Dell and Apple can be so stupid at times.

They both wait for years to make the move to a different CPU vendor, and in the mean time AMD was crushing Intel and Motorola/IBM in performance on the desktop.

Apple finally made the move, but one has two wonder how many more machines Apple would have sold if they were powered with the Original Athlon 64 and later the X2s.

Dell switches to AMD just as Intel makes a come back.
They announce AMD sales on August 18, 2006.
I see the TR Conroe review was posted on July 14, 2006.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/10351

Dell should have learned from their past and Apples past about relying on a single source for CPUs.

They need to stick with AMD, if for no other reasons then to keep low priced offerings and to keep Intel honest.

Dell is stupid. They make mass produced computers for the masses. They don't follow trends in performance, since it doesn't matter that much to them. It's all about profits, short/mid/long-term contracts, etc. It has nothing to do with processor performance. Intel has its hooks in almost everyone (just like Microsoft) and the only way to upset it is massive domination dollar for dollar.

Consider "Alienware" Dell's "experimental" venue, where they will continue to sell "bang for buck" AMD processors as necessary when they can get them in bulk with the motherboards to satisfy certain requirements.

It appears theories abound on this Dell move.

One thing is for sure, AMD's asp is precisely 1/2 that of Intels. Since the end units sell for similar prices, Dell makes more off the AMD powered box, same as HP, Acer, etc, explaining AMD's continued marketshare gains despite the superior C2D product from Intel.

One theory promoted on other boards is that with the choice of AMD in the configurator, Dell was actually selling too many AMD units. Cutting AMD out of the configurator probably pacifies Intel while Dell still sells the heck out of AMD boxes at Walmart and Bestbuy.

An interesting side note: Intel lost the Dell exclusive about the same time they gained Apple. Despite the volume Apple represents, Intels marketshare is actually down, except in mobile where they picked up less than 1% gain. Meaning Intel is losing a lot of share in the traditional "non-apple" x86 market.

Plus

While I agree with most of your post SGT Lindy, how is supporting an Intel Processor CPU any different than a System with a AMD cpu? The only difference it the processor all the other internals are interchangeable. And since both processor are X86 cpu's I don't see a difference.

I think you both missed my point, yes you can't swap boards and the sockets are different but were not talking PC vs MAC here. So support issues will be similiar between the two.

There will not be huge differences here, they are minute both systems will be running the Same OS and have compatible hardware.

Reports of AMD's demise on dell.com prove premature

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080208-reports-of-amds-demis...


...
According to studies seen by our source, consumers really don't pay much attention to the CPU inside the box when shopping in a big-box retailer. Instead, their purchase decisions are driven primarily by factors such as price and features, not the sticker on the case. As a result, Dell (and other OEMs) may be pushing AMD systems into retail in order to maximize profits on lower-cost systems. In contrast, online shoppers tend to be more brand conscious, which would account for Intel's offerings being more prominent on dell.com.
...


(emphasis mine)

The main reason DELL caved to AMD so late is that AMD had already filed the lawsuit against Intel and it gave a cover to DELL to move to AMD w/o losing face

This potential move might be a result of AMD's recent woes—both financial and technical—and its failure to snatch the performance crown back from Intel.

I doubt it. I think a more likely explanation is a AMD trying to renegotiate the sweetheart deal it originally gave Dell.