spacePC MAX

Additional Information

Continued from AMD vs Intel
in the May 2006 issue of Maximum PC Magazine, (page 12, sorry I can't provide a direct link), there is a side note commenting that in the in the first 7 weeks of 2006 AMD was mopping the floor with Intel by capturing 80% of the retail market leaving the remaining 20% to Intel. It's interesting to note that DELL only recently began offering AMD CPU desktop systems under their own brand. (FLASH: As of May 2006, DELL has announced they will be selling AMD Opteron servers to augment their Intel Xeon servers due to customer demand for AMD systems). For years DELL had discussed the idea of AMD systems in their lineup. This has been an effort, in the past, to light a fire under Intel on their CPU prices. I predicted in 2006 that DELL would be selling AMD systems under the DELL name, very soon!

Another prediction is that the general public will come to realize that the speed, (Gigahertz, GHz), marked on a CPU is becoming less and less of a factor It's the design and technology of the CPU and the real performance that counts. Even Google has switched to AMD for their servers. The days of purchasing systems based on the GHz of the CPU are over.

Here is yet another article from Cnet that was originally titled AMD trounces Intel and here is another item from Cnet. If all this didn't convince you, I have many more examples.

This is a link to a graph for an Anti Virus scan test result using Intel and AMD CPUs, Note that the shorter bars are better since the graph is measuring minutes.

Side note from the hardware page

A reseller I worked with over several years determined they could save support and hardware costs by installing computers for the sales people that used only remote resources. The workstations cost less and they were easier to maintain but within weeks almost half the sales force left because they couldn't get their work done efficiently. If the sales people couldn't get the work done, they weren't making money and neither was the company. 4 months later the reseller replaced all those workstations with REAL computers. (go back to the hardware section)

Side note from our performance page

Wordperfect had problems with functions and standards that were different from everyone else in the industry and it made it difficult to learn if you were accustomed to another program. As an example, Wordperfect, in those days, used the F-3 function key for help when every other program used the F-1 function key for help. That's only a small example but the program wasn't particularly easy to use. The Wordperfect Corporation, as it was known then, had two things going for it. Their support was the best in the business and they had the legal word processing market tied up by providing templates that worked well for attorneys. I was a little frustrated at the resistance to change but if the customer was happy then everything was OK. I remember having lunch with the IT director for one of the large law firms in Atlanta and asked him why people were so stuck on Wordperfect. (He agreed with me that it was a very difficult program to learn and use). I finally got an answer. He said that the entire problem was that the people using Wordperfect had spent so much time learning it, and in some cases mastering it, that they were frightened at the prospect of having to learn something different. They thought all software was that difficult. That was a great answer, I wished I had thought of it. Of course most software does not need to be difficult or complicated to be effective. A rule of thumb is that 90% of Microsoft Office users only use 10% of the software's capability. It be nice to have software available that was only that 10% you actually used? It sure would make it run better!

Unfortunately that's not the way things work. Most software companies are in a feature race to see who can provide the largest number. The computer press has created this problem by using charts to list all the features and giving the software that didn't have some a lower score even if only 5% of the people used those features. Sometimes simple is better, and, faster. (back)

Side note from the AMD vs. Intel page
We were providing support for the Atlanta office of a foreign bank was using IBM Microchannel computers. They hated those systems for the cost of support and maintenance as much as anything else. When it came time to replace them, they went from the frying pan into the fire by purchasing IBM again. They were no more happy with the replacement systems than they had been with the original ones.

A special note about most major manufactures systems with emphasis on Dell, (since they seem to be the most well known and widely used systems).

We frequently hear people rave about their Dell systems, (but we hear far more complaints than compliments). Many people think they're fantastic but the truth is that many of those systems are merely adequate and some are far less than adequate in any number of ways, particularly the systems most small to medium businesses purchase..

We service customers who use Dell systems that we install and configure for them so we know those systems well. There was a time in the late 1980s when the Dell systems were hard to beat but for the most part they have long since been operating on reputation and great marketing. Former Dell users who have switched to our systems would never go back. The more informed you are regarding the ins and outs of computer value and performance the less likely you are to use a Dell system. There are several companies who made the decision to switch when they saw first hand the huge difference in performance between a new Dell and a new system, with a similar configuration, that we assembled. Even more important is that for a true business class system with similar performance our systems tend to be far less expensive. (back to the AMD-Intel page)


© 2002-2016 PC MAX All Rights Reserved