Back to Article

  • slatr - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    This may be an indicator of Apple's wish to continue to be the digital hub of your living room.

    They all want to do this living room do all box.. will intel supply graphics chips too I wonder..
  • aliasfox - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    I personally would be impressed if Apple released a Dothan based Mac Mini for ~$499 at MacWorld Paris (September). Small, quiet, fast, *and* can dual boot OSX and Windows.

    I would actually be even more impressed if Xcode could compile universal binaries for OSX PPC, OSX X86, *and* Windows X86.

    Sadly, I can still only see hardware sells get smaller. Currently, the processor upgrade market for Macs is relatively small, as upgrades are literally hundreds of dollars (a 2.0 GHz G4 upgrade costs something like $400-500, if I recall correctly). If I buy an Intel based Mac and want a faster processor a year or two down the road, I don't need to buy a new Mac anymore, I'll just look towards NewEgg for a $150 Pentium.

    Support is far too big of an issue for Apple to deal with opening up OSX to the rest of the world. Currently, Apple only has to worry about three processors, and most likely one chipset for each (G3, G4, G5). On the Intel side, Apple will have to worry about just what Intel produces. Going A64 or opening up the software for use anywhere would mean having to support ATi's, nVidia's, VIA's, SIS's, and hundreds of other off brand chipsets. Of course, Apple will also end up having to field calls from irate Dell users wondering why OSX won't install on their systems.

    I can't see Apple holding the same price premium as they have in the past (on the desktop side, at least- their laptops are more or less competitive in everything but processors). Would you pay an extra $100-200 for a machine that's elegant, quiet, and made of sturdy materials? I'd consider it.

    Or another analogy: Your average PC is a Camry, the Mac version is an ES300. Same drivetrain, the Lexus has a classier look and feel.
  • equinox76 - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    AMD simply doesn't have the manufactuiring capability to compete with Intel. They might have a better product right now but if it can't be delivered, what good is it ?? Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    #54, Anand said PRESENTLY, if you even bother to read what you quoted, dickwad. Reply
  • smn198 - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    #54 I wish you didn't read them too. Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    Apple choose Intel mainly for the cheaper dual core processors (my idea). When selling computers at the same price point, there is a great advantage in paying 100s of $ less for processor (or processors). Also, Intel certainly has the resources to at least keep up enough with AMD regarding processor speed/heat/capabilities. Reply
  • vertigo1 - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    If you think about it, what will Apple Machines be used for? Video and graphics editing and this uses... encoding?

    So even though everyone here seems to kiss Amds feet.... I think that Apple chose correctly given the situation.
  • Kagjes - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    -Hmmm, a thought crossed my mind. What would it take for MacOS to support DirectX? Reply
  • Kagjes - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    i think this is one of those situations where things could go in million different ways. Just depends on the reactions of the biggest players. All of the speculations are both right and wrong. But one thing is for sure. I love the way things are going, and Macs getting closer to the hectic and sometimes chaotic x86 market is really an explosive combination. One thing is for sure. For macs, being able to run WinXP and play games AND keep their own OS at the same time is an edge that can't be matched. I would really like to have one of those. Reply
  • Dekay - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    I understand why apple working with intel could make more sense. This move from apple also means an enrichment in the software department. But I think more anaemia in the CPU department can become problematic and intel more a "monopolist" (I am exaggerating a little bit). And in the end that is not good for us, remember the times before K7? We can continue to discuss whether the chips from amd/intel are better or roughly similar but a <20% market share (and only slowly rising) for AMD is not a good sign. Reply
  • JAS - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    Video of the WWDC keynote:
  • Quiksel - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    oh my god, can't you people just stop all the bitchin and complainin about the possibility that you might not be able to run OS X on a normal home-built PC? I mean, if you're all willing to pay $100-200 just for a damn software license for OS X (as someone mentioned earlier), why not get a GOD DAMNED MAC MINI and STFU? You guys are all fuckin retards if you think that this is anything more than a processor switch. A PROCESSOR SWITCH, not a PLATFORM SWITCH. It'll still be a GOD DAMNED MAC, so if you want OS X, GET A GOD DAMNED MAC.

    geez, with all the speculation and other bitchin and bullshit comments, this entire comment thing has been entirely a waste of time. I wish I didn't read all these comments. :(
  • xype - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    "Why is that ironic? Because all AnandTech readers know that presently AMD provides far better performance per watt than Intel."

