Wednesday, February 28th 2018

Dell CTO On AMD-Powered Products: "Don't Expect a [Intel and AMD] Duopoly"

AMD has been making waves on computing markets with its latest line of processors powered by its innovative Zen microarchitecture. Its strengths and weaknesses are very well known by now, so there's no use harking them all over again; suffice it to say that the company has regained competitiveness - and then some - with many of Intel's products in as many different industry sectors. The company's APU solutions, for one, are one of a kind solutions that allow users to do some very impressive gaming sans a discrete GPU. However, Intel's been spending the last several years before AMD's Zen entrenching themselves in all markets, so AMD clearly has an uphill battle in fighting existing relations and supply channels. Case in point: Dell.

Channel Pro is reporting that Dell EMC's CTO, John Roese, said today at WMC that "Intel is the big player, AMD is the second player. There's enough diversity between them that there are use cases to have them both in our portfolio, but just the sheer breadth of the Intel processor portfolio is massive compared to even the accelerated AMD world."
While the executive tips his hat to AMD's recent product launches and forays into products that customers actually desire to have in their computing world, but thinks that that alone isn't enough: "AMD is doing some interesting things, and by adding them to the portfolio we pick up a few extra areas, but let's be very clear: there is a huge, dominant player in compute semiconductors, and then there is a challenger which is doing some very good innovative work called AMD, but the gap between them is quite large in terms of market share and use-cases. So our portfolio is not going to change in any meaningful way." he then finished with a coup-de-grace, saying that users shouldn't "(...) expect it [Dell's portfolio] ]to be a duopoly any time soon." Talk about rewarding the striving underdog. Source: ChannelPro.co.uk
Add your own comment

43 Comments on Dell CTO On AMD-Powered Products: "Don't Expect a [Intel and AMD] Duopoly"

#1
Aldain
"The best friend money can buy"

This is from the Intel mail excange with dell when Paul S. Otellini wanted to bury AMD. It seems Dell has not changed one bit , still Intel's little bitch.
Posted on Reply
#2
yeeeeman
Yeah, Dell is one son of a bitch and the bitch, we all know who she is. Just listen to the abominations that this dude tells. AMD platform is as good as Intels and it could very well be inside ALL Dell products, giving users the same CPU computing power with a MUCH better graphics capability. So...why do you ignore AMD again? Yeah, don't answer, we know it, is because of the brib...sorry, money that your bitch mom gives you. Riiight.
Posted on Reply
#3
AnarchoPrimitiv
Nothing's changed since when Intel was convicted of bribing OEMs like Dell
Posted on Reply
#4
Valantar
So, to (barely) paraphrase: Intel has a larger market share, so we'll prioritize Intel regardless of why this market share came about and technical realities today.


So .... not a single thought as to what market share consists of, such as more products available with their components in various categories? I suppose that would be too challenging a thought.
Posted on Reply
#5
natr0n
Dell is a private company. They are cashing Intel checks in private now.
Posted on Reply
#6
evernessince
Aldain said:
"The best friend money can buy"

This is from the Intel mail excange with dell when Paul S. Otellini wanted to bury AMD. It seems Dell has not changed one bit , still Intel's little bitch.
Yep. When Intel was cornering the market through "rebates" (bribes) and threats, dell was one of the biggest proponents. At one point they were actually receiving more money from Intel's "rebates" then it was making from selling it's own products.

Dell's statement here doesn't really make any sense either. If anything, EPYC makes sense in more configuration than Intel does. After all you can pack more cores in less space with EPYC and the performance per watt is fantastic. I don't get how "Intel is top dog" is an excuse dell can make. That's an explanation berift of details as I'd expect from a 5 year old.

I'm guessing the real reason Dell is keeping a mostly Intel portfolio is because it's a safer choice. No change is required and everyone knows the Intel brand.
Posted on Reply
#7
cadaveca
My name is Dave
evernessince said:
Dell's statement here doesn't really make any sense either. If anything, EPYC makes sense in more configuration than Intel does. After all you can pack more cores in less space with EPYC and the performance per watt is fantastic. I don't get how "Intel is top dog" is an excuse dell can make. That's an explanation berift of details as I'd expect from a 5 year old.
Dell has products to meet the needs of all consumers. They also do not tend to fit powerful discrete GPUs into their boxes either.

