• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Which brand CPUs does your company/employer work with?

FoxEye said:
Also believe it or not, AMD still has the kind of reputation among people here that Cyrix (etc) has. That they are a knock-off Intel clone. That they aren't a serious choice for the enterprise.

In fact mention AMD around these parts and you will be laughed at, by the people who've been here 20+ years. Laughed at as if you'd suggested we build our servers out of LEGO.

I've long since given up that fight, because the more I suggested AMD the more I looked like an idiot to the people above me. And those people aren't ready to consider anything but Intel. Not now, probably not ever.
Click to expand...

jigger said:
Sounds like a company stuck in hole that needs a reorganisation.
Click to expand...

Professionals who do not have sufficient knowledge of the industry trends, what's hot and what's not, the industry innovations and breakthroughs, and the basic characteristics of the products they are using.

I prefer to hurt somehow myself than to use something inferior when I know that I am using something significantly inferior.
 
EsaT said:
Wouldn't be any surprise if Intel is again pribing Dell.
That's what Intel did 20 years ago, but no CEOs etc were punished from breaking the laws.
Click to expand...

And last I read, Intel STILL haven't paid the paltry (in terms of the massive bribes they paid out) fine they were handed out, to AMD.

Apparently their lawyers will be be able to string the process out ad infinitum.
 
Recently had a call with our vendor of choice (whom we are locked into with a long-term contract). Their CEO rhymes with Cycle Bell.

They advised us that AMD were inferior to Intel, both in performance and in power efficiency. That you'll get longer battery life with Intel *and* superior performance. Between 40% and 75% better performance, in fact, with Intel.

So it's a good job they won't offer us AMD systems, eh? Firmly wedded to Intel, and properly giving us the Intel sales pitch. We already knew they were an Intel shop, of course. We can't get AMD systems even if we wanted them. Which we don't, because we're also an Intel shop. None of that is up to me; I don't make the decisions :p
 
FoxEye said:
Recently had a call with our vendor of choice (whom we are locked into with a long-term contract). Their CEO rhymes with Cycle Bell.

They advised us that AMD were inferior to Intel, both in performance and in power efficiency. That you'll get longer battery life with Intel *and* superior performance. Between 40% and 75% better performance, in fact, with Intel.

So it's a good job they won't offer us AMD systems, eh? Firmly wedded to Intel, and properly giving us the Intel sales pitch. We already knew they were an Intel shop, of course. We can't get AMD systems even if we wanted them. Which we don't, because we're also an Intel shop. None of that is up to me; I don't make the decisions :p
Click to expand...

Your vendor of choice :p What company do you work for? We are considering a lab in Cornwall, I’ll make sure our purchasing guys give them a wide birth :)
 
Have joined a new company since my last post, not sure what they have for servers but it's Dell Intel laptops for users.

OspreyO said:
In a few decades of working in IT there's been very few times I've been able to solve a problem with faster hardware. Usually it's software charge that prompts a change in hardware, or a failure. I have had projects that faster hardware was important. But very rarely.
Click to expand...
I've had problems in the past that have been solved with faster hardware, historically this was often not practical (due to the difficulties in deploying hardware) but more recently with cloud computing it's a lot simpler to scale compute and hence it's easier to prove if faster hardware will resolve a problem. In the past it was like well this job is hanging/bombing out but it will take weeks or months to change the hardware so we have no option but to find a workaround of some sort.

A long while ago I worked in a medium sized company that seemingly had no real strategy for hardware, we had to run critical jobs on some shockingly bad machines that were frequently maxing out CPU and memory. I remember we had 4 machines in a row of different spec, running Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows98 and I can't remember what the 4th one was but it was some naff machine with an Access database.
 
No change here.
We won't be allowed to have our own choice of hardware based on a determined budget for an employee.

That would be the best - everyone is free to buy their own hardware, with discounts from the company budget.
 
Intel.

When all the systems was replaced last year they wouldn't even consider anything else the same with they wont go with other companies other then Dell or HP.

Companies throw away and make such poor choices with computer systems.

The other thing that annoys me is I asked to keep my system to take home it was ivy bridge one nothing special they refused yet they will pay a company who claims to dispose of them and all they do is sell them.
 
7 companies I have worked for since the early 90s, they have all used Intel, inc NHS, local college and council/housing association. Training provider I've been with last few weeks, the laptops are all AMD.
 
Intel, I expect it’s because Intel pretty much own the mid-range still and offer better value and the volumes required at a price which is acceptable.
 
AMD's CPUs and APUs are miles, miles ahead in all of the important and key performance metrics - lower power consumption, higher performance per watt, higher absolute performance.
And in all market segments - Intel for sure doesn't own the mid-range. Quite the opposite.
 
Performance is only one consideration, cost also matters, as does the ability to buy them from a system builder in the required volume, support network/contract etc. I didn’t imply that was due to performance.

PS. This isn’t an AMD vs Intel thread, it’s a what do you use at work, something I don’t actually have a choice in the matter of.
 
4K8KW10 said:
What you are forced to use at work*. Against your will.
Click to expand...

I'm not forced to do anything against my will. I recommended ThinkPads due to them meeting all requirements and having excellent build quality and service and support. The price was good. We got ThinkPads. I'm happy. 99% of the users are happy. The other 1% are trialling Surfaces. :cry:
 
MagicBoy said:
I'm not forced to do anything against my will. I recommended ThinkPads due to them meeting all requirements and having excellent build quality and service and support. The price was good. We got ThinkPads. I'm happy. 99% of the users are happy. The other 1% are trialling Surfaces. :cry:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but why exactly do you need "build quality" for a stationary office machine that doesn't move or if does rarely?! :confused:

I prefer the performance of Ryzen that is much much higher.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Sorry, but why exactly do you need "build quality" for a stationary office machine that doesn't move or if does rarely?! :confused:

I prefer the performance of Ryzen that is much much higher.
Click to expand...

Given your posting history I'm not taking it off topic in here. Open a new one if you're really that interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom