. . . continued from Hot News On the other hand, AMD got no help from Microsoft's ongoing failure to release a 64-bit version of Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server, leaving AMD's now two year old Opteron 64-bit server CPU to find a home elsewhere. The homes it found are at Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and IBM, all of which are delighted by the CPU's performance and lower cost. Linux and Sun Microsystems' Solaris operating systems are fully optimized for AMD Opteron processors. Apropos of nothing here, most of the high-end game PC makers love AMD too. While Dell is not the only Windows server CPU customer out there (IBM still ships more servers; HP ships big numbers as well), Dell's server business is hugely important to Intel. There's more too, on the desktop side. Check the Dell web site right now and you also won't find a single desktop, workstation or laptop computer running an AMD processor. It's creepy, especially in light of the fact that AMD's 2003, 2004 & 2005 processor lineup has been largely spectacular—superbly compatible, wonderfully stable, extremely fast and (most important of all?) notably less expensive than comparable Intel offerings. All that is beside the fact that several popular AMD releases have clearly beaten the pants off competing Intel items. Like a page out of Russian history after Stalin's death when the revisionists expunged Stalin's name from the history books, so Dell, HP and Gateway expunged AMD from their desktop products. Tom Krazit reporting for IDG News Service last week wrote that "Veteran industry watchers have seen the Dell/AMD relationship heat up and cool down for years. Dell is believed to receive discounts on Intel chips as a result of its continuing loyalty to the world's largest chip maker. The company is also thought to occasionally toy with the possibility of using AMD's chips in order to keep Intel alert." In a July 2004 interview, new Dell CEO Kevin Rollins said that Dell's relationship with Intel "makes us a lot of money [...but] we're not an Intel division. So we'll look at (AMD's) products, and as soon as customers like them and the market grows, and there's a clear trend, the technology is stable, the volume is there, yeah, we'd switch, or we'd add them. We don't have any objection against it." Sometime later Rollins stated to InfoWorld that "My guess is we're going to want to add that product line at some point in the future," referring to AMD."

Like a page out of Russian history after Stalin's death when the revisionists expunged Stalin's name from the history books, so Dell, HP and Gateway expunged AMD from their desktop products.

If Microsoft pulled this sort of publicly visible price leveraging tactic, a thousand lawsuits would instantaneously descend from all the companies and consumer groups wounded by the arrogance. Analyze Rollins' comments for a moment: "clear trend" "stable" and "volume" which all refer to items that have to be nurtured and grown, rather than events and situations which magically appear on their own. Intel knows this. Dell knows this. AMD knows this. Who is Dell kidding? Dell is going to stay with Intel as long as Intel continues to respond to Dell's leverage. Consumers lose because legitimate choice is reduced to a selection of one.

Microsoft's typically delayed release date (the company is late delivering many of its software products, in this case the 64-bit edition of Windows XP), unintentionally provided Intel with enough time to bring it's dual core and 64-bit processors within spitting distance of AMD's stuff. It's like some sort of old boys club (Dell, Microsoft, Intel), all erring on side of a caution which tends to favor the status quo. More marketing, more expense for business and consumers, but little if any performance advantage payoff. Intel offers heavy incentives to Dell and all the others to use its CPUs, but consumers at all levels are no further ahead. Good on ya' boys!

How does all of this affect your home, SOHO or small office desktop computer? The answer is simple. AMD processors that are just as fast, stable and reliable as any Intel CPU you're using are available right now, but none of the retail systems builders (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., etc.) will use AMD chips. Intel should be getting its knuckles rapped for some really average offerings, and should probably also be spanked for changing its CPU naming conventions (totally unfathomable without a guide sheet). To many people the change in naming conventions is a marketing ploy designed to deliberately confuse consumers. Of course it might be nothing more than a dumb move. In any case, the performance differences between several zippy AMD CPUs and several competing but somewhat slower and more expensive Intel processors is noticeable, so why aren't Dell and the rest of the gang using more AMD products?

I really don't care about the brand of heating coil in my toaster or the brand of magnetron in my microwave oven. I just care that both appliances work properly and up to my expectations. By the same token, I only care that my computers and workstations operate as efficiently as possible and run the software and applications needed for personal and business use. I don't have the resources or time in my business to dedicate IT staff to system building—I have to buy from Dell or HP or Gateway or IBM. If AMD will get me there as reliably but less expensively than Intel, I want those processors.

Back to Hot News!