While more cores is good to certain uses, raw frequency is still king in more things, so your point asbout Epyc being so useful kind hints that perhaps you aren't thinking of the entire market like Dell is.


Don't get me wrong; I'm not here to defend Dell's business practices. As a person that gets my hardware for free, I don't care who is better... I have both. And frankly, since it's my job to really evaluate who is better by actually using all this hardware, I kind of have to agree with Dell's apparant stance here. AMD has some great options, but they aren't the BEST in many situations. It's too bad too, because until AMD really does have those products, the consumer is subject to Intel's pricing setting the stage for the entire market.

So, AMD wins only in two scenarios... high core counts, and with APUs. Unfortunately those are the edges of the usage spectrum, and the majority of needs fall between AMD's strong points.
Posted on Reply
#8
sepheronx
I am more surprised how Dell even became as big as they have. Their PC's are rather garbage, or at least used to be for the most part, especially their office line of Optiplex were the motherboards used the cheapest of capacitors that used to blow every year or (not) surprisingly after warranty ends. And when Warranty ends and you got a problem, you pay out a huge amount just to get someone to come in and replace it (companies wouldn't trust us to replace it ourselves).

Their proprietary PSU's were trash. It was trash that half of the systems used a proprietary 24pin connector. PSU was JUST enough to run what was in the system and that was it.

Their higher end systems weren't too bad, especially that they ended up taking Alienware. But even then, they can be pricier than what you really get out of it. Unless you wait till a major sale and call in to state you want to buy something but you are just too poor for it, so they give an additional 10% off or so.

AMD now, especially with their new APU's, should be looked at for average office user and or home user. Yeah, wont high end game, but its still ideal for light gaming and everything else. Want to game? Add in a GPU and away you go. I would figure OEM's would be all over it, especially dell. But I assume its because they want to continue to use the cheapest of OEM production of their motherboards and don't really want to shell out too much on other socket.

I may be over thinking this and maybe just going into a tirade over it for little reason. But its just a head scratcher.
Posted on Reply
#9
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Dell has one of the best monitor warranties and their Ultrasharp panels are one of the few products lines that guarantee no dead pixels. They also have a huge reach in offices, so when people who work at these offices think of PCs, they think of Dell. How they got big is pretty obvious, really.

If you can afford the cost, and live in North America, I will always recommend buying a Dell panel. I've personally used their warranty service... called them up, and the very next day I had a replacement on my doorstep. Less than 24 hours later... much closer to like 12 hours, if I'm honest. That experience won me over when it comes to Dell.

As to bad hardware, every brand has such cases.

sepheronx said:
AMD now, especially with their new APU's, should be looked at for average office user and or home user. Yeah, wont high end game, but its still ideal for light gaming and everything else. Want to game? Add in a GPU and away you go. I would figure OEM's would be all over it, especially dell. But I assume its because they want to continue to use the cheapest of OEM production of their motherboards and don't really want to shell out too much on other socket.
Well, you see, AMD's Ryzen platform still has some memory compatibility issues, meaning that PC builders have to have the right memory in stock to even be able to sell such systems, and that memory is getting quite rare, and expensive. Also, PCs that can game aren't meant for the office from many people's perspective. Dell doesn't really cater to true enthusiasts, so I totally understand your poinion here, but as enthusiasts, we can't exactly judge a company on ethusiast merits when that isn't even the part of teh market they offer products for.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheGuruStud
cadaveca said:
Dell has products to meet the needs of all consumers. They also do not tend to fit powerful discrete GPUs into their boxes either.

While more cores is good to certain uses, raw frequency is still king in more things, so your point asbout Epyc being so useful kind hints that perhaps you aren't thinking of the entire market like Dell is.


Don't get me wrong; I'm not here to defend Dell's business practices. As a person that gets my hardware for free, I don't care who is better... I have both. And frankly, since it's my job to really evaluate who is better by actually using all this hardware, I kind of have to agree with Dell's apparant stance here. AMD has some great options, but they aren't the BEST in many situations. It's too bad too, because until AMD really does have those products, the consumer is subject to Intel's pricing setting the stage for the entire market.

So, AMD wins only in two scenarios... high core counts, and with APUs. Unfortunately those are the edges of the usage spectrum, and the majority of needs fall between AMD's strong points.
Lol, how can Intel be competitive in server if they just took a 25% perf hit? They weren't better before meltdown and now they're terrible at twice to three times the cost while using substantially more power.

No need to shillply. Intel is scared of losing their cash cow and is feeding this twat stacks of cash.
Posted on Reply
#11
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
TheGuruStud said:
Lol, how can Intel be competitive in server if they just took a 25% perf hit? They weren't better before meltdown and now they're terrible at twice to three times the cost and using substantially more power.

No need to shillply. Intel is scared of losing their cash cow and is feeding this twat stacks of cash.
Like they have been for years, that's the reason why Athlon XP and Athlon 64 didn't get enough ground.
Posted on Reply
#12
kastriot
We want lower prices that's what we want nothing else.
Posted on Reply
#13
timta2
sepheronx said:
I am more surprised how Dell even became as big as they have. Their PC's are rather garbage, or at least used to be for the most part, especially their office line of Optiplex were the motherboards used the cheapest of capacitors that used to blow every year or (not) surprisingly after warranty ends. And when Warranty ends and you got a problem, you pay out a huge amount just to get someone to come in and replace it (companies wouldn't trust us to replace it ourselves).

Their proprietary PSU's were trash. It was trash that half of the systems used a proprietary 24pin connector. PSU was JUST enough to run what was in the system and that was it.

Their higher end systems weren't too bad, especially that they ended up taking Alienware. But even then, they can be pricier than what you really get out of it. Unless you wait till a major sale and call in to state you want to buy something but you are just too poor for it, so they give an additional 10% off or so.

AMD now, especially with their new APU's, should be looked at for average office user and or home user. Yeah, wont high end game, but its still ideal for light gaming and everything else. Want to game? Add in a GPU and away you go. I would figure OEM's would be all over it, especially dell. But I assume its because they want to continue to use the cheapest of OEM production of their motherboards and don't really want to shell out too much on other socket.

I may be over thinking this and maybe just going into a tirade over it for little reason. But its just a head scratcher.
That bad capacitor issue affected the entire electronics industry and wasn't specific to Dell. They have been using standard ATX power supplies for a while now and I can't remember seeing a Dell power supply that wasn't made by Delta.
Posted on Reply
#14
cadaveca
My name is Dave
TheGuruStud said:
Intel is scared of losing their cash cow and is feeding this twat stacks of cash.
Until there is proof of Intel doing this again, I will not any such claims. Kind of shocked you would, too, but I guess that's your perogative.

TheGuruStud said:
Lol, how can Intel be competitive in server if they just took a 25% perf hit? They weren't better before meltdown and now they're terrible at twice to three times the cost while using substantially more power.
That's not what I have seen, and AMD doesn't really have a working fix for these issue fully yet either. AMD has been very quiet on that front. In fact, they do not expect to have a proper working Spectre fix until 2019. So if security is your main concern, AMD isn't exactly the best option for servers either. When it comes to Spectre/Meltdown, neither company has handled this very well, in my books.
No microcode updates are currently available for AMD or Intel, which means Spectre v2 is still unmitigated out of the box on Ubuntu on x86 CPUs for userspace.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/KnowledgeBase/SpectreAndMeltdown (dated the 21st of February)
Posted on Reply
#15
dyonoctis
To be honest, the average consummer doesn't really read tech review, and intel still and will probably remain the brand of choice for cpu. I'm in a chat with several 3D artist, and a lot of them still though that lga 2011-3 was the way to go. They don't know about cofee lake, they don't know about the value of threadripper for their work, and they don't know that intel doesn't do disncount on older cpu, some of them nearly bought a 6950x thinking it was better than a I9 7940X. All they know is that they must get an intel, and AMD is some cheapo stuff that should be avoided. If AMD can't manage to get even on single thread, and spend a bit more money on marketing and getting a place in workstation, high end pc, this will never change.

Back when AMD actually had the fastest processor in the world, i didn't knew much about hardware, and all I wanted was a intel pc, because that was the stuff that i was seeing on TV. I never saw an ad saying "the athlon +xxxx is the fastest thing that you can get". They could have turned the P4 "BigGhz" marketing at their advantage, by showing that they could do more at a lower speed, but it never happened. People kept buying P4 because on paper they appeared to be be faster. (And dell didn't really helped either)
Posted on Reply
#16
evernessince
cadaveca said:
Dell has products to meet the needs of all consumers. They also do not tend to fit powerful discrete GPUs into their boxes either.

While more cores is good to certain uses, raw frequency is still king in more things, so your point asbout Epyc being so useful kind hints that perhaps you aren't thinking of the entire market like Dell is.


Don't get me wrong; I'm not here to defend Dell's business practices. As a person that gets my hardware for free, I don't care who is better... I have both. And frankly, since it's my job to really evaluate who is better by actually using all this hardware, I kind of have to agree with Dell's apparant stance here. AMD has some great options, but they aren't the BEST in many situations. It's too bad too, because until AMD really does have those products, the consumer is subject to Intel's pricing setting the stage for the entire market.

So, AMD wins only in two scenarios... high core counts, and with APUs. Unfortunately those are the edges of the usage spectrum, and the majority of needs fall between AMD's strong points.
Raw frequency is good for games and a select few poorly optimized applications, that's about it. For everyone but gamers, more cores is better.

AMD wins in more than 3 situations

- Higher core density. AMD can fit more cores into less space. A dual socket AMD system outfitted with AMD's best CPU has 12 more cores than a dual socket Intel system fitted with Intel's best processor.
- Better performance per watt
- AMD processors have better performance per dollar. AMDs top of the line 7601 is HALF THE PRICE of Intel's top of the line 8180 and it has 6 more cores. This should be three points, because that's $5,000 in savings per CPU and you are getting more performance
- Of course, as you stated, their APUs are far better. AMD did after all make the nearly all the console's APU chips.

Intel literally wins in one situation, gaming, and even to get the best performance you have to delid your CPU, buy an expensive cooler, and an expensive motherboard. AMD consumer CPUs come out of the box with an excellent cooling solution. Even then, you need to have a 144 Hz monitor or greater to notice it. Heck I have a 144 Hz monitor with a Ryzen 1700 and it performs perfectly.
Posted on Reply
#17
cadaveca
My name is Dave
evernessince said:
Intel literally wins in one situation, gaming, and even to get the best performance you have to delid your CPU, buy an expensive cooler, and an expensive motherboard. AMD consumer CPUs come out of the box with an excellent cooling solution. Even then, you need to have a 144 Hz monitor or greater to notice it. Heck I have a 144 Hz monitor with a Ryzen 1700 and it performs perfectly.
Ultra-light and portables is still Intel's domain as well. These new APUs help, but power use is still bit higher than what Intel offers for the same performance, and for this segment which power use limits battery life, perf/watt is king. The ULV 2700U is a great chip for this market, but again, you run into the ram compatibility issues. That's something no one wants to seem to admit that makes OEM's jobs easier on the Intel side. 2666 MHz on Ryzen still needs 1R Samsung B-die chips... the most expensive chips on the market, the chips that everyone wants, but not all can have. Ram prices have skyrocketed largely because of this, because there is no competitor for these Samsung ICs yet. Micron is close, but still not as compatible with Ryzen. This isn't something that should be ignored. OEMs need to buy ram by thee truckload, but they can't really for Ryzen systems. The fact that Ryzen needs this ram has played a huge part in ram pricing right now, while Intel doesn't care that much about ram.


So yeah... if you want to take that angle, you need expensive ram for Ryzen, and the cost of that ram offsets anything that Intel might cost you extra.

