PDA

View Full Version : Online petition on Intel vs. AMD duel



Nowhere
23rd November 2005, 17:34
http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13368_13369,00.html?redir=CPSW51

Won't change the decision of Intel for sure, but the more support the better! :p

Mehen
23rd November 2005, 18:06
I think that's a horrible idea on AMDs part, I don't remember Intel ever gloating that much when they were king of the hill (remember when the 3.06 HT came out and all AMD had was its little 2800+ thunderbird? HA!).

I have lost a lot of respect for AMD

Nowhere
23rd November 2005, 18:08
So...sign the petition, it will hurt AMD in the long run and you'll be happy :p ;)

edit: oh, and this is much more beeing king of the kill than the case you describe...there wasn't much difference than, but for the time beeing Opterons walk all over Xeons...

edit2: and besides, they don't really make any claims ragarding Intel, just inviting them while making vague claims about Opteron, as everybody always do (pdf is clearly humorous :p )

schmosef
23rd November 2005, 19:45
Although I'm sure that this type of approach would appeal to the pubescent smug faced AMD fan-boys out there... I doubt it will help sell servers.

For an IT manager or CIO to stick their neck out for such costly hardware they'd need to be a lot more professional and target OEMs like Compaq and Dell instead of end users.

It's Compaq, etc., that would need to do the work to sell the architecture to big corporate clients, not AMD.

VJ
25th November 2005, 02:54
I also don't like AMD for doing this... :(
I mean, isn't that what competition is all about: try to be better then the competetion, they in turn try the same. A victory won doesn't mean the battle is won. :)


Jörg

Chrono_Wanderer
25th November 2005, 06:16
LOL what is AMD smoking lately. :|

Whirl-Secret
25th November 2005, 08:07
Erm you critisize AMD for a jokey 'duel' petition when Intel has used dirty tactics for years to prevent OEMs from even stocking AMDs?

Intel make good chipsets, and good mobile chips, but their server cpus get smoked by Opterons, while keeping an enormous % of market share. I believe AMD are justified in using these tactics to spread awareness.

Dr Mordrid
25th November 2005, 11:27
The media industry has gotten the message. Dreamworks SKG has gone all AMD.

Dr. Mordrid

Tjalfe
25th November 2005, 11:47
A buddy of mine works for a company doing high end computers for image recongition stations ( e.g inspect toothpicks on a conveyer at some redicilous high speed). For this he uses 2-8 way Xeons. All the computers used for that are Intels, and he says that the reason for this is not raw performance, but the fact that Intel will gurantee availability for the next X years and revision control.
Now I am not sure if these are still current issues, but he is still stuck on the idea of no AMD for those reasons.. I am sure more are too.

Dr Mordrid
25th November 2005, 19:16
Given that the lifetime of corporate hardware is more determined by how fast you can write it off your taxes than availability that's a stupid way to run things.

Dr. Mordrid

schmosef
26th November 2005, 11:18
He's not talking about corporate hardware, he's talking about manufacturing environments.

tjalfe makes a very good point.

And like I said, there are certain industries where AMD needs to target the OEMs, not the end users, if they want to make inroads.

Dr Mordrid
26th November 2005, 16:20
He's not talking about corporate hardware, he's talking about manufacturing environments.
SO AM I!!

Much of factory, business and agricultural hardware & even some properties get replaced on the basis of depreciation allowances. Sometimes (often) you can get huge deductions for buying hardware you don't even need :p

Go check your friendly neighborhood income tax code.

Dr. Mordrid

schmosef
26th November 2005, 22:04
I'm sorry Doc but I do A LOT of work with factories and they don't upgrade the computers on the line "just because".

It's not a "tax code" thing, it's a "production uptime" thing.

Dr Mordrid
27th November 2005, 00:24
Yeah, but with Canadian factories...right?

Our tax laws differ a bit when it comes to depreciation, as in sometimes you can get a 100% write off the first year. Companies here are getting cars, hardware etc. etc. just because of the tax break and not even because they need 'em.

Dr. Mordrid

Umfriend
27th November 2005, 02:50
I say BS.

Say Revenue is $1,000 p.a. and you make a $200 PC investment (Intel). You can replace it at the end of year 1 or keep it for another year. Replacement is better HW but still $200. After two years, there is no more business.

You can write off $200 this year or $100 in both years. Heck, if you replace, you get to write-off 200 this year and another $200 next year: LIFE IS GREAT! Corporate tax rate is 30%

Uhm, let's see:

Replace scenario:
CF(t=0) = -100
CF(t=1) = +1,000 Revenue, -300 tax, +60 tax rebate, -200 new investment
CF(t=2) = +1,000 Revenue, -300 tax, +60 tax rebate
Total CF equals 2,000 - 700 + 120 - 200 = 1220

Non replace scenario:
CF(t=0) = -100
CF(t=1) = +1,000, -300 tax +30 tax rebate
CF(t=2) = +1,000 - 300 tax + 30 tax rebate
Total CF equals 2,000 - 700 + 60 = 1,360

Clearly, depreciation is no reason to purchase HW one does not need. And I am not even using interest or appropriate Required Returns.

The reason accelrated depreciation is allowed in some countries/industries etc is that it allows for investments that would not be made without it. It's nothing short of a subsidy.

Only companies who favour paying $100 to a company over paying $30 in tax would buy stuff they do not need.

Whirl-Secret
27th November 2005, 04:58
One of the probs I have heard from other IT guys who deal with servers (I'm quoting a certified Compaq server fixer) is the motherboard chipsets that come with AMD comps. Afaict that's not really been an issue since the K6s or something like that, but people have a long memory.

The last 2 servers we have bought at work are IBM x-series 3xx machines - lovely, but they use xeons. I showed the IT boss some SQL server benchmarks of Opteron vs Xeon and he was very impressed - so we asked all our preferred suppliers for a quote of a dual Opteron 2u server, and EVERY ONE of them ignored it and sent a price for Xeon machines.

In the end we went for our favourite supplier (he gives us IBM coffeemats and maglites!!!) and the trusted IBM servers, and guess what it had xeons in it.

As a way of getting revenge, every desktop computer of ours that I upgrade (we do 2-3 manually every month to re-use those win2k licences and save the environment a bit) uses AMD64s or Semprons now.

TransformX
27th November 2005, 05:09
http://www.sun.com/x64/

Whirl-Secret
27th November 2005, 05:29
Have you seen their prices? We bought an IBM 1u P4 (not xeon) entire server for the same price as a sun hard disk :)

TransformX
27th November 2005, 07:41
I heard their X64 series are *MUCH* cheaper than their spark solutions. Better have a second look..

Technoid
27th November 2005, 08:32
The last 2 servers we have bought at work are IBM x-series 3xx machines - lovely, but they use xeons. I showed the IT boss some SQL server benchmarks of Opteron vs Xeon and he was very impressed - so we asked all our preferred suppliers for a quote of a dual Opteron 2u server, and EVERY ONE of them ignored it and sent a price for Xeon machines.

In the end we went for our favourite supplier (he gives us IBM coffeemats and maglites!!!) and the trusted IBM servers, and guess what it had xeons in it.


Well, that pretty much sums up the situation :dead:

Remember when the athlon first came out and it took months befor you could buy a mobo because Intel threatened to cut suply of BX chips to anyone making Athlon mobos? :down:

Does anyone think Intel isnt still up to those tactics? :devious:

schmosef
27th November 2005, 17:10
Yeah, but with Canadian factories...right?

Our tax laws differ a bit when it comes to depreciation, as in sometimes you can get a 100% write off the first year. Companies here are getting cars, hardware etc. etc. just because of the tax break and not even because they need 'em.

Dr. Mordrid
Although I've only had to visit/work with a couple of US factories, almost all my customers are international. One of them has several hundred factories. I used to have a lot of business in the automotive sector. I've worked with tier 1, 2, and 3 automotive suppliers. When the per minute fines for causing downtime at the Ford/GM/etc. assembly line are in the 4-5 figure range, they don't upgrade equipment, just because they can.

In the manufacturing industry a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. They don't change things unless there's a direct benefit (ie., improved productivity/reduced manufacturing costs).

I guarantee to you that tax advantages are sought after the decision to upgrade/change equipment has been made. They don't factor into the decision itself.

schmosef
27th November 2005, 17:10
One of the probs I have heard from other IT guys who deal with servers (I'm quoting a certified Compaq server fixer) is the motherboard chipsets that come with AMD comps. Afaict that's not really been an issue since the K6s or something like that, but people have a long memory.

The last 2 servers we have bought at work are IBM x-series 3xx machines - lovely, but they use xeons. I showed the IT boss some SQL server benchmarks of Opteron vs Xeon and he was very impressed - so we asked all our preferred suppliers for a quote of a dual Opteron 2u server, and EVERY ONE of them ignored it and sent a price for Xeon machines.

In the end we went for our favourite supplier (he gives us IBM coffeemats and maglites!!!) and the trusted IBM servers, and guess what it had xeons in it.

As a way of getting revenge, every desktop computer of ours that I upgrade (we do 2-3 manually every month to re-use those win2k licences and save the environment a bit) uses AMD64s or Semprons now.

Like I said, AMD needs to go after the OEMs, not the end users.

Umfriend
28th November 2005, 00:31
I guess though it might help OEMs to start offering AMD-based solutions seriously (if at all) when they notice a specific demand from it from end-users.

And besides, challenges are fun, so what's the fuss?

Whirl-Secret
28th November 2005, 11:44
from what I've seen of OEMs, they would hate to have to offer a choice, or, heavens forbid, try to choose themselves what was best for their client.

They have their brands that they are certified for, and it's their job to convince ppl like me that I need what they are willing to sell. Yes you would think it would be the other way round (I tell them what I want and they quote me a price) but it doesn't seem to end up like that often.

I actually really like the guys in our suppliers, but they do cringe when i mention 'Opteron' and send a quote with 'Xeon' written on it, perhaps hoping I won't notice. In fairness, they have much more experience with Xeons and intel chipset motherboards but still... meh.

I guess it doesn't really matter what cpu we have when our main CRM software is GoldMine that uses Borland environment and makes a dual xeon look like an abacus :)

Mehen
28th November 2005, 18:13
Erm you critisize AMD for a jokey 'duel' petition when Intel has used dirty tactics for years to prevent OEMs from even stocking AMDs?

Intel make good chipsets, and good mobile chips, but their server cpus get smoked by Opterons, while keeping an enormous % of market share. I believe AMD are justified in using these tactics to spread awareness.

I think it really just surprised me that they didn't use dirty/sneaky tactics as is the norm in the IT industry :p but instead challenged them to an outright duel!!

I guess enough is enough and AMD just went for the gusto :p


Although I have never built a server, I as well have been switching the computers I build for others to AMD - many of them still insist on Intel (they relate Intel to "name brand") but for the most part I can convince them otherwise. It is only now with dual core AMDs that my next system (I do a fair amount of multitasking for a non-business user) will be AMD.

[this is post 500!!!]

Nowhere
28th August 2006, 20:44
Hmmm...rigth now accepting this offer would end up very good to Intel; sure, their Netburst CPUs would get officially beaten for half a year, but now Intel has Core 2 architecture and AMD would have to accept another round :p

PS. You know...this would be actually much better than various "hardware sites" we have now - at least both contestants would make sure that benchmark are fair and accurate.

ND66
29th August 2006, 06:30
In the manufacturing industry a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. They don't change things unless there's a direct benefit (ie., improved productivity/reduced manufacturing costs).

Agreed. I do work for one & right now we're trying to eliminate all the P-II's from the production environment here.:rolleyes:
The main thing for approval, the purchase need to be justified on how much more revenue this purchase will bring in the door. Convenience will not get you anywhere. Or you’ll have to prove that this machine is obsolete in terms of our software maker – must meet minimum software requirements.


I guarantee to you that tax advantages are sought after the decision to upgrade/change equipment has been made. They don't factor into the decision itself.

In real life this applies to more serious buys, like huge production or CNC equipment with the price tag starting at minimum of $100 000.00

TransformX
29th August 2006, 07:41
I think AMD would still win if you take $$ into the equation. AMD still delivers more computing power per dollar.