- Related Stories
-
HP, Acer take different paths with AMD's Turion
June 22, 2005 -
More HP notebooks sport AMD chips
June 14, 2005 -
AMD focuses on 'x86 Everywhere'
June 10, 2005
This week Hewlett-Packard and Advanced Micro Devices began taking orders for their joint effort, the Compaq nx6125 notebook, and as soon as they did, analysts began talking about a potential shift in the balance of power in the PC world.
"This is a huge win for AMD," said Sam Bhavnani, a senior analyst with Current Analysis. "This will impact mostly small-business purchases. The large enterprises will not shift from Intel to AMD in the near term. However, any small or medium-sized business that is in a replacement cycle now has to consider the Turion 64 HP option."
So, if nx6125 notebooks start selling like hotcakes, will that finally persuade Dell it needs to sell AMD-infused products along with its Intel-based lineup, despite its history of offering only Intel inside? Bhavnani seems enthusiastic.
"It will make it a viable concern for Dell if HP begins to make money off of this new Compaq," Bhavnani said. "Dell is all about the numbers, and if they are looking at AMD, their main question will be, will AMD give us the volumes that we require?"
The analyst also notes that if Dell were to take on a Turion processor, it would more than likely be for its consumer Inspiron laptops, rather than its business-focused Latitude products.
A Dell representative declined to comment on the possibility of the company straying from its Intel heritage.
HP has been under growing pressure during the last year, as Gateway has re-entered the market and Dell continues to drop its PC prices, says Current Analysis researcher Nicole D'Onofrio.
The nx6125 marks the first time HP has offered a business-class computer with AMD's Turion processor. The chip was specifically designed for laptops that can run current 32-bit instruction programs, as well as the next generation of 64-bit instruction software.
The new Compaq is also significant for HP in that it is the first time the company has produced a sub-$1,000 notebook with a built-in biometric fingerprint sensor and an optional smart card reader.
The other motivation for Dell to adopt AMD's Turion, Bhavnani surmises, is that customers who purchase a notebook based on the AMD Turion 64 processor, like HP's, will not have to buy a new computer when Longhorn, Microsoft's next version of Windows, ships.
"Otherwise, they will have to wait for Intel to come out with their 64-bit Pentium M products," Bhavnani said.
An Intel representative said the chipmaking giant has no near-term plans to release a 64-bit Pentium M. Executives have said they will have their product ready about the same time as the Longhorn release next year. Still, the company remains firm that it would only make the switch when the ecosystem exists to support it and there is high customer demand for such a chip.
"Right now we're putting our resources into the things customers tell us they care about: mobile performance, battery life, wireless connectivity and form factor," the representative said.
See more CNET content tagged:
AMD Turion, biometric fingerprint, AMD, 64-bit, Microsoft Longhorn
No, but they will pretend to be interested and bundling AMD products like they always are so they can keep intel on their toes and negotiate a better price.
If Dell ever does go with AMD processors you can bet it won't start on the mobile line.
No, but they will pretend to be interested and bundling AMD products like they always are so they can keep intel on their toes and negotiate a better price.
If Dell ever does go with AMD processors you can bet it won't start on the mobile line.
poised for an upgrade to Longhorn strikes me as overly optimistic.
In my experience, major upgrades to Microsoft operating systems
tend to be problematic for non-Intel processors. I found that to be
the case when upgrading to Windows 95 and, again, when
upgrading to Windows XP. As a result, am less than confident that a
non-Intel machine will be able to upgrade smoothly when the time
comes.
Now with that said. I have been using AMD since the Athlon Slot A and I have had zero problems with upgrading to Windows XP. To put that in perspective, I have been using Windows XP Pro since the first Release Candidate all the way upto SP2. I figure Intel will still get the golden treatment from Microsoft, but I don't see them having anymore trouble supporting AMD than they will supporting Intel.
Better yet, get a new hard drive, install the new version of Windows on it, PATCH THE DAMNED THING (service pack and all updates), then put the old hard drive back as a new drive letter. It only takes a few hours total to reinstall most general applications and the data can then be copied over from the old drive. This same thing can (but I realize not always) apply to servers as much as desktops since only the boot drive would be affected.
Not only will this give a clean installation, it will likely make the system even faster thanks to the speed advances that are always being made in hard drive tehnology. And no data is lost because it's on the old drive or other drives that were not touched. You also now have the old drive as a spare.
When it comes to compatibility, I have run over a dozen AMD iterations, from the 350MHz K6-2 to my current Athlon 64 3200. I haven't purchased an Intel system for myself in over five years. As a heavy gamer and video editor/DVD author who uses only AMD, I use my systems more heavily than most people. (For servers I use Sun, so that's not an issue.) I have *NEVER* run into any compatibility problems with AMD. I know this will shock many, but even Windows ME ran quite well on my old AMD Athlon 800 MHz system.
So, I don't know what you're talking about when you mention Windows not behaving too well with AMD, but frankly my experience says that such a statement is chock full of excrement.
poised for an upgrade to Longhorn strikes me as overly optimistic.
In my experience, major upgrades to Microsoft operating systems
tend to be problematic for non-Intel processors. I found that to be
the case when upgrading to Windows 95 and, again, when
upgrading to Windows XP. As a result, am less than confident that a
non-Intel machine will be able to upgrade smoothly when the time
comes.
Now with that said. I have been using AMD since the Athlon Slot A and I have had zero problems with upgrading to Windows XP. To put that in perspective, I have been using Windows XP Pro since the first Release Candidate all the way upto SP2. I figure Intel will still get the golden treatment from Microsoft, but I don't see them having anymore trouble supporting AMD than they will supporting Intel.
Better yet, get a new hard drive, install the new version of Windows on it, PATCH THE DAMNED THING (service pack and all updates), then put the old hard drive back as a new drive letter. It only takes a few hours total to reinstall most general applications and the data can then be copied over from the old drive. This same thing can (but I realize not always) apply to servers as much as desktops since only the boot drive would be affected.
Not only will this give a clean installation, it will likely make the system even faster thanks to the speed advances that are always being made in hard drive tehnology. And no data is lost because it's on the old drive or other drives that were not touched. You also now have the old drive as a spare.
When it comes to compatibility, I have run over a dozen AMD iterations, from the 350MHz K6-2 to my current Athlon 64 3200. I haven't purchased an Intel system for myself in over five years. As a heavy gamer and video editor/DVD author who uses only AMD, I use my systems more heavily than most people. (For servers I use Sun, so that's not an issue.) I have *NEVER* run into any compatibility problems with AMD. I know this will shock many, but even Windows ME ran quite well on my old AMD Athlon 800 MHz system.
So, I don't know what you're talking about when you mention Windows not behaving too well with AMD, but frankly my experience says that such a statement is chock full of excrement.
Dell annually talks about flirting with AMD (right before they start negotiating with Intel) and then never decide to go through with it (after negotiating with Intel). It's all a pricing game with Dell. Snowballs will keep their form in the depths below when Dell offers systems with chipsets other than Intel's. That's one of the main reasons why I will never purchase a system from Dell.
Dell annually talks about flirting with AMD (right before they start negotiating with Intel) and then never decide to go through with it (after negotiating with Intel). It's all a pricing game with Dell. Snowballs will keep their form in the depths below when Dell offers systems with chipsets other than Intel's. That's one of the main reasons why I will never purchase a system from Dell.
If you provided anything other than Intels schematics to Dells design "engineers" they wouldn't know what to do with them and the whole company would implode.
The post about Longhorn not working with AMDs processors doesn't know what he is talking about since both WinXP64 and Win2K5 64 have both been designed with AMD's 64 bit extensions, not Intels. That is why Intel just caved-in and designed into their processors the AMD extensions.
Fred Dunn
Intel used AMD 64-bit extension because they were behind AMD in that area and besides AMD can't sue them for using them anyway. AMD and Intel have an agreement that allows both companies to reverse engineer each other technology without the threat of lawsuits. You might have also noticed that for what ever reason Windows 64-bit editions didn't come out till after Intel had a 64-bit processor ready. I don't figure it is a conspiracy, more like waiting to make sure 64-bit Windows will work with both companies.
Personally I think Dell is screwing up by not selling AMD. I'm not sure it would make them rich, but it sure would hurt them any. I for one don't buy Intel anymore and I won't buy Dell or HP. I find both of them to be poorly built computers.
The problem with Dell is not only it's offerings, but it's lack of reasonable priced offerings. The Dell laptops have nothing special that I would wait 2-3 weeks for them to build.
Back in the day I would wait 4 weeks for the laptop because it was the best. Now I look at a HP 6000 series because of the AMD 64 and other awesome features that Dell just does not have.
The HP 6005us is amazing. It has a DVD+- burner and a 6 in 1 card reader all built in. Firewire and USB 2. All that and a nice LCD for approx. $1000. You take that same config and you would have to pay over $2000 from Dell if they offered the same type of machine.
I was a huge Dell supporter, but now I am forced to look elsewhere because Dell the company that used to lead is now trying to catch up to the pack.
What will I do with the HP 6005us? Well in late 2006 early 2007 I will be putting Mac OS X on it. I am also done with Microsoft XP - what a riddled piece of crap of code. Has anybody ever wondered why there is a window that pops up almost every other day that wants you to send a report to Microsoft?
It is because Microsoft has brought out a piece of software that the world beta tests everyday. I feel like Microsoft is the Dell of software companies. No longer a leader because the competing companies are just passing them by in every way.
If you provided anything other than Intels schematics to Dells design "engineers" they wouldn't know what to do with them and the whole company would implode.
The post about Longhorn not working with AMDs processors doesn't know what he is talking about since both WinXP64 and Win2K5 64 have both been designed with AMD's 64 bit extensions, not Intels. That is why Intel just caved-in and designed into their processors the AMD extensions.
Fred Dunn
Intel used AMD 64-bit extension because they were behind AMD in that area and besides AMD can't sue them for using them anyway. AMD and Intel have an agreement that allows both companies to reverse engineer each other technology without the threat of lawsuits. You might have also noticed that for what ever reason Windows 64-bit editions didn't come out till after Intel had a 64-bit processor ready. I don't figure it is a conspiracy, more like waiting to make sure 64-bit Windows will work with both companies.
Personally I think Dell is screwing up by not selling AMD. I'm not sure it would make them rich, but it sure would hurt them any. I for one don't buy Intel anymore and I won't buy Dell or HP. I find both of them to be poorly built computers.
The problem with Dell is not only it's offerings, but it's lack of reasonable priced offerings. The Dell laptops have nothing special that I would wait 2-3 weeks for them to build.
Back in the day I would wait 4 weeks for the laptop because it was the best. Now I look at a HP 6000 series because of the AMD 64 and other awesome features that Dell just does not have.
The HP 6005us is amazing. It has a DVD+- burner and a 6 in 1 card reader all built in. Firewire and USB 2. All that and a nice LCD for approx. $1000. You take that same config and you would have to pay over $2000 from Dell if they offered the same type of machine.
I was a huge Dell supporter, but now I am forced to look elsewhere because Dell the company that used to lead is now trying to catch up to the pack.
What will I do with the HP 6005us? Well in late 2006 early 2007 I will be putting Mac OS X on it. I am also done with Microsoft XP - what a riddled piece of crap of code. Has anybody ever wondered why there is a window that pops up almost every other day that wants you to send a report to Microsoft?
It is because Microsoft has brought out a piece of software that the world beta tests everyday. I feel like Microsoft is the Dell of software companies. No longer a leader because the competing companies are just passing them by in every way.
Secondly short of having something like 8GB of RAM in your system most users for the foreseeable future aren't even going to be able to take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. At this point it?s a freaking buzzword.
Third:
http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_Compaq_nx6125/4505-3121_7-31417988-2.html?tag=tab
Quote from C|Net's own farking review:
"Unfortunately, the nx6125's AMD Turion 64 processor clocked exceptionally slow scores in CNET Labs' productivity benchmarks. You'd be better off with a mainstream notebook such as the ThinkPad R52, which offers much more speed and the same amount of battery life for a similar price."
Yah I'm betting Dell is sweating bullets over this puppy.
Finally if you guys had done your homework you would see that Intel isn?t that far away from a 64-bit Pentium M. Maybe a year and a half away at most. More then enough time to get something on the market before things actually start taking advantage of 64-bitness.
What makes this laptop so much more special then everything else? C|Net buzz apparently. Either that or a slow news day.
Secondly short of having something like 8GB of RAM in your system most users for the foreseeable future aren't even going to be able to take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. At this point it?s a freaking buzzword.
Third:
http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_Compaq_nx6125/4505-3121_7-31417988-2.html?tag=tab
Quote from C|Net's own farking review:
"Unfortunately, the nx6125's AMD Turion 64 processor clocked exceptionally slow scores in CNET Labs' productivity benchmarks. You'd be better off with a mainstream notebook such as the ThinkPad R52, which offers much more speed and the same amount of battery life for a similar price."
Yah I'm betting Dell is sweating bullets over this puppy.
Finally if you guys had done your homework you would see that Intel isn?t that far away from a 64-bit Pentium M. Maybe a year and a half away at most. More then enough time to get something on the market before things actually start taking advantage of 64-bitness.
What makes this laptop so much more special then everything else? C|Net buzz apparently. Either that or a slow news day.
