Intel Inside, Apple Outside

M

Mickwilli

Registered
This is really a sort of Poll.
I'm shure you have all herd of Apples change to using Intel Processors.
What i want to know is if you had the choice of Buying a Mac with a AMD Processor or and Intel What would you chose and why. Keep in mind that Intel haven't quite made it to 64bit Yet while in the Meantime AMD have made 64 bit processors and Microsucks have even had time to Make there shoddy opperating system for 64bit.
Have Fun
 
Today, I'd rather have AMD's chips in high-end desktops and Intel's in portables and low-end desktops. But by the time Apple moves their Power Mac line to Intel processors, I imagine they'll use a chip that isn't on the market today, probably one that's 64-bit.
 
It's a bit of a futile point, I guess... However: Since AMD makes intel compatible processors mainly, should the day come, Apple can still move to AMD, too... I'd say for portables and small form factor machines (iMac, Mac mini) intel's processors are better, anyway, and for the PowerMacs, we'll have to see when Apple _actually_ is ready to move them from the G5. (Late 2007?) The differences between AMD and intel _now_ don't necessarily say anything about them in 2007.
 
From what I understand, I would also chose AMD processor over intel. My concern has always been that Intel's main motivation is high volume selling. Quality issues have always been a concern. When Apple announced the switch, I was surprise AMD was not chosen.
Who is to say they can't use both Intel and AMD, like any of the PC companies? Intel's mobile technology appears to be leading the industry, while AMD hit the 64bit market first. In short, Apple should consider both to meet the needs of there products.
 
i would like to see what happens during the switch, i want to see what kind of performance the new intel chips offer. Yes AMD hit the 64bit for x86 first but Intel's power is in Portable's nowadays, and the new chips coming out are based on the Pentium M, but Dual-Core 64bit versions of them.

Apple always has know where the computer market is going, it's starting to shy away from desktop computers to more and more people owning laptops. That's probably why a big reason for the switch, along with no 3GHz G5 and a Powerbook G5 as well.
 
Mickwilli said:
if you had the choice of Buying a Mac with a AMD Processor or and Intel What would you chose and why. Keep in mind that Intel haven't quite made it to 64bit Yet while in the Meantime AMD have made 64 bit processors and Microsucks have even had time to Make there shoddy opperating system for 64bit.
Have Fun
Click to expand...

If I had a choice between choosing a Mac with an AMD processor and a Mac with an Intel processor, which one would I choose?

My answer would be: It depends on which particular processor are we talking about.


On the desktop front, PowerPC G5 and AMD solutions could perform at least as well--most of the time--even better than Intel solutions.

On the mobile front, however, there is no G5 from the PowerPC camp and AMD solution still draw too much power.


That said, I really look forward to next generation AMD mobile solutions, at least I hope AMD would solve the power-performance issues.

But for now, I would choose Intel Dual Core Yonah, aka Pentium M, mobile processor over current AMD mobile processors.


Together with Intel Centrino Technology, we can expect the new laptop Macintoshes come with more than 6 hours of battery life as many of the new IBM, or should I say Lenovo, laptops have.

The 64-bit technology has ended up for marketing purposes, unless of course you need to use more than 4GB of RAM for whatever your doing.

While the new multi-core technology, dual core included, require software programer to modify--some even require rewrites--personally I believe it holds greater promise than the 64-bit technology I have waited over 2 years to jump on.


Back to your question: Which one would I pick?

Answer: It depends.


I'm getting the latest 15-inch PowerBook G4 because I wanted something that will last me two to three years, which is how long, I believe, it would take to complete the transition.

Call me crazy.
 
Current x86 laptops are better off with Intel CPUs. My friend has an AMD 64 based laptop and gets only 2 hrs off the battery while his girlfriend has a Pentium-M based laptop and gets about 4-4.5 hrs.

Now both of those beat the pants off the G4 in the current Powerbooks but still, AMD isn't very good in the moble computers yet.

I think that Intel's going to continue to get better on the desktop and also on the moble computers as well. AMD will still be a power house but I don't think they're coming out with any really low power chips any time soon.
 
Intel -- they've simply got more cash for R&D and their roadmap looks 10x better than AMD's. While AMD's got some good processors right now, Intel is preparing to beat their pants off in the future.
 
Captain Code said:
Current x86 laptops are better off with Intel CPUs. My friend has an AMD 64 based laptop and gets only 2 hrs off the battery while his girlfriend has a Pentium-M based laptop and gets about 4-4.5 hrs.

Now both of those beat the pants off the G4 in the current Powerbooks but still, AMD isn't very good in the moble computers yet.

I think that Intel's going to continue to get better on the desktop and also on the moble computers as well. AMD will still be a power house but I don't think they're coming out with any really low power chips any time soon.
Click to expand...

That AMD laptop...was it using a Turion (which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Centrino in Intel notebooks)?

I'm curious to see how well the Turion-based notebooks compare to the Centrino ones.
 
nixgeek said:
That AMD laptop...was it using a Turion (which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Centrino in Intel notebooks)?

I'm curious to see how well the Turion-based notebooks compare to the Centrino ones.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was. My friend says it played Doom 3 better than his desktop.
 
No technical inights here, I'm afraid, just opinion.

All my computing life, I have objected to the Wintel mafia, in fact all forms of monopoly. Of course Apple needs to be able to compete, and I'm sure that OS X on an Intel-equipped Mac will outstrip the equivalent Windoze machine in terms of performance, but I wish that the PowerPC chip could do it, rather than having to resort to 'the old enemy'. :mad:

:confused:
 
Bah, that was the same when Apple chose to go with IBM and "took Motorola along for the ride" with the PowerPC technology. IBM was "the enemy", and still we got used to using IBM's processor designs in PowerMacs, PowerBooks etc. Now suddenly IBM is "the friend" and intel "the enemy"? I think we should get over these things. A good enough enemy can be an even better friend later on in history. Microsoft, btw., saved Apple in, what was it, 1997 or 1998?
 
August 1997. A dark day in Apple history, indeed. Only to be outdone by the date that Jobs was fired.

(just kidding -- had it not been for Microsoft's cash infusion, Apple may not be the company we know and love today)

I am a bit stunned that we're shipping computers with four cores now, but still making the switch to Intel. I will miss the PPC architecture sitting inside my Macintosh, but will welcome the change with open arms and an open mind. Who knows? Maybe slapping an Intel processor in there will finally give us the edge on the PC dorks -- "Look now, dork, not only am I running the exact same processor as you, I'm also working in a superior operating system! Whatcha gonna say about that, dork? Huh?"
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Maybe slapping an Intel processor in there will finally give us the edge on the PC dorks -- "Look now, dork, not only am I running the exact same processor as you, I'm also working in a superior operating system! Whatcha gonna say about that, dork? Huh?"
Click to expand...
And the dork replies, "Well, your OS still can't play Half-Life 2!" :D
 
And the Mac-Dork will reboot into Windows, play Half-Life 2 and then return into the _real_ operating system. Or something like that.
 
And the Apple user says, "Yeah, using a high-powered computer to play games is like showing off the power of your stove by heating up a TV-dinner!"

Besides, Mac users demonstrate the power of their computers by the creations they create with it. Windows users demonstrate the power of their computers by their favorite game's frames-per-second count.

You decide which one means more! ;)
 
fryke said:
And the Mac-Dork will reboot into Windows, play Half-Life 2 and then return into the _real_ operating system. Or something like that.
Click to expand...

Or because it's run on x86 chip, open up Virtual PC in full 100% emulation and run HL2 faster on the Mac then on the PC... :D :D :D
 
I am ready for the switch. If Apple felt Intel offers the best processor solution, lets see how it all comes together. Sure, I wanted IBM or who ever to take more stock in the PPC chip, but perhaps its usefulness is coming to a slow end. PPC chip is not a great mobile chip, and that certainly fueled Apple need to switch.
When the first Intel Mac hits the market, everyone is going to go crazy and make all kinds of comparisons to a Winbox. Even then, I am not sure a true comparison can be done. OSX and windows are two different operating systems. Each have strength and weakness. Overall, I think OSX wins out, because it meets the basic requirements: stability, reliability, and secure. On those three issues, winblows can't truly make that claim.
Whether or not Macs are good for games, now or when Intel is inside, is really not an important benchmark. Get an XBox or PS system and have fun. In my opinion the need for a game to be on a PC is over, with consoles able to access the internet for updates, etc.
 
I don't have an opinion on the original question since I have never been a PC user and have no stake in AMD v. Intel. I will say this, though: I don't care anymore who makes the processor inside my computer than I do who makes the engine inside my car. Admittedly processor architecture has more of an influence over the overall product than does engine architecture, but I buy Macs because of Apple, not IBM or Motorola. So if Apple says they are switching processor suppliers because it will allow them to make the best computer they can then I'm happy to go along with whatever route they choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top