    Surely you're not that naive, Anand? Apple is not switching now, but in 2006-2007. Or are you claiming that you KNOW AMD will have better performance per watt in one year's time?
  • Googer - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    Apple is no longer an apple, they are now just another PC clone. Reply
  • Scott66 - Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - link

    Apple through there universal binary code will enable software to run on both powerpc and intel processors. Nice little bit of infor that OSX has been running on intel for 5 years. They already have binary translation software Rosetta to allow PPC based software not written in Xcode to run on Intel machines. The software pieces are in place for a much smoother transition than Motorola to PowerPC 10 years ago and so much better than Win 98 to ME or even 2000.

    Now it is the hardware side of the equation. Guess what guys, you won't be able to just buy OSX and put in on your machine at home. It will run only on Mac hardware that happens to have Intel Processors. Apple is already switching to "PC" standards for video cards, memory, and interconnects but they use Apple drivers and software. It is just like Linux in that if your hardware doesn't have drivers supporting the Operating System, the components become interesting paper weights or door stops.

    Apple is once again seeing a desired outcome and making the technology fit their dreams. Let's hope they can continue their rate of growth and show the Personal Computer Industry some innovation. Competition is healthy and should be encouraged.
  • JAS - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Has Apple Computer said whether their next operating system release, OS 10.5 "Leopard," will run on PowerPC Macs -- or only on Intel processors? Reply
  • sphinx - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    It was bound to happen sooner or later. IBM has been doing to much lately with Sony and Microsoft, that they put Apple on the back burner. IBM just doesn't have the capacity to take care of everyone's needs.
    I think this is a great move by Apple. Did he mention anything about the Xserve
  • knitecrow - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I am a moderate apple fan, not even hardcore, and I am infuriated by the decision.

    My only hope is that I'll be able to run a hacked OS X on my $600 athlon64 system over the overpriced intel junk apple is going to start selling.

    How low the mighty have fallen. Apple is now going to peddle intel cpus, chipsets, wi-fi chips etc.

  • downtowncb - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I meant #45, sorry. Reply
  • downtowncb - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    As much as I'd like to think that Apple cares about the PC enthusiast market, they really don't. They have closed hardware, don't care too much about games (if at all), and haven't really done anything to woo the PC enthusiasts over. That being said, they're not too worried about the negative effects of the Intel over AMD solution. They are going for more market share, quantity over quality. If somebody told Steve Jobs, "Hey, you're alienating the PC enthusiast market by not choosing AMD!" he'd probably say, "And that changes what?"

    Also, even though AMD is the performance winner today, Apple probably has some insight into the future of both Intel and AMD, and sees a brighter future over at Intel. Plus, they don't care how good AMD chips are at games like most of us do, not to mention all the other reasons for their choice listed here already.

    Also #44, Apple shipped over a million computers in the last quarter alone, if I'm not mistaken.
  • WooDaddy - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I didn't see Anand mention whether or not any booed the statement about switching to Intel. I would.
    I just switched and love it. Granted I'm using a Dell laptop right now, I'm saving my pennies for an ibook.

    As far as Intel/AMD is concerned, it is about brand and supply. AMD has always had a tough time providing the supply that their customers needed. Now to stop you ahead of time, here's the deal. Dell never took AMD because of supply issues, but Dell sells millions of PCs per year. Apple sells only thousands. Also, Apple spent the past 5 years with Intel so they are more so looking at their own experience with the x86 architecture. Remember, it's only been pretty recent that AMD has seriously stomped all over Intel as far as performance, cost AND power consumption.

    Who knows, maybe one day Apple may look at AMD but considering the investment they've put in, it won't be a smart business move.

