. Trying to buy a completely American product is not only narrow minded, but probably close to impossible.

If the US government saves money by buying Intel then fine. Intel and AMD chips are, for the most part, the same.


RE: Intel vs. AMD
By rushfan2006 on 5/1/2006 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it's a global economy, and if the US gave better tax breaks than the Germans you would see Fab 36 here in the states instead of there. Worrying about where the money from the CPU purchase goes is absurd anyway. Where is the motherboard that said CPU plugs into built? How about the power supply that allows it run? Those are all US built I take it? Don't tell anyone, but the plastic used is made from...oil. Trying to buy a completely American product is not only narrow minded, but probably close to impossible


Very true. And the fact that Intel has plants all over the globe (more than AMD) and the fact that Intel also has that foreign company affliate...what is it again just slipped my mind its in Asia somewhere..ugh..can't believe it just slipped my mind....


Air Force
By SilthDraeth on 5/1/2006 7:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
The shop I work for in the USAF has roughly 30-40 HP/ A64 workstations.

So it is finally happening.

One thing though, since, I didn't know how purchases where made initially, I had to ask, why do you buy Dell, NEC, etc.

Well, it turns out, that at least in the past, companies had to be GSA approved, and they all made bids to the government to get on the shopping list. So if you needed new computers, you could only buy from the companies that where on that list. Dell was always on there, and everyone knows its hard to beat Dell prices.




RE: Air Force
By mindless1 on 5/3/2006 10:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just that, but some are thinking in one-system timeframes. If an agency has had good product and support from an OEM, they have no reason to look elsewhere. until recent years, the fact was that Intel was a safer purchase, AMD was mostly inside lower end (lower quality) systems. A few years isn't many generations of turnaround for the government, it's not likely they're rebuying new gaming systems every 12 months.


RE: Air Force
By hstewarth on 5/3/2006 5:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The shop I work for in the USAF has roughly 30-40 HP/ A64 workstations.


First of all, these are A64 workstations - and unless something has severly change, AMD does not have a clone of Itanium chip. USAF must be using this level of processor for a reason. Probably for it's higher performance IO.

These types of machines should be excluded since there is no AMD comparision.


AMD Market growth
By hstewarth on 4/26/2006 8:44:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Some analysts say that if AMD was more competitive, it wouldn't need to be raising these issues. Others disagree, and say that companies with a market dominance similar to Intel, use their considerable size and resources to "buy" customers. Interestingly, AMD's market share has grown significantly in the past year while Intel's has dropped. Both companies performance in the stock market also reflect the change in market share.


If you check out AMD's own statement, actually AMD Growth is because of expensive of other companies besides Intel and AMD. Intel shared is pretty much the same.

Also if AMD did not try these legal games and making enemies with companies, maybe they would have a chance.

As for gov't, would you pick a company's product for that is trying sue their way though the competition.

The really reason for this whole is try to generate political change of feeling to increase AMD share. With up and coming Conroe processor, they know that the days of Netburst problems are number and a completely new ball game is coming this summer.

Yes I know this will stir up storm here, but this AMD vs Intel stuff is real sick. I really hate this kind of legal stuff.




RE: AMD Market growth
By Griswold on 4/27/2006 5:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Omg where to start...

Who are these enemies AMD is making?

Do you realize, that these legal "games" have been going on for much longer than the Intel announcement that they will finally become competitive again on the product level?

Do you realize, that the same legal "games" are played in europe because some governments do just what AMD claims and even admit it? Although, in the end, they are forced by the EU commission to treat all competitors equal. Latest example: Spain.

Japan is another example.

And this is not just limited to AMD vs. Intel, these business practices are way too common on other sectors. This is not "free market" behavior, this is destroying the market by destroying competition.

These legal "games" have to be played for the good of us, the consumer.

quote:
As for gov't, would you pick a company's product for that is trying sue their way though the competition.


That one is particularly hilarious.


RE: AMD Market growth
By gooser on 4/27/2006 10:12:51 AM , Rating: 1
hahaha


Re:Above
By customcoms on 4/26/2006 11:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct..supporting one pc can be easier...however, we are talking about one intial sale...they would only have to support a system built on AMD or Intel. However, doing both is pretty much a joke. My school has P4's and AMD64's, all from compaq, all supported just fine (actually, horribly, but thats a function of the lamest tech people ever, we have access to whatever we want including stuff we definatly shouldn't on the network) We're not talking PC v. Mac here!




How's that interesting
By AnnihilatorX on 5/1/2006 3:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interestingly, AMD's market share has grown significantly in the past year while Intel's has dropped.


I find this sentence amusing




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki