HP Gives AMD's Phenom a Boost

After a bruising month where it had to admit a series of missteps with its quad-core microprocessor strategy, Advanced Micro Devices got a boost Jan. 3 from Hewlett-Packard. On Thursday, HP announced that it would begin selling a consumer desktop – the Pavilion Media Center m8330f – that will use AMD's new quad-core Phenom processor. The new desktop is one of several new PCs that the Palo Alto, Calif., company plans to display at the 2008 International CES, which kicks off Jan. 7. While AMD still has a number of issues to work through in 2008, including delivering its chips to its partners on time, the announcement does give the chip maker access to customers through one of the globe's top-tier PC vendors. Although HP is offering AMD's quad-core chip in one of its new desktops, the rest of its desktops and notebooks and that will be on display at the 2008 CES will use a combination of dual-core and quad-core Intel processors.

View: Full Story on eWeek

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Chyrp 1.0.3

Next Story

PNY Signs License Agreement with SanDisk


Commenting is disabled on this article.

If I was getting some processors for free I'd put them in a box as well. I certainly do hope that AMD picks up pace and improves on its chip problems pronto, cause without them pushing Intel there will be no innovation anytime soon. That and the fact that a price war gets me some good gear on the cheap.

If HP is going to put Phenom into a truly competitive product, it must make a Phenom equivalent to their current Intel-based Pavilion Media Center m9040t (this is HP's current entry-level Intel quad-core product). With nVidia 8400GS graphics, Lightscribe DVD burner, TV tuner, 500 GB hard drive and Vista Home Premium, they are *still* being pushed out in the big-box retailers for $1,000USD new, today. A Phenom-powered equivalent *must* undercut that price, while offering the same, if not better, graphics; otherwise, the perception will be that it is not competitive. (Note I'm taliing strictly HP vs. HP here; this isn't even the cheapest of the big-box quads.)

#2 are you smoking crack? an incurable Intel fanboi? Intel's current lineup of dual & quad core chips cost a good bit more than AMD's. Add to that the added cost of Intel motherboards, and your assertion that "HP could have supplied more performance .. at the same cost, using some Intel processor or another" is absurb.

True, in raw performance, Intel's current Core chips are faster. If you pit price vs performance, AMD still gives Intel a run for its money. Consider, if an AMD chip runs 80% the speed of an Intel chip, but costs 70% the price of that Intel chip, it's still a better buy, as long as you don't need the absolute fastest processor.

That's all fine and dandy if you're building a budget machine or a POS box, but for those of us who actually need all the processing horsepower we can get from our PCs, the Core 2 line is currently the only way to go.

mrmckeb said,
Intel Q6600 (Better performing) - AU$320
AMD Phenom 9700 - AU$380

Processor speed info from: Tom's Hardware CPU Guide

Yeah, duno about elsewhere but when I was looking locally Intel seemed to be cheaper to me. Maybe it's to do with us (AU) being a smaller market or was just the timing since it was a month or two ago I don't know.

Good. Because if AMD happens to go into majorly steep decline from their failing set of processors then there will be barely any competition for Intel - who will then proceed to jack their prices up loads. I remember when paying £200 for a "mid range" processor was normal back about 5 years ago.

I know a few people who have purchased both HP desktops and laptops with AMD processors, and upon examining the systems and the price, I was usually disappointed in the choice of an AMD processor. Since Intel has better price / performance, many HP systems are a disappointing deal, IMO. Bascially, considering this system, it is likley that HP could have supplied more performance for this system, at the same cost, using some Intel processor or another.

Yeash... I've often pondered on that myself. It's like if Ford was charging the same as BMW does for a car, and then a company buys a fleet of Fords.. makes NO sense.

mrmckeb said,
Yeash... I've often pondered on that myself. It's like if Ford was charging the same as BMW does for a car, and then a company buys a fleet of Fords.. makes NO sense.

Dont forget to factor in repair and mantenance. Initial cost doesnt mean as much then.