    Personally, I'm crying inside. I loved the fact that Apple was independent of the x86 world.
  • ksherman - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    dont you see! the goodness comes from the fact that we can use OSX on x86 processors! not only that, but we will now have the apple software at our finger tips! and the ease at making the transition is also sweet! the only thing to stop this from being the greatest thing that has ever happened, is if we can use everything on an AMD chip... Reply
  • Icehawk - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I don't know why anyone would suddenly think there will be drivers for everything and that they will work as well as stuff on a MS platform just because Apple is going x86. Reply
  • unhaiduc - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    (sorry for the prev blank post)

    um.. why isnt anyone saying anything windows?
    let me illustrate.. one of the main, if not the biggest, reasons i run windows xp is because all my software is made to run on windows.. the reason i 'hate' (correction: hated) macs so much is because they have so little market share and thus do not have the same oppertunities as x86.. (video card, sound card, ram, overclocking, games, apps, etc) but now.. i mean.. we have a direct competitor with windows xp, no? i mean if the new mac os (X2? ;) will be able to do everything windows can (and run the *same* apps), and doesnt crash every 30 seconds then why not switch?.. (im kidding, but i secretly was in love with the mac os's for a long time)

    im sure someone will come up with a way to run mac-os on amd.. im sure asus is all over this, seeing their rebelious nature (865 pat.. the p4-m adapter.. 775 overclocking..etc)
  • unhaiduc - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    34 - I think that's the major factor that most people are overlooking. Meron/Conroe will be 65nm dual core processors based on the NEXT Intel architecture. Most likely, the best of the Pentium M and NetBurst architectures will be combined. Word is that they're looking at 4-issue cores (vs. 3-issue on current architectures). Combine that with all the power saving features of Banias/Dothan, and it sounds very promising. They can also address some of the limitations of the current Pentium M platform (i.e. lack of FPU/SSE power and bandwidth relative to NetBurst). Reply
  • Valkin - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    AMD is not an American company? Reply
  • barnett25 - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link


    or is it just the same apple, locking down ever component, reducing piracy etc."

    The day Apple does that is the day they go out of buisness. How many people do you know (with homemade PCs) that run cracked Windows? Heck, with OSX it's even easier, there's no serial number to hinder you in pirating the OS. Plus Apple can't make a fraction of what they do now if they only sell the OS. I for one can't wait to get one of these and dual-boot Windows on it (Apple has said they won't prevent you from doing this).
  • cryptonomicon - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link


    or is it just the same apple, locking down ever component, reducing piracy etc.
  • radx - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    This is smashing! I've always been curious about Macs. Now I think I might be able to. Say i might have to buy a MAC PC but once i get tired of any of the hardware i might just as well upgrade -myself-.

    Some other nice stuff
    - Finally nice gaming graphic cards w/ drivers!
    - You bought a 600$ graphic card? and you want a MAC now? shit thats a drag.. well not anymore! You'll just move it over to your MAC PC :) (IF they keep the PCI-E)

    All in all, I like to think this all being of good. I have today an AMD 64 because Intel sucks today. But I still beileve that Intel will have a winner the day they move their techiniques from the Centrino platform to the desktop world. I say, i have a friend who've got an AMD laptop. It's so hot you can fry eggs on it! I've got two Centrino setups and they run cool and quiet all the time. I'd never buy an AMD laptop today, until they shape up and improve their chips that is.

    And for all of you who wonders why Intel rather than AMD? I got one answer to add to the pile.
    Because Intel is an American company. I know it's not a big thing but add that along to all the other stuff people have been saying here it kind of makes more sense... Think about it!

    Just my two cents.
  • santa590 - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    It's not Windows apps ported to OS X. It's OS X apps for PPC ported to OS X for x86 (or intel).
  • Pandaren - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    To all Intel bashers: Yonah, Merom, and Conroe. That's why Apple is making the switch. Reply
  • finbarqs - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    haha i think it's more of Apple's way to take away from some of microsoft's storm. In fact, i think that's what apple has been planning all this time... to become a bigger player in the computing market. Apple always have their niche 5% market. With the transition to Intel's x86 architecture, They can finally take away some of the storm that's been blessed with microsoft. Now people will have a choice of either OSX or Windows... Finally Microsoft's quality control will go up! Reply
  • Wightout - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    31) i would think that it is for the same reason that BMW dosn't want their cars in every home. it would destroy the value and prestiege of owning one. You would loose the idea that you and your mac are special UNLIKE everyone else. Reply
  • hoppa - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I really can't see why Apple wouldn't want to release OS X for general x86, other than their image. They would make a hell of a lot more selling their OS than they would lose selling proprietary hardware. Especially if, as they claim, Windows apps can be ported to OS X in a couple hours! I'd be one of the first to switch . And I may actually even consider buying it!

