Dell stops selling AMD-powered machines online

Our tip jar, it overfloweth -- tons of you have written in to say that Dell's stopped selling AMD-powered machines in its online store. That means any of you looking for a Latitude D531, Vostro 1000 or OptiPlex 740 will have to truck it out to Best Buy, Staples, or Wal-Mart to get your low-end business fix. Of course, the overwhelming majority of Dell's business is done online, so cutting the AMD selection down to three cut-price models only available at big box stores sends a pretty clear message about Dell's processor selection in the future -- any bets on how long they last?

Update: As many of you have noticed, Dell's website is pretty inconsistent, showing the statement above but still offering a couple AMD machines for sale. We've got a call in, we'll hit you with info when we get this cleared up.

Update 2: Dell says that AMD-powered consumer machines are retail-only, but that business-grade machines will still be sold online. Still, it looks like this was pretty badly botched -- check out the full scoop on what Dell told us here.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[RyanTV @ Feb 7th 2008 8:10PM]

and the world doesn't give a crap...

[Evan @ Feb 7th 2008 8:30PM]

Speak for yourself dude.

This is a really big deal in terms of the arrival of a monopolistic processor market.

Fool.

[Kamokazi @ Feb 7th 2008 8:59PM]

Not to mention, if you really boil it down to price/performance comparisons, AMD dominates the low-mid market in a big way. Their 5200+ is probably the best CPU performance per dollar out right now. (This comes from somone with 3 Intel Core 2 machines).

[Dr. Evil @ Feb 7th 2008 9:48PM]

Geez, Dell really knows how to kick a guy when he's down.

[Zach @ Feb 7th 2008 10:06PM]

what's weird is that it seems like AMD is actually not even trying to keep itself out of the bottomless pit.

what the hell is wrong with them over there? i'm 15, and i could do a hell of a better job keeping them afloat then whoever that guy is.

they need to SERIOUSLY focus on whatever they got after the Phenom serious otherwise..

palm seems to be in a similar situation in terms of what the problem is. they can't seem to figure out who they want to sell to (and for AMD what they want to sell)

[RyanTV @ Feb 7th 2008 11:46PM]

the fact of the matter is that AMD has not been competing for a few years now. They need to get their company together and maybe try and do something... anything that remotely sounds like innovation.

[Tom Oliveri @ Feb 7th 2008 11:55PM]

yeah dude speak for your self i was about to buy one of those babys as a home server.

AMD have made some great processors in the past and i'm sure they will make great processors in the future.

[Bob @ Feb 8th 2008 12:17AM]

yeah , they will make some great proc.....
if they are alive

[RyanTV @ Feb 8th 2008 8:10AM]

@Tom Oliveri
So you were about to "buy one of those babys as a home server" based on the processors that AMD **USED** to make or **COULD** make in the future?!

I don't think I agree with your police work there 100%.

[John @ Feb 7th 2008 8:10PM]

AMD and HD-DVD are throwing a party. Anyone going? Nobody?

Oh, sorry ATI, didn't hear you. Yeah, I'm sure you'll have fun at the party, we just don't feel like going.

[Leroy Vargas @ Feb 7th 2008 10:08PM]

My AMD is paired with a Blu-ray. HD-DVD, get lost.

[Tom Oliveri @ Feb 7th 2008 11:57PM]

dude... really?

INTEL = IBM in the late 70's

[Jason Golden @ Feb 7th 2008 8:10PM]

"any bets on how long they last?"

Dell's offerings, or AMD?

[DarkLightConnection @ Feb 7th 2008 8:22PM]

I'd take an AMD over an Intel anyday.... my Turion X2 1.6GHz (TL-52) beats my friend's 1.7GHz Core 2 Duo (T5300) in the real-world benchmark (VectorLinux clean install, both with 1GB RAM)

So AMD I'm still with you (I've always been since I compared my first computer, a Pentium II with a cousin's AMD K6, both were bleeding edge at that time.. 1998 LOL), and _screw you_ Dell....

[Kamokazi @ Feb 7th 2008 9:04PM]

That's not really a fair comparison...a TK series Turion would be fair against a T5000 Core 2, and a T7000 series would be fair against your TL.

But like I mentioned above though with desktops, AMDs dominate the low-mid range in mobile price/performance too...the TK-XX Turions can be had for the same price as Celerons or crappy T2000 series Core Duo's, and are better performers.

[Abuzar @ Feb 7th 2008 9:22PM]

Ahhh, OR you could get a E4500 for 10 bucks more and overclock it to 3.2 Ghz ;)

I'm on a E6750 at 3.6 Ghz with the stock cooler. 35c core temps.

[DarkLightConnection @ Feb 7th 2008 11:48PM]

Yes, this is about price... maybe this doesn't matter much for Americans, but where I lie we have to get the most out of every single buck, and AMD is WAY better than Intel at it... because if we were to leave the wallet clean, we could get a Core 2 Quad and beat anything else.. (well, I don't know how Phenom is doing, but I've heard Intel is going really nice)

BTW, the E6750 can go beyond 4GHz.... not THAT is overclocking :-O

[Duke @ Feb 7th 2008 8:25PM]

Don't know about you guys but I can still buy AMD Business Class Vostro's. So they have not stopped offering AMD completely online.

[Inepsa @ Feb 7th 2008 8:40PM]

I have two dual core processors in different machines. I like my Intel far better than my AMD. Its just faster all around.

[Tom Oliveri @ Feb 7th 2008 11:58PM]

yes, the benchmarks dont lie AMD suck at the moment but remember athalon? when that came out they were trumping intel

[deandownsouth @ Feb 13th 2008 7:01AM]

Maybe in the desktop world, but I deal in the server market, specifically with virtualization and Intel simply can't compare. AMD, with its direct connect NUMA architecture and Pacifica virtualization extensions, we can get more VMs per processor core than on a similiarly equipped Intel system. And it translates into the desktop if you do virtualization there, which I do. My dual processor/dual core AMD HP workstation runs more VMs than my Dell Precision dual P4 system.

But to some of the posts, yes, it really matters little for the 75% to 80% of users.

[iofthestorm @ Feb 7th 2008 8:44PM]

Well, that was shortlived. I wonder how the CPU market would be had Dell and other big vendors sold computers with AMD CPUs back in the Athlon XP days, when they thoroughly thrashed P4s even at lower prices. No matter what your current CPU preference, you have to admit that Intel's unfair monopolistic practices definitely stifled innovation in the CPU industry.

[iofthestorm @ Feb 7th 2008 9:09PM]

Wait, what? Wrong article? How is this spam? You seem to prefer AMD, like me, so wtf?

[Abuzar @ Feb 7th 2008 9:25PM]

Man I loved AMD in the P4 days. They need to step it up, Intel seems to be competing against themselves these days.

[blah @ Feb 7th 2008 11:01PM]

how is intel's practices monopolistic? intel and amd are a duopoly and so game theory applies. amd just can't keep up with intel cause everyone thinks, true or not, that intel processors are superior to amd ones

[iofthestorm @ Feb 7th 2008 11:13PM]

Uh, you must not have heard about how Intel used to give huge rebates to companies like Dell for being Intel-exclusive, and bullied companies in other ways to keep them from selling AMD chips when they were better and cheaper. That's definitely monopolistic, and why AMD sued Intel a while back. Unfortunately, the case is too far in the future to really make a difference. The Japanese government even acknowledged that Intel was engaging in unfair practices, but the US government has not done anything. Google Intel antitrust case if you want more info.

[DarkLightConnection @ Feb 7th 2008 11:39PM]

NONO, you're not getting it, this response was not for iofthestorm, I agree with him...

Below this message, there was a big (really big) SPAM message, I replied to that... but then engadget deleted the SPAM message but not my reply to it, and the system moved it to this comment

[iofthestorm @ Feb 7th 2008 11:44PM]

Oh lol, engadget's comment system is total fail. So that's why the comments are out of order.

[deandownsouth @ Feb 13th 2008 7:14AM]

iofthestorm,

Intel is not a monopoly. Dell did not have to make the deals. HP and IBM didn't. And it didn't stifle innovation. AMD's CPUs and chipsets are superior. Also look at 64bit, if AMD hadn't extended the x86 Intel never would have, in fact Intel didn't even want to until AMD did and started selling. Perfect example of free market where the customer benefits.

[SDRovn @ Feb 7th 2008 9:18PM]

The Dell Business and Premier stores still have Optiplex 740 available.

[Chris @ Feb 7th 2008 9:24PM]

I hope this doesn't do a big blow to AMD, they've already had some pretty tough times lately and we all know what will happen when there is no competition. (VIA doesn't count)

[Anthony @ Feb 7th 2008 10:39PM]

I hate the thought of one major chip maker for PCs. Also, I ordered a Dell 531 & it finally arrived last week.

AMD were the only Dell PCs listed as Energy Star compliant. In fact, they still are:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/energystar?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

AMD is the only processor I see listed.

[Tired_ @ Feb 7th 2008 9:26PM]

Dell was an all-Intel house forever...this just means their minor flirtation with AMD is now over.

[shiba @ Feb 7th 2008 9:26PM]

Wow how awesome. I really wanted to get a laptop for college, and I was considering a Dell, and I was going to get an AMD. Why you ask? Because it seems like theres a price premium for no real reason for anything with a Core 2 in it. Even if its a faster processor thats not a Core 2. But what else is new, absurd unjustified price premiums in the pre-built PC world. I really just wanted a cheap yet usable (If I wanted an eePC or whatever I'd dig out my 5+ year old laptop and start using that again) laptop with long battery life if possible, because I can do serious computing on my home PC. I guess I'll go with Asus or something.

BTW don't get me wrong, If your buying a PC/Building a PC/Getting a laptop and money is no object, Insist on Core 2, awesome chips :D I have a Q6600 in my Desktop. This price premium doesn't seem to exist so much on desktop versions. (I know the mobile chips cost more, but not THAT more, hundreds of dollars in price difference my ass)

[Richard Bailey @ Feb 7th 2008 9:36PM]

I like AMD and that's my prerogative. Before Dell started selling AMD systems I didn't even consider them. When they started I advised the small businesses I was supporting to buy Dells and got them AMD Dells. If they cut out AMD again I'll just move my business to HP.

Why? Because as I said before I like AMD and that's my prerogative.

[Dustin Frazier @ Feb 7th 2008 9:41PM]

Bobby Brown likes AMD I guess.

[MosquitoControl @ Feb 8th 2008 10:46AM]

Weird.

Is AMD your godfather? Did it save your dog?



I buy the best product in the price range I am looking. That's my prerogative. It strikes me as odd that anyone would do anything else.

I guess AMD marketing has managed to hook at least one guy, though...

[Chowdder @ Feb 7th 2008 9:40PM]

Just remember, AMD isn't dead. Dell amongst others are going to put ATI GPU in their future notebook lines. Still I wish AMD could produce more powerful/efficient processors.

[deandownsouth @ Feb 13th 2008 7:41AM]

Chowder,
Your comment:
"Just remember, AMD isn't dead. Dell amongst others are going to put ATI GPU in their future notebook lines. Still I wish AMD could produce more powerful/efficient processors."

That makes no sense. AMD makes very powerfull and efficient processors. In reality, they are on a par in many respects. At any given time, they leap-frog each other as to who has the fastest clock vs who has the best power rating vs who has the most cache or whatever. Where AMD really shines is in the direct connect architecture. The front side bus is archaic and performs poorly compared with an AMD system.

Now, when you are talking about GPUs, sorry, nVidia owns that space in my opinion-especially since I run Linux and nVidia drivers are up to date and reliable (of course for gaming it's mostly Windows 2000 Pro (small memory foot print, easier to streamline) and XP in some cases). I'm sure there will be those who tout the Radeon or whatever but for my familiy's gaming usage, it's all GeForce.

[Free thinker @ Feb 7th 2008 10:01PM]

This is absolute bullshit, Dell. I've been an AMD and Intel user for years, but coming from the old school of gaming and frugalness, I prefer AMD. I'm running AMD in my main system right now. I'm running AMD at work.

So fuck you Dell, you're just giving me more reasons to hate you and your corporate tie$.

[rickhamilton620 @ Feb 7th 2008 11:20PM]

You know, you can always buy a Vostro or Latitude online, and the AMD powered Inspirons are still in stores, They haven't gotten rid of AMD powered stuff, just changed the way people can buy them through Dell's "Home/Home Office" store.

[Free thinker @ Feb 8th 2008 5:47PM]

I never have nor ever will purchase a Dell computer, I just think that offering less options CPU-wise will end up hurting their reputation and possibly even financial income as compared to offering more than mainly Intel. But I guess Intel is feeding Dell big $$$...agh, corporations are so evil!

[deandownsouth @ Feb 13th 2008 7:52AM]

Free thinker:

Yeah, corporations are evil. What a stupid ignorant statement. Without these so-called evil greedy corporations, where would the world of technology be? Nowhere. Tell you what. You try to build a computer system from scratch-I'm talking about at the silicon level. It can be done. What's that? Your computer would cost tens of thousands of dollars for just one because you'd have to buy the chip manufacturing machines, wait, an evil corporation makes those chip systems, so you hate evil corporations so you don't want to buy one. And so on. And then there are the evil drug companies, you don't want to get sick and need medicine, because the cure comes from the billions of dollars that an evil corporation invested in creating that drug.

Without evil, greedy corporations, we'd still be in the dark ages, live truly horrid lives. Pounding out a menial and manual living.

You may want that but I sure don't. So, get rid of all your things that come from corporations, divest your investments, since you don't want to be part of such a horrible thing as an evil, greedy corporation, and go live in some commune somewhere...also, your name sure is a misnomer...

[Leroy Vargas @ Feb 7th 2008 10:10PM]

Come on EU, file more anti-trust lawsuits against Intel (and now Dell) for promoting monopolistic actions.

[deandownsouth @ Feb 13th 2008 7:14AM]

Leroy,

The EU? All that would do would be to stifle the market and make things worse. Why do you folks always go crying to the government like a bunch of babies. Vote with your dollars, show Dell this is a mistake by buying from a vendor that still sells AMD on the desktop.

Government involvement in the market always is a bad thing.

[Alexander @ Feb 7th 2008 10:16PM]

I don't understand this whole Intel vs. AMD shenanigans. A CPU is a CPU. You buy what you can afford. If you can afford a slightly faster CPU then you buy a slightly faster CPU. Squeezing every possible ounce of power out of it gets you what exactly? a browser opening seconds faster? a couple extra FPS in your video game? a couple of seconds off of your encoding home-movies?

Real world comparisons are rubbish. RUBBISH I tell you. With how much processing is done by other components on board, there just isin't any apples-to-apples comparison you can do these days.

Sure, back when there was one socket to go around and you plugged whatever you bought into it and it worked--that was differnt. Nothing other than the CPU changed, so that was a true comparison.

But now you got northbridge and southbridge doing stuff that the CPU used to have to do--not to mention dedicated chips for networking, sound, USB hosts, wireless, etc. which all do their own parts. So there isn't a way to test if one CPU is faster than the other. The boards are so radically different, that it's not worth it.

I buy what I know will work. I read online forums, and I read opnions on the websites that I buy my product from. I also ask local stores and what they see coming back in.

But at the end of the day, I buy AMD. They have a good track record as far as making chips that are reasonable priced that have a fairly good lifespan before they are considered 'phased out'. They also keep a pretty even keel when it comes to sockets.

Yes, I got burned by the AM2+ socket, but that is okay. I need a new motherboard anyway.

And I have seen more Intel CPU's fail than AMD CPU's. But that's just my opinion. It is based on the PIV systems I built that came back to me within a month and the CPU just... I don't know. They just failed. They didn't overheat, they just failed. Stopped. Ceased. No POST error, just nothing. Like the CPU wasn't even in the socket. Poof. gone. The motherboards were fine, the CPU just kicked the bucket for unknown reasons.

None of the AMD systems I have ever configured have ever come back with that kind of vauge problem. The motherboards have fried, or the CPU has gone up in smoke--but never just this "Meh, we won't work anymore. Not going to tell you why either." stuff.

So you buy what you buy. At the end of the day, it lets you do stuff on it and that is that. If you absolutely need to have the fastest thing in the world--chances are you have the cash to buy a new computer every month when something new comes out.

Good for you.

[Tony @ Feb 7th 2008 11:00PM]

Well, for your information, the speed and efficiency of the CPU is very important. I used both a T7200 notebook and a Q6600 desktop and my desktop cannot even achieve speeds that I need. We are in 2008 now. If I click on an Excel document, it should immediately show up in front of me on a high-resolution large display.

Time is money... your time just seems be to lacking in value.

[Alexander @ Feb 8th 2008 12:17AM]

A laptop is designed to be portable, not fast.

Stop using things that they weren't designed for, and maybe you won't be wasting your oh so valuable time.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 8th 2008 1:52AM]

Alex you sir are full of crap. I guess you never heard of the luggable PC. There are different classes of laptop. UMPC 6" display (1lbs), Ultra light laptops (8-13" display (2-4ish lbs, standard laptops 14"-15" displays (6-7ish lbs), desktop replacements 17" displays (7-8ish lbs) and luggables 20+" displays usually topping out around 9lbs.

So please do us all a favor and stop inventing BS on the fly. A laptop is intended to allow you to do your damn job on the go. That is the PRIMARY purpose of a laptop. This whole it wasn't designed to do that...can you even type something like that without thinking its crap? Next you will tell me that Dell, HP, et al should scrap their workstation class hardware because CAD\CAM\ graphic artists should settle for more moderate hardware because its the standard. Gah...Sometimes I wonder why I even come to this site. I see this insane rational way too often. Makes me want to kick a kitten or something.

[Jack @ Feb 8th 2008 4:28AM]

I'm with this one entirely, a processor is a processor, my interest in the brand is non-existant, it just so happens I have an intel chip as they are the best currently :D

the day I show any interest in AMD is they day they bring out another decent processor like the AMD64