What is Digg?94 Comments
- Oline61, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28This is very interesting, but $563M is nothing compared to the everyday waste spending of our government though.
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18
I don't think I'd call $563 million nothing. AMD produces great products however as the saying goes 'you can have the best product in the world, but if no one knows about it...' - keeleysam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15AMD is an American company.
Just like Intel, they build their processors overseas, but the profits stay here. - walshav, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16There are other costs associated with using multiple processors on a platform. Ghosting machines or even updating or patching them can be a serious issue when you have a baseline with several different processor types. I like AMD and Intel as brands, but when it comes to the Government, sometimes it makes sense to stick to one standard, even if it is more expensive to procure. The big question here is also support and availability. Until recently, a compaq/hp server wasn't even available in AMD and we all know that Dell is playing AMD, so who can provide the government with AMD in quantities it needs? Think about the second and third order effects of this decision.
- zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I know AMD has been cheaper than Intel for a while but really.. an AMD study that says that AMD was better than Intel. Really did anyone expect them to find and announce that Intel was cheaper than AMD? This is no more shocking than Microsoft annoucing that Windows is cheaper than Linux in the long run.
- xeigen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Lol, gamers... Pentium D.... i dont think so. Have you seen the benchmarks for those things, they absolutely suck, even overclocked. And if you want one that can perform at all you have to pay ***** loads for it, when you could get an AMD X2 that performs better for less money.
ALSO the AMD X2 is well known for its overclocking capabilities and it has been known for a $300 X2 3800 to be easily clocked at 4800 with air cooling.
And as for AMDs "shipped overclocked", what are you talking about. No retail chip is shipped "overclocked" because they are shipped at the manufacturers recommended clock speed. As i understand it they test a chip to see what clock speed it can acheive and that determines some aspects of what model of processor it becomes.
If you think thats "overclocking" then Intel is very guilty of it, i mean look at the intel EE (emergency edition), its just purely a higher clocked p4. - indyjones16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9$563m? that's a box of hammers or toilet seats...
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I suspect the major reasoning is that they buy a lot of hardware from Dell and IBM, both of which do not sell AMD hardware (yes, I'm aware that Dell sells some AMD hardware to certain customers).
But I don't think everyone agrees that AMD hardware is superior on the server side. In fact, I think most people would disagree. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8> $563M is nothing compared to the everyday waste
$563 million here, $563 million there and pretty soon... you have a sound bite and maybe even a press release.
> 'you can have the best product in the world, but if no one knows about it...'
...because they're too busy shopping at Dell's on-line federal store.
Besides, everyone knows AMD is for gamers (and servers). - zapatar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Imagine how much they'll save by switching to GEICO.
- alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm sure the US governemnt could have done alot of things to save money.
- michaeltime, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23Obviously comparing apples to oranges but the cost /waste of the Iraq war is set to reach $315 billion in a few months.... http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7They go with the lowest bidder who meets the barest minimum of the projects specifications.
- eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Stupid article. Seriously people.
The government doesn't buy Intel, they buy computers which happen to have Intel chips, such as Dell.
It's like saying the government could save money by buying Maxtor drives over Seagate drives.
Picking and choosing components is not cost effective at high volumne. - Menel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You mean like buying Intel (US based company) who builds their processors in Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon vs. AMD processors built in Germany. I totally agree, support the USA!!
Though really, both companies have local and foreign manufacturing facilities. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As a government employee I can tell you that no matter WHAT company/vendor you award a contract to, the other will bitch to the press about being cheaper. That's just how the game is played.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But... AMD is used by hackers!
"If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well." -found here: http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
How to tell if your son is a computer hacker X-) - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Assuming the AMD chip is equal...
- JBracy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6From the AMD press release:
"This anticompetitive procurement language increases prices and reduces quantities, product variety, and quality."
I think that the whole point of the government using Intel Specific processors is exactly to REDUCE PRODUCT VARIETY! I work in IT for a gov't agency, and find it very helpful that we have a similar spec machine across the board, because it means that if a component fails on one machine, we can swap it from another and not need to worry about incompatibility, driver issues, etc...
And of coarse AMD is going to say that the gov't would have saved money by using their processors! How is this news? AMD commissions a study and surprise the results are exactly what they wanted! I can guarantee that if Intel had commissioned the study it would have found that Intel was the right choice!
On a related note there have been several studies that show that the gov't would have saved money by using Macs. (http://www.usfca.edu/web/~trembath/smon/tco.html) - thesauce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@reiab: you should educate yourself. my a64 3000+ is running at 2.6 ghz right now at 34C idle on stock cooler.
yep. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Except Intel's Xeon processors are fab'd in Japan, Malaysia, and India.
My guess would be talking about IBM, which is now a brand name owned by Lenovo, a Chinese company. Beyond that, most motherboards are made overseas, as are hard drives, memory, and the majority of other components. Most PCs are assembled in Mexico, Taiwan, or China, and then shipped here.
The governmnet's money goes to the company, which in turn pays employees which may or may not be US citizens, pays for materials. You can't ever try to draw a line about where the money goes, since money is "respent" at each level, and goes everywhere. - st00p1d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Instead of linking to a news site's link to a company press release, how about linking to the actual European Commission study, so we can decide if this argument acutally holds weight.
- Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ michaeltime
The Pentagon does not budget for wars. - turbofart, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Even if amd is in some tasks faster than Intel, there are still Intel's chipsets that outperform every other chipset on market, and since Intel does not produce chipsets for amd processors, the choice is simple - i choose Intel, because I can afford the better.
- tmcleroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4not surprised, intel likes to jack up the prices. and the gov't likes to ***** us over
- mirzmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am an AMD supporter. I have been since the very first Athlon. But this news story rubs me the wrong way... it sounds like very inflated figures coming from AMD.
There are a lot of factors to take into consideration and I wonder whether AMD did just that. For instance, over how long a period would that $563M savings apply? Are they comparing purchase decisions from 1995 or from 2005 (which is relevant because in 1995 AMD had an arguably inferior product).
So what exactly were AMD's criteria in coming up with this figure? As it stands, I would agree that some savings could have been made by buying AMD over Intel, but the figure provided by AMD needs some context. - pacificdave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yep, our government never changes. they bought $1000 hammers 20 years ago and in 2006 they're stilling buying $1000 hammers from the same manufacture... even though the hammer has always broke after the 5th use. i used to work for SPAWAR and let me tell ya... the official making the final buy decision never has a clue on what he/she is purchasing. most of the time they never know or understand what the items are for.
- maisis00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think your right... I like the centrino processor and I am not for sure AMD has anything in that market that can compete.
However, the opteron is the BAD BOY dual core 64 bit processors and it beats Intel's similar offering hands down.
I think you need to compare like minded products before you can say who is better in what category. There are area's where each company has a good technological advantage over the other. However, IMHO... neither are successfully enough to claim 100% technology superiority over the other with relation to processor technology as a whole. - squison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Variety is key? Variety in a large environment is bad for the exact things you say are good about it. If you have 50 different types of servers, you'll be keeping up with 50 different types of problems and talking to 50 different vendors trying to get those problems fixed. Besides, if you're having problems one platform, ever think about actually fixing the issue instead of just replacing hardware till it works?
Standardization on a quality vendor is key. Variety belongs in the lab. - ToadX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Finally I hear others saying we need to support American computer-related companies. However, I think we need to go further and support other American companies such as Microsoft, which many people here seem to hate for some reason. If it weren't for companies like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel, the US wouldn't be as dominant in computing related fields as it is today.
I'm sure many of the people reading this are in computing related fields. I'm also sure some of you are worried about a lot of technology related jobs moving to other countries. We all need to support American computer-related companies (unless you're reading this in India). If we don't, America could be losing a lot of technology jobs pretty soon. - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I always thought by law the government had to take the lowest bidder.
- IcedZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not sure, but that may be, as they are spending OUR money.
- mbleigh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Interesting, so I guess that means that you're whining about whining about whining.
- dontbejack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's by law in most states, I don't know if it is on the federal level.
- betasp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...but if the bid specifies Intel chips, then they buy the cheapest supplier.
- technique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow, a quote from 09/10/2001. You sure don't see a lot of those.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Can people shut up with bullsh*t calling everything whining . "whine this,whine that, I have a stick up my ass and I'm whining about whining"
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"They print money everyday."
... and? If they run out of money they can't just spin off an extra billion. Your dollar notes are just vouchers for a share in the capital currently running around your country. If the government prints a trillion dollars of notes, it depresses the value of all the notes in existence. - spam4jan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah because the P4s runs so much cooler than AMD's chips. Have you not looked at any recent CPU review/comparison?
If you are talking mobile, than Intel has a slight lead, but desktop hell no. (at least until core duo desktop edition comes out) - nobodyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Woah, woah WOAH. This can't be right: AMD says that the US government is wasting money by purchasing Intel over AMD!?
Meanwhile, the Seafood Counsel recommends that everyone eat two servings of fish per day. Seriously, folks. This is not news. - Veretax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I understand the arguments about buying in bulk, let's consider one thing. What impact on the market place would it have if the US Government did indeed start buying mass quantities of AMD chips? Would it not spur investment in AMD and help AMD grow their capital and overcome some of their inventory issues? Yeah Intel would get smacked pretty good by this, but maybe it would spur Intel to innovate and get back on top by being superior products, not superior in underhanded dealings.
- geekworking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not anymore. About 6 years ago, the government changed to *best value*. This is left up to the purchasing agent (usually directed by the end user) to determine what they consider the best value even if it is not the lowest price.
Even when they have to use competitive bidding, it is usually always fixed by the specs. The end user can say that their project requires *Centrino* and they will take bids from all companies that can supply *Centrino* technology. This blocks out AMD from even bidding even if their mobile solution is better or cheaper. - trizero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Has anyone thought for a moment about economies of scale. Just like Sam's club, buying bulk is better. While the cost of 1 AMD processor is less than 1 Intel processor, what about 10 millon of them? Intel could be passing high costs directly to the consumer, thus making the single chip cost more to the individual, but could have a seriously low cost to those that they supply chips to in bulk.
- ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digged this story for that comment alone. :P
- tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2$563 million? That's like two tanks of gas !
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As was said....that isn't all that much to begin with. On top of that, it's not even that believable. I don't like how AMD and many AMD fans try to blur the price gab, as in reality, it's just not that much of a difference. This falls under the same lines as AMD's marketing that I dislike.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let me be devil's advocate and surmise that (perhaps) Sam needed more chips than AMD had the capacity to deliver?
Intel and AMD both make SUPERB chips. No point in arguing that. But there is a WORLD of difference in the manufacturing capacity of the two. - eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not true. Otherwise the bigger companies with higher rates would never get any work.
- IcedZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Some analysts say that if AMD was more competitive, " - What?! They are kidding, right? How is having a superior product at a better price NOT competitive?!
- betasp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except people who say Intel is better really do have arguements backed by fact...
Take the time to really look at the benchmarks for productivity and server applications from a cost/speed ratio sometime. -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is