  • fishbits - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    "On another point, if they don't want to make their OS run on anthing but Intel and specific hardware, just what is the advantage?"

    Because they can charge more for it to Apple loyalists who can't go out and build their own. Maybe one day Apple buyers will say "Hey! We're pretty much getting PC hardware and dropping an extra $1000 or so for the OS and a case!" Will have to see if that happens, and then what Apple's reaction will be. Maybe when they figure out that the Power PC was just a good CPU and not a magical entity, and that Intel will be providing chips that are even better (with Apple itself shouting Pentium love from the rooftops) the minds will uncloud.

    I'd love it if it meant I could get OS X for $100-200 (money Apple's currently not getting), and more folks could give OS X a try without dismissing it due to price of entry.

    "For that matter, the argument of AMD can't handle the capacity is crap. What is 1.8% of the market? AMD can't handle that?"

    Sure they can, but not without conceding that part of what we currently think of as the x86 market. Apple and AMD may yet do great things together some day, but it's far more vital that they gain ground in their current markets before taking on something new. When AMD's not teetering on the edge anymore (hopefully soon) they'll have more breathing room for such projects.
  • wilburpan - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    One more item in favor of Intel CPU's over AMD:

    Multitasking performance appears to be consistently better with Pentium D chips over Athlon 64 with today's options. See the "Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look" article on Anandtech:

    Again, if Apple wants to be at the legendary living room digital hub, multitasking performance may be a priority over FPS in a FPS.*

    * Frames per second in a first person shooter. I've always wanted to say that. :)
  • sprockkets - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    On another point, if they don't want to make their OS run on anthing but Intel and specific hardware, just what is the advantage? So it has a different processor in it, and one that is according to apple much slower.

    For that matter, the argument of AMD can't handle the capacity is crap. What is 1.8% of the market? AMD can't handle that?

    That's Dell's argument too, but then again, over the past year Intel has been pretty slow as well to deliver. And it's not as if 100% of your processor shipments will turn AMD overnight.
  • Wightout - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    hopefully there wont be that stupid insignia plastered to the front of all the new mac machines, or any of the laptops. yuuuuck.....! Reply
  • Anemone - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Should be X86 I think and thus AMD as well but that's just my $.02. Overall a nice move and one where we might be finally able to directly compare OS's on the same platforms...

  • fishbits - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    "but why intel and not amd is really odd to me"
    Because AMD can't supply enough chips as it is already, and Apple can't wait around hoping/expecting it will get better?

    "It would be interesting if you could buy an Apple MB (thus acquiring the appropriate BIOS/ROM) and a copy of OS X and then build your own computer around that? That would be kind of cool!"
    Of course you will be able to! You'll just have to pay full system price same as always, and throw away the stylish case. What, did you think Apple existed as a computer company based on the value of their hardware and software? If that were the case they could sell their OS and hardware seperately. They're selling style, and God bless 'em there's people willing to pay for that over performance. Apple makes great products, and if they ever divorce their prices from an image campaign, I'll be happy to buy some.

    "Now that Macintosh is going to use Intel processors in their Macs, I don't what the difference will be between a Mac and an average x86 computer from Dell. ... So basically, all I'd be getting for the price of today's Macs will be a Dell in a nice case and funky monitor."
    A funny trap, isn't it? "Apple rules! Their CPU is a bazillion times better than any Intel crap! But... now that Apple is using Intel... uhhh... I either have to lose my Intel hate and admit that they make good chips too, or I have to abandon my support for Apple. And once I abandon Apple, I'll be running on... ummm... an Intel (or AMD) chip." Who said it's always easy being a fanboi? You constantly run the risk of reality intruding.

