School Proposal paper - Dell and AMD? Need suggestions

[Jeff]

I am writing a proposal for my technical writing class. I chose to write a proposal to Dell asking them to consider adding AMD processors to their product line.

In this paper, I am pretending that I am working there and trying to suggest to the big guys to add AMD.

If you were working for Dell and were writing a proposal to your boss, what would you say?

I don't want to be too technical.

Any suggestions?

[NeoGen]

- AMD's are much cheaper than Intel's for the same performance levels. That means immediate savings for the company.
- AMD have 64 bit processors, tried and tested, for all market ranges, and the next generation of software is right around the corner and will be based on 64 bit computing. (Just let the final version of Windows XP/2003 64bit roll out and I bet 64 bit windows software will start popping up everywhere)
- AMD's 64 bit processors are backwards compatible with 32 bit software, so using AMD's processors even now without 64 bit software yet is perfectly OK, and it's even a cost saving for the future as when 64 bit software rolls out one doesn't need to upgrade motherboards and processors to take advantage of it.


Summing up... AMD IS BETTER! PERIOD! :P :lol:

[NeoGen]

And I found a nice article for you to read from Tom's Hardware Guide entitled "Confusing the Market Place"

Here's a funny (but unfortunately true) excerpt from it:

"When you offer your manager a choice between a computer whose heart is an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ and one whose heart is an Intel Pentium 4, the standard choice will be between a product he does not recognize and one that will do the job just as well but whose name he does recognize from the ads during the Super Bowl. Guess which one he will choose. If you set up a demonstration and test the two boxes against each other with the same equipment, running the same software mix and then offer your manager a cost/price comparison for the pair, he may (if he truly cares about the corporate bottom line) opt for the AMD boxes. If you show him that you can purchase two dual processor workstations with all their software (using AMD Opteron Processors) for effectively less than the price of one Intel XEON workstation with its accompanying software, you might even make a bigger point. But, you cannot mention AMD versus Intel at any point or you will lose the contest. This is NOT real logic but the result of a long running (and terribly successful as propaganda) advertising campaign."



Full article here:
http://www20.tomshardware.com/column/200402201/index.html

[vaughan]

AMDs rule in gaming. Get the Dell management to design a pure gaming rig for enthusiasts - top of the line everything. Like the Fatality series from Abit or whatever it was called.

[AMDave]

From a marketing point of view, having the ability to attract consumers in other areas of the market with the sales of a secondary product line where the primary product does not reach is a positive capability. It ensures a greater market coverage against competing sales from other companies. Ignoring this expanding sector may be opening the door to a loss of market share down the track.

From a commercial security aspect, diversification of the main product line is also attractive. There is an inherent risk involved in marketing a product built on the components from only one supplier. It allows that supplier to dictate their supply charges. A secondary (or more) supplier allows for competitive supply contract negotiation, thereby facilitating aggressive cost reduction and ensuring a maximum profit capability.

Further, there is the risk of supply chain dependency...having a single supplier introduces the risk of total dependency on that supplier's ability to maintain their supply chain. Should there be any breakdown in the supply of components, sales may be directly impacted. This often results in loss of faith by the consumer in the company's capability. Loss of market share due to this kind of negative consumer experience is avaoidable, but extremely difficult to recover from. Having multiple suppliers on the book, increases sales capability and minimizes supply chain risks.

From the investment aspect, the shareholder looks for long term stability in a company, to know that they will continue to be there in the market down the track, where they have invested their trust, continuing to provide a return. The real question to ask is: Would your shareholder market invest in a company that did not do these things, or even take them into consideration ???? I know that I wouldn't.

...just some common sense things when all is considered really.

[Empty_5oul]

corrrect my if i am wrong but i also remember reading after AMD made the 64 and it was adopted as the standard by microsoft etc, Intel then copied the AMD design rather that use there own so they would also be compatible with future 64 products.

[NeoGen]

Yea, I remember reading that too. Intel adopted AMD's 64 bit extensions because their own 64 bit approach was not having much success. And even Microsoft was starting to cut back on the support for the Itanium.

[AMDave]

Yes. But I recall from press that Intel modelled on one of AMD's early 64 editions and missed out on 2 of the core machine instructions in the 64 bit instruction set which are present in all current AMD-64s.

I don't recall seeing any press after that to say how Intel addressed that problem. Any press release like that would have been bad anyway - like "We made promises we couldn't keep. We copied someone else's answers. And we still got it wrong!"Their shareholders wouldn't have liked that at all.

I think that may have had something to do with Microsoft readjusting their support statements on the Itanium. I expect that Microsoft did what they had to do because Intel failed to deliver. The Intel 64 instruction set was incomplete.

No doubt they will have fixed that problem by now, but it was one of many errors made in many projects that were rushed through at the time and it set the tone. AMD seemed to have the edge and Intel were playing a messy game of catch up.

This time, in the dual-core "race", Intel have rushed again to set a delivery date for their product.

The thing is now, I don't care if AMD take another 3 to 6 months, because I have confidence that when their product hits the shelf, it will be complete, it will meet the sales pitch, it will work and it will be fast.

Intel may have a good branding machine at work, but their product delivery has been shaky. In big business, time is money and AMD gets work done faster, thats why they are getting more of the server market. When the dual cores come out I am tipping that AMD will play an Ace-high that will demonstrate supremacy and deliver cost reduction to the desktop.

I am referring of course to the CPU speed research done by IBM and AMD last year. IBM and their manufacturing & sales partners have delivered the Cell chip. AMD have been holding on. I am anticipating that the new speed technology will come out with the dual core platform.

That would be an Ace-high.
The pot will move.

I'm not sure that helps your paper, but it's my daydream :D

[Empty_5oul]

amd also has all these official partners ( http://multicore.amd.com/AboutAMD/Partners/ ) so it is a major player. In the past it has lost out as it could not win in a price war as intel sold loads more. However as it cuts this back to a more equal share of the market it can fight more effectivley and afford to reduce individual profit per processor more and more.

[Lagu]

Hi all AMD lovers

What have Dell for reasons for to stop sell AMD processors? We are running for the peoples and the scientific and are a very important group who not use our computers to run idle as millions of peoples do. I think we should E-mail Dell and tell what we use our computers for, and tell them what they is doing ant say they would fail to support peoples as for the near future will be sick in Cancer, Alzheimer, Ebola and Smallpox. We can ask them if the Dell’s managers should have a good conscience if peoples died because they as want a Dell AMD not could buy one from them. Also tell them that AMD is much faster to rum several projects than Intel.
And the most important: we as have a Dell now, we will not buy another computers from Dell in the future. If they as have an AMD Dell say they is very pleased with their product for example. But I think the most effective must be to take contact with a large newspaper and tell them our story and let them know what we is doing and that we not accept Dells plans.
Will Dell have bad goodwill? I don’t think so. Then tell them Intel has failed to make a product that is as good AMD’s 64 bits architecture.

Lagu :twisted:

[SlackPawn]

Another thing to possibly mention is Intel's *FAKE* clock speeds. For example, my Dell P4 desktop at work, running at 2.8 Ghz, has identical performance to my AMD 1800+ homebuilt things at home. My theory is that Intel multiplies the clock at some point and then divides it down again before it reaches the actual core.

Overall, be sure the paper is customer-and-sales oriented.

[vaughan]

Another article worth reading.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1323744915;fp;16;fpid;0