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

Reply

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

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.


Reply

Why p4 and not Yonah ....?
Or maybe that will be the case who knows

Reply

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.

Reply

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~~~

:)

P-X

Reply

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.

Reply

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...

Reply

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

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 :)

Reply