You don't need to delid, or buy an expensive cooler with Intel. That's marketing BS that I know better than to listen to. I'm very shocked to see some members touting this line like it's gospel as it really shows how easily the market can be manipulated by heresay.


I have both AMD and Intel systems running. For most, there is little difference to be noticed, and that saves face for AMD, but it's not exactly as you want to portray it, really. I mean, if AMD was better, I'd simply say so. but at this point I cannot.
Posted on Reply
#18
AsRock
TPU addict
Understand were everyones coming from, but being burned by AMD's e-450 chip with it's lack of OOomph and support might be why partly why DELL don't want to deal with it until the facts are out at least as AMD being not all that clear with what they are about to release.

Like hell This old ass Thinkpad R61i beats the crap out of the poss e-450
Posted on Reply
#19
thesmokingman
It's not like I'm going to be buying a Dell anytime soon...
Posted on Reply
#20
sutyi
Old new, no news. Remember Athlon64 days what Intel had the terribad NetBurst Pentium 4s or the piping hot Pentium Ds? Well... OEMs didn't pick up AMD products back then, because they were given big discounts if they only carried Intel in their products.
Posted on Reply
#21
Patriot
cadaveca said:
Until there is proof of Intel doing this again, I will not any such claims. Kind of shocked you would, too, but I guess that's your perogative.
That's not what I have seen, and AMD doesn't really have a working fix for these issue fully yet either. AMD has been very quiet on that front. In fact, they do not expect to have a proper working Spectre fix until 2019. So if security is your main concern, AMD isn't exactly the best option for servers either. When it comes to Spectre/Meltdown, neither company has handled this very well, in my books.



https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/KnowledgeBase/SpectreAndMeltdown (dated the 21st of February)
AMD is exactly the better option... Not vulnerable to meltdown, Vulnerable to Spectre type 1 and patched already, and given optional microcode for type 2 even though it has not been able to prove it is vulnerable and is mitigated through retropline.
HPE pushed out the microcode on Jan 4th...
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/KnowledgeBase/SpectreAndMeltdown/TechFAQ#Retpoline

Intel meanwhile has patched and unpatched several times now with severe performance hits... but sure they handled things equally well..........

evernessince said:
- AMD processors have better performance per dollar. AMDs top of the line 7601 is HALF THE PRICE of Intel's top of the line 8180 and it has 6 more cores. This should be three points, because that's $5,000 in savings per CPU and you are getting more performance
Intel still dominates in AVX2 performance, and can do 4p setups, Intel still owns the high end, but yes AMD is very competitive now. When I saw the roadmap with the specs 2 years ago I got excited... just from the raw specs I knew they would win certain workloads and be competitive across most of the rest. Rome should be interesting... it has to compete against cascade lake and optane dimms.
Posted on Reply
#22
medi01
cadaveca said:
Ultra-light and portables is still Intel's domain as well.
AMD rolled out 15W faster than competition even at CPU only tasks Ryzen APUs for UL notebooks, has V1000 for embedded.
Posted on Reply
#23
Valantar
medi01 said:
AMD rolled out 15W faster than competition even at CPU only tasks Ryzen APUs for UL notebooks, has V1000 for embedded.
... does that even apply to this discussion? It's not like embedded CPUs and APUs apply to consumer-facing products from Dell anyhow. Also, are you trying to say that Intel doesn't have ~15W embedded chips? I agree that AMD has demonstrated an impressive ability to get Zen (and Vega) out into the vast majority of possible product types quickly. Again, I don't see how this applies to this discussion, though.
Posted on Reply
#24
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Dell opened the door to another AMD anti-trust suit. If it does happen and AMD wins again, I hope the fine is more than a slap on the wrist this time.
Posted on Reply
#25
Valantar
FordGT90Concept said:
Dell opened the door to another AMD anti-trust suit. If it does happen and AMD wins again, I hope the fine is more than a slap on the wrist this time.
A bit of a stretch, but I actually hope you're right. Intel has a long and sordid history of abusing its market position, which has significantly disadvantaged AMD outside of "fair" (hah, as if capitalism can be fair) competition on product quality. It's high time they saw some consequences.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment