Ratman6161
Senior member
- Mar 21, 2008
- 616
- 75
- 91
Here are the real reasons.
1. For Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. using AMD CPU's in addition to Intel = that many more SKU's. Even if AMD were a little cheaper, its better for them to standardize on just a few CPU's. the motherboards the put in an i3, i5 and i7 will probably all be the same. They arent for enthusiasts so there doesn't need to be any OC capability, no K chips, not fancy power provisions since they just need to meet the spec for the un-overclocked cpus they are using and power supply with only enough juice for what they have installed. At one time at the office I had a new at the time Dell Optiplex 960 with a Core 2 Quad 6600. Looking inside it, it was really a very plain jane system. But it got the job done and lasted a long time...just don't expect anything out of it as far as going byond the way it came out of the box. Adding AMD to the mix means more different MB's to stock, etc, etc.
2. Name recognition. Consumers and even IT people too lazy to do their homework have come to understand "Intel inside" and that i5 is better than i3 and i7 is better than both. Bigger number = better...even when its not true. Particularly in the mobile world. A while back i had a group in the company that wanted to by 40 high end thin and light laptops. They insisted that "we need the best! so we need i7's". Of course they had no idea that the difference between an i5 and i7 is next to nothing when you are talking the "U" SKU's in the thin and light category. They thought they would be getting quad cores and I had to explain that no, for that you need an "HQ" but 7 is a bigger number right? So it has to be better! For everything! regardless of what I'm doing with it!. Actually they are doing almost exclusively web apps where it makes little to no difference. But marketing is everything and if you are Dell you like the simple 3, 5 and 7 branding.
3. continuing with branding...AMD does the same. R5 Vs. R7. 7 has got to be better than 5 right? and if you put an X on it it must be FAST i.e. 1600 vs 1600x, 1700 vs 1700x. But if I'm at Best Buy and see to desktops and one is an R5 and one is an i5, how do I choose (not me obviously but the average consumer who has no idea). More brand confusion. I would predict most consumers would go with the box that says "Intel inside" because the recognize Intel where AMD feels like an unknown.
For all of these reasons, AMD has got to somehow make a splash with first enthusiasts and then with company IT (of course people like me who are both) before word gets out and OEMs feel comfortable enough to give it a try.
But here is the unfortunate part. In the past OEM's always tended to use AMD CPU's in their el-cheapo product lines. Because they were in the el-cheapo lines, even half way decent CPU's were often paired with bottom of the barrel parts for the other components. So that otherwise half way decent CPU and AMD in general got a bad rap for being the bargain basement crapola CPU...even if it was really OK. After that mess, it will be even harder for AMD to win back the IT crowd. Also for IT, going with AMD seems like an unknown and therefore a risk. I've heard quite a number of IT people makes statements like "no one ever got fired for buying Intel". They must have never tried an Atom
1. For Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. using AMD CPU's in addition to Intel = that many more SKU's. Even if AMD were a little cheaper, its better for them to standardize on just a few CPU's. the motherboards the put in an i3, i5 and i7 will probably all be the same. They arent for enthusiasts so there doesn't need to be any OC capability, no K chips, not fancy power provisions since they just need to meet the spec for the un-overclocked cpus they are using and power supply with only enough juice for what they have installed. At one time at the office I had a new at the time Dell Optiplex 960 with a Core 2 Quad 6600. Looking inside it, it was really a very plain jane system. But it got the job done and lasted a long time...just don't expect anything out of it as far as going byond the way it came out of the box. Adding AMD to the mix means more different MB's to stock, etc, etc.
2. Name recognition. Consumers and even IT people too lazy to do their homework have come to understand "Intel inside" and that i5 is better than i3 and i7 is better than both. Bigger number = better...even when its not true. Particularly in the mobile world. A while back i had a group in the company that wanted to by 40 high end thin and light laptops. They insisted that "we need the best! so we need i7's". Of course they had no idea that the difference between an i5 and i7 is next to nothing when you are talking the "U" SKU's in the thin and light category. They thought they would be getting quad cores and I had to explain that no, for that you need an "HQ" but 7 is a bigger number right? So it has to be better! For everything! regardless of what I'm doing with it!. Actually they are doing almost exclusively web apps where it makes little to no difference. But marketing is everything and if you are Dell you like the simple 3, 5 and 7 branding.
3. continuing with branding...AMD does the same. R5 Vs. R7. 7 has got to be better than 5 right? and if you put an X on it it must be FAST i.e. 1600 vs 1600x, 1700 vs 1700x. But if I'm at Best Buy and see to desktops and one is an R5 and one is an i5, how do I choose (not me obviously but the average consumer who has no idea). More brand confusion. I would predict most consumers would go with the box that says "Intel inside" because the recognize Intel where AMD feels like an unknown.
For all of these reasons, AMD has got to somehow make a splash with first enthusiasts and then with company IT (of course people like me who are both) before word gets out and OEMs feel comfortable enough to give it a try.
But here is the unfortunate part. In the past OEM's always tended to use AMD CPU's in their el-cheapo product lines. Because they were in the el-cheapo lines, even half way decent CPU's were often paired with bottom of the barrel parts for the other components. So that otherwise half way decent CPU and AMD in general got a bad rap for being the bargain basement crapola CPU...even if it was really OK. After that mess, it will be even harder for AMD to win back the IT crowd. Also for IT, going with AMD seems like an unknown and therefore a risk. I've heard quite a number of IT people makes statements like "no one ever got fired for buying Intel". They must have never tried an Atom