The first thing you have to understand about Dell is that they are not a technology company in the sense that IBM or HP are; they are a computer manufacter first and foremost, not a technical innovator or developer. Give Dell credit for being what they really are: an extremely price driven and efficient manufacter of technology. How did they get that way? With favorable pricing, marketing rebates and engineering assistance from Intel. With Dell, it is not about having better technology (which is pretty had to argue that AMD doesn't have right now); AMD simply does not have the resources to match what Intel can provide to Dell in these areas. Intel and Dell both need each other too badly to let AMD in or anyone else - Intel needs Dell to push high volumes and keep marketshare, and Dell needs Intel's marketing money and technology. I just wish Dell would be honest about it instead of going through their ususal routine of pretending to look at someone like AMD, wait for the Intel discount/kickback, then come out and announce how the non-Intel technology is somehow too "inferior" for their use. Give me a break.
On a side rant, I still find it amusing about how much FUD is still floating around about non-Intel processor "incompatibilies" as a reason not to use them. I've used AMD (and Cyrix) chips from basically every generation going back over 15 years (AMD 386DX/40, AMD 486DX/120, Cyrix 586/120, Cyrix 6x86/166, AMD K6/200, K6-2 300, K6-III 400, Athlon T-bird/700 & 1000, Athlon XP 1800, and Athlon 64/3400) and I've never once ran into a compatibility issue with them versus Intel chips. If anything, the future 64 bits versions of Windows are being written based on AMD technology - I'd be more worried about an incompatiblity with Intel's rushed, bolted on version of the 64bit Pentiums.
The first thing you have to understand about Dell is that they are not a technology company in the sense that IBM or HP are; they are a computer manufacter first and foremost, not a technical innovator or developer. Give Dell credit for being what they really are: an extremely price driven and efficient manufacter of technology. How did they get that way? With favorable pricing, marketing rebates and engineering assistance from Intel. With Dell, it is not about having better technology (which is pretty had to argue that AMD doesn't have right now); AMD simply does not have the resources to match what Intel can provide to Dell in these areas. Intel and Dell both need each other too badly to let AMD in or anyone else - Intel needs Dell to push high volumes and keep marketshare, and Dell needs Intel's marketing money and technology. I just wish Dell would be honest about it instead of going through their ususal routine of pretending to look at someone like AMD, wait for the Intel discount/kickback, then come out and announce how the non-Intel technology is somehow too "inferior" for their use. Give me a break.
On a side rant, I still find it amusing about how much FUD is still floating around about non-Intel processor "incompatibilies" as a reason not to use them. I've used AMD (and Cyrix) chips from basically every generation going back over 15 years (AMD 386DX/40, AMD 486DX/120, Cyrix 586/120, Cyrix 6x86/166, AMD K6/200, K6-2 300, K6-III 400, Athlon T-bird/700 & 1000, Athlon XP 1800, and Athlon 64/3400) and I've never once ran into a compatibility issue with them versus Intel chips. If anything, the future 64 bits versions of Windows are being written based on AMD technology - I'd be more worried about an incompatiblity with Intel's rushed, bolted on version of the 64bit Pentiums.
1. They will not sell one (at least the cheaper ones) without a monitor (My four year old Samsung SyncMaster 750S works just fine).
2. They slap on that $100 shipping charge (at least in Canada when they are not having the free or $10 shipping promotions).
I'de rather buy one from FutureShop, Staples or RadioShack, or, better yet, build one myself, which is what I have always done ;).
1. They will not sell one (at least the cheaper ones) without a monitor (My four year old Samsung SyncMaster 750S works just fine).
2. They slap on that $100 shipping charge (at least in Canada when they are not having the free or $10 shipping promotions).
I'de rather buy one from FutureShop, Staples or RadioShack, or, better yet, build one myself, which is what I have always done ;).
- I agree about the incompatibilties being wrong
- by June 27, 2005 3:53 AM PDT
- I have only built and run AMD based computer's, and after seeing how much better AMD is my wife is an AMD fan, I have never had a problem from windows 95, windows 98, or windows xp pro with any compatibility on AMD CPU's ever starting from k6-300, k7-850, k7-1.33ghz, k7 athlon 2600+ not one problem. Maybe the compatibility issue they were thinking of was some issue involving the VIA chipsets drivers and AMD something, it was issue back when i had a VIA motherboard but obviously not anymore (my wifes pc has a via based AMD mb)as i have seen no mention of it on VIA's site, i on the other hand run a nforce based mb and love it with my Athlon... i would rather build my own PC than buy a name brand and you can bet it will be AMD based.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Meant to add this to above post
- by June 27, 2005 3:59 AM PDT
- To clarify i also meant and forgot to state that upgrading on an AMD Machine is no different than any other machine with a clean install, works like a charm.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (42 Comments)