An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports on an analyst's prediction that Dell will begin using AMD chips, instead of their much-touted Intel processors." From the article: "Dell likely will reverse course and begin selling computers with Advanced Micro Devices' processors, Piper Jaffray analyst Les Santiago predicted Tuesday, sending the chipmaker's stock up 4 percent in midday trading."

Analysts Predict Dell to Use AMD

Now analysts can send up stock values just by predicting one thing? This is krazy! Dell never said they will use AMD!

It looks as though the end is near. But when AMD dies, the only tears shed here will be tears of joy.

AMD makes good gaming processors, though...Although I've never used a AMD computer.

It's just anti-Intel propaganda, cuz everybody wants to diss the good companies. The thing is, if you have used the Itanium II processor, it is very fast. And Pentium Ms are perhaps the best Intel CPUs ever made. But now what with Pentium D, I haven't tried the Pentium D, but it sounds promising. And what with the blazing fast Core Duos that have recently been released.

If you play PC games on the PC most of the time, instead of on consoles, you'd know. People have run tests using a program to see which is better, and AMD always comes out first.

Anyways, Choices are teh roxxorzz. Just like HelioHost

No. There is no way that an AMD processor can be better than a Pentium M. Although the PowerPC G5s are perhaps the best consumer CPUs.

I have an AMD Athlon 64 3200+(2.0GHZ, 32 bit OS, so I'm not really getting a boost from 64 bit) That benchmarks better than an Intel P4 with HT at 3.2ghz. Even more after OC, which if you do that for Intel, you're chip's gonna burn. It also runs quiter, and consumes much less power. In fact, an Athlon 64 X2 makes my cousin's friends computer run HL2 and Counter Strike so fast that people claim he's speed hacking(note: Does not use SLi.). Whatever crap slashdot posted about the Intel EE beating the FX-60 is crap. PC Gamer(the magazine) showed actual benchmarking on two otherwise equal systems, and the intel was OCed(AMD wasn't). It got much better scores. Not to mention the FX-57, although not dual-core, is the fastest and most powerful PC-based Processor. It's very good for, well, anything. Although they mainly focus on gaming. AMD chips are also much cheaper, and better supported by 3rd parties. AMD isn't going away, they're making more money than Intel.

Go Dell! You guys are finally making a good choice!

The thing is, people are too biased against Intel. I recall lappy once said, "Using a Celeron for gaming is teh suicidez!". And also stating that the Celeron processor has a small cache. But honestly, at these speeds, do we really need a cache? And even so, Intel caches are usually considerably larger than their AMD counterparts'.

Who really need a cache? Everybody. The cache holds the information. Without one, you are severely limited on power and efficientcy. It's kinda Tiered: L1 cache is the fastest, holds operations the Processor is currently processing, etc. Very Important for efficiency. All current intel Processors, save the Pentium M, have 28kb(12KB+16KB), and that limits them quite a bit, dispite lowering manufactuting Costs(Pentium M 32KB+32KB). AMD, on the other hand, universally uses 128KB, or 64KB+64KB. This is one of the things that greatly increases performance of AMD.
L2 cache is next up, It holds everything your processor is using, but isn't on the highest priorty. Many people tend to ignore L1 cache completely for L2 cache. However, unless you're editing videos, or really, really over-multitasking, you don't need more than 512KB. Any lower, and you have other performace issues(Celeron), higher, doesn't effect it much. Celerons Use 256KB, which is tiny, although bigger than Sony's Cell, with a grand total of 0 bits, and are okay for people who just use, say, word processors. Big mistake for games or anything requiring a medium to high end PC. AMD typically uses 512KB, although with Operaton and FX series processors they've gone up to 1MB. P4's I believe, started with 512KB, then went up to 1MB, and now those featuring "EM64T"(which is less efficient, and, well, worse, than AMD's 64 bit technology) have 2MB, which is overkill. Dual-core processors, however, require 2 L2 caches to run effectively, which is why the Cell operates almost as a 1-core, only not quite as good. The Athlon 64 x2 Series for AMD just uses two 512KB caches, but Operatons newer Athlon 64 x2's (2.4GHZ or greater) and I believe the FX-60 have 2 1MB caches. Intel's Pentium D's and Dual-core Extreme Edition both use x2 1MB. Note: For Dual-core Processors, this is not overkill. However, AMD still outperforms Intel, Especially in the Performace Per $1 category. Then you move up to RAM, which stores everything too big for the Caches, and the Virtual Memory, which is on your HD, for when windows uses it all up for you.

I'm not saying Intel is bad, I mean, it's okay... they are just inefficient, and generate too much heat.

Fine, then if the cache matters so much to you, AMD would suck in your opinion because their caches are tiny compared to their Intel counterparts.

Inefficient and generating too much heat?! That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of Intel chips. Pentium Ms run better than any CPU I have ever seen. Now, you want to speak of overheating, then the AMD Athlon 64-FX is the choice for you.

Yeah? Since it runs at a regular 35C as opposed to any Prescott P4's 50C? That's sure hotter alright.[/sarcasm]
You have apparently only seen intel chips. I started out as an intel fan, and then got AMD for the price. Hell of a lot better. And if they(intel) weren't inefficient, how would you explain a 1.4ghz less clock speed chip from benchmarking so much better?

AMD does not require as much L2 cache as they have over 4 times the L1(8x for the FX-60). You just don't seem to understand how these work, do you?

The thing is, lots of people try to wow you with fine specs. But it's about quality and reliability. And in those areas, Intel is unrivalled. A fine example is the Bell & Howell 15-megapixel camera, which sells for like $99. And then there is the 8-megapixel Canon PowerShot Pro1, which costs around $699. Now, which one is better?

This is like saying AMD has a 1.8GHZ processor for $120 and Intel has a 3.0 GHZ processor for $190. What is not said, however, is the other specifications that really matter, and that both are actually equal in power. Buying the intel is like paying $70 for a space heater that requires quite a bit of power

Yes, there are indeed many places where they will differ, and that's what I was saying. But overall, Intel chips are just better.

In what way? every way I can think of the AMD chips beat out intel, save DVD encoding... unless you have a dual-core or FX one, then it beats intel.

First of all, Intel chips have higher clock speeds than their AMD counterparts (since you Nintendo-fanboys care about clock speed so much), they are more reliable, and they are also more efficient.

More reliable than old AMD processors, I will admit. However, now on terms of reliability they are equal. And if they were so "efficient" then why would intel have to turn up their clock speed by 1.2GHz for the same power? Yet they generate much more heat. That must be where all the energy is going. Also, if I went intel, I'd need a better PSU

I doubt it, what with many Intel chips consuming no more than 30 watts, and some as little as 21.

When using a Celeron, or other low end intel processors. The Turion processor is pretty much a scaled down version of an Athlon 64. It uses less energy, generates less heat, and is more powerful than any of intel's laptop or low-end processors. Yes, even more so than the Pentium M. Besides, once you get to a P4 they're consuming 100-130 watts.

You really don't have much of a right to say anything about AMD til you try one anyway.

Again, you are just being ignorant. I have a PC with an AMD CPU in my house, and I don't think it is up to you to decide what I have or have not used.

Yeah? How old is that AMD(as in manufactured, not bought)? It's only in the last year or two they've actually been any good.

It's an Athlon 64 3200+.

AMD cache sucks.
I heart intel, quite literally
GO INTEL
Alex