    But hey, the Xbox 360 is just around the corner, since it's the CPU that defines the system to you, I guess that makes it an Apple rig. Who says you can't game on an Apple?
  • sprockkets - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

  • southpawuni - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    The biggest shame is that they wont go head to head with MS in the OS market.
    Seems to me that Apple REALLY decided to give up in the hardware market for good now that they are sucking on Intel's ta-ta's.

    With all the coolest features and changes to Longhorn being ripped out, I've lost nearly all interest in the new OS.

    Everyone is looking for an alternative to Windows, the time is nigh..

    I think Macs will continue to be a joke, just make Apple more money per unit maybe now.
    Its the OS market that, if played properly, could reap them "microsoft"-level rewards...

    If MS starts throwing their weight around, maybe they'll actually give us WinFS and other features they cut out to get it out the door and make a killing faster. Apple can always threaten Intel and run to AMD if they need too, just like Dell. :)

    Apple will never make it in hardware.. they make gimmicks, and a nice OS.. thats it. Hence this move means little to anyone other than their bottom line.
    To me, the real money would come if they'd sell OSX on massive scale.
    Now lets get it in stores for every X86 machine.
  • gibhunter - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I'm sure it will take less than 6 months before we see a crack for a hardware based DRM. Reply
  • gibhunter - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    You and everyone else know that Pentium 4 days are numbered. You can bet your ass that next gen Pentium will be very similar to Centrino in power usage and not much different from A64 in architecture. It will be a great CPU (AMD might still have something better though).

    Personally, I hope OSX becomes a valid alternative to Windows. With the transition to x86, Apple is one step closer.
  • mistersnail - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Well, I'm sort of left disappointed. If this was already said, sorry, I didn't read all the posts.

    Now that Macintosh is going to use Intel processors in their Macs, I don't what the difference will be between a Mac and an average x86 computer from Dell. I mean, from my view of things, we're going to have a dual CPU (most likely dualcore) Mac PC that'll produce results most likely nearly identical to a well-tweaked (if at all) Intel computer. So basically, all I'd be getting for the price of today's Macs will be a Dell in a nice case and funky monitor. Booya...

    And yah, they have gone AMD. They would have had a much more powerful line-up of systems... Let alone the fact that they'd be much easier to cool.

    Freakin' dumb fools at Mac... I'm sure they're not that dumb. They were probably bought out by Intel on that idea. My guess is that Mac said to Intel and AMD: "Whoever gives us the best deal will get their processors in our future systems. Cheers!"

    Just watch Dell switching from Intel to AMD...
  • ProviaFan - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    #16 (Bowsky): Unfortunately, AMD seems to be rushing headlong into the abyss of hardware DRM with "Presidio" in some of their newest CPUs. So AMD users won't be left out after all... but I'd rather it were not that way. :( Reply
  • srg - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Well, I'd still never buy an apple then.

  • mikecel79 - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    #15 Dell is shipping BTX platforms now with their new Optiplex GX520 and GX620 lines. I am expecting a shipment of them soon. So it looks like Intel has a company using them already. Reply
  • Bowsky - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I read earlier that the reason Apple choose Intel and more specifically the Pentium D over AMD and other processors was because of the chip level copy protection Intel has added to that line of CPUs. Rumor has it that Steve Jobs is once again planning to start an online media store, this time for video. In the same article (I believe its in today’s Anandtech News) it states that the major media companies would not allow their media to be distributed without Intel's hardware level DRM.

    This continues to be sour news for AMD fans. Not only does this mean AMD chips will not be found in Macs (unless AMD adopts Intel's DRM), but this also means that eventually, when this online media store makes its way onto the PC market, AMD users will be shut out.
  • SilentRunning - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Lets see Apple gets intel CPU, and Intel finally gets a company willing to adopt their BTX standard (just a thought). Reply
  • PrinceXizor - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I knew AMD was in laptops, but I totally whiffed on the fact that they aren't in more mobile units. Good points.

    It would be interesting if you could buy an Apple MB (thus acquiring the appropriate BIOS/ROM) and a copy of OS X and then build your own computer around that? That would be kind of cool! (imo).

  • jediknight - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Well, my hopes were up after hearing this.. only to be quickly deflated:

    "However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

    ACK. Wasn't that the whole POINT of having MacOS on x86??! (at least, from an enthusiast POV)
  • ShinKen - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    From what I read over at engadget, Apple will most likely use custom bios or something to let OS X know it ok to boot. Also it was mentioned that they would not prevent users from installing windows on apple hardware. Reply
  • wilburpan - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Two more reasons for choosing Intel over AMD:

    1. Multimedia performance. Currently, the one area where Intel chips have and edge seems to be multimedia applications. This may be an indicator of Apple's wish to continue to be the digital hub of your living room.

    2. Notebooks. Unless I'm an idiot, the main use of AMD CPUs in notebooks have been in large 8-10 lb. desktop replacement notebooks. If Apple is to continue making small notebooks, Pentium M's have a long and impressive track record.
  • Speedo - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    But it sure would have been a great opportunity for AMD to grow, if they had gotten the deal. But I agree with #6.

    One thing I wonder after reading the article, is if there would be a way for the x86 compiled OS X to run on a normal PC platform. But of course Apple doesn't want this to happen for obvious reasons, and so I guess they will make it impossible (no drivers for other than Apple hardware etc). But it would have been cool to dualboot between OS X and Longhorn :)
  • ProviaFan - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I have to ask, aside from driver support (or lack thereof), why wouldn't Apple make everything else proprietary? (particularly, the BIOS / firmware) Given their past trends, I doubt that there will be some hardware compatibility list that you could assemble a PC from that would be able to run OS X/x86. Reply
  • plewis00 - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Does it matter what CPU it actually is? Isn't x86 all pretty much the same, and AMD is pretty similar, should be compatible.

    I'm guessing they went with Intel because as much as you all hate to admit it, Intel has a lot more clout than AMD does now or in the foreseeable future...
  • Questar - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    He said why he didn't use AMD:
    Performance per watt in 2006.

    I'm sure apple knows more than you about Intel's 2006 processor plans.
  • PrinceXizor - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Why Intel?

    1. Because its Intel. Brand name. The defacto standard (whether you like it or not).

    2. Price. I'm sure the price Apple is getting is better than what AMD can afford to give them.

    3. Stability. Intel is hugely capable of being around for a LONG time.

    4. Just because Prescott's are hotter than Athlon64's doesn't mean that they aren't cooler than equivalently performing PowerPC processors. Why do you think we DON'T have 3.0Ghz Power PC's?

    5. Do you really think Intel doesn't KNOW they have a super hot chip in Prescott?

    5b. Do you really think Intel is going to STAY hotter than AMD? (umm...original Athlon's anyone? They didn't stay space heaters forever).

    5c. Do you really think we know more about Intel 's roadmap for the next 10 years including projected TDP than Apple does?

    AMD may have the slight performance edge (currently by the way, merely currently) but Intel still produces a fine processor that will siginificantly improve the overall value of an Apple computer.

    Its really quite easy to see why they would choose Intel over AMD.

    I'm sure I'll be labeled a fanboi...but, my next processor choice will most likely be an AMD processor, so there :P~~~


  • GoatHerderEd - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    They should have chosen AMD (=

    I guess Intel does have extra capacity that Apple wants. Although; choosing AMD would have lead to a more devoted following and cheaper hardware. Not to mention Intel and Microsoft are joined at the hip.
  • Tefl0n - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Why p4 and not Yonah ....?
    Or maybe that will be the case who knows
  • knitecrow - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Why didn't they ue AMD chips?

    I really don't see the point of another switch after SO much pain with 970FX and OS X.
  • Eug - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I hope those Pentium M Yonah PowerBooks are released as early as possible. I'm looking forward to upgrading this 2.5 year old TiBook within the year. Reply
  • SuperStrokey - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Not sure how i feel about this... but why intel and not amd is really odd to me Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now