Why couldn't Apple go With AMD?

nixgeek said:
Seems more like they've turned to the "dark side." ::evil:: ::evil:: ::evil::
they sure have. :( i for some reason feel that apple may not be around much longer
 

DevilRocks

Registered
I do think apple should have gone with amd, i do agree with you there. I also think you will be able to run windows apps on mac, but you will still need an emulator lol I hope this doesnt screw things up for apple.
 

scruffy

Notorious Olive Counter
No, an emulator is precisely what you won't need - an emulator imitates different hardware. What you will need is something like Wine: a library and system call compatibility layer.

Anyway, I don't see what's so improbable about Apple bringing back the clones - it's not beem hurting Microsoft much.
 

Shookster

Registered
Someone said further back that AMD was a "follower" and Intel was leading the market. That was true a couple of years ago, but AMD chips have been consistently outperforming Intel equivalents in recent times, to the extent that Intel has had to make some drastic changes like scrapping one of its upcoming cores a while ago and adopting a different naming convention for its chips. I'd say at the moment that Intel is following AMD, not the other way around.
 

Carlo

All your base are belong
Intel are a stronger company in the server / high end market. The only company that sells AMD cpus in their servers is Sun Micro and for them it was probably because it was cheaper.. (look at their share price)

Intel might be lagging on 64bit, but I know my Intel Xeon servers have always been very quick..
 

Giaguara

Chmod 760
Staff member
Mod
I think THIS is the reason why the Intel thing was to happen. (No, I DO hate the idea of the DRM chips on any computer I'll ever use. Even if it'll be going back to Linux..)
 

Viro

Registered
A couple of reasons for possibly going with Intel.

1) Intel have very good laptop processors. Centrino laptops are cool. Literally. They don't run hot like the P4 or any AMD offerings, they consume very little energy thus boosting battery life, and they perform very very well. If the switch was made for performance reasons, this would be it.

2) Intel has the fabrication capability. Even though AMD has better performing, cheaper and available chips, Intel still ships more. Don't need to guess why. Intel produces far more chips than AMD can shake a stick at.
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
Shipping numbers of a product doesn't affect the way it is. AMD still is better and cheaper than Intel. We all know that. AMD will also supply similar processors comparable to Centrino over time. At least I suspect that very much.
 

Viro

Registered
Supply matters very very much. Despite having superior processors, AMD still can't dethrone Intel and can't ship as many processors. The big question, is why? Manufacturers like Dell would ditch Intel for AMD if they could get a guarantee from AMD that they could meet the demand. Better performance, cheaper processors = higher margins and more profits. As it stands, AMD can't.

Apple moving to AMD would be like suicide.
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
But Apple moving to AMD would have meant more potential buyers. I for my part will not buy an Intel-based machine or Intel-based Mac.
 

Viro

Registered
It doesn't matter how many potential buyers there are. AMD just can't produce enough chips. The don't have the same production capacity as Intel. They can't just plonk down cash and get a new fabrication facility overnight.
 

Lt Major Burns

"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
aftr watching the keynote, i can say now that i can see that it's a good idea.

G4 was fantastic - it was weapons grade! and it genuinely DID kill pentiums at the time. G5 has never lived up to this. consistent real benchmarks have proved that G5's are, at best, comparable with x86.

yes, for now, AMD is leading. they do have 64bit processors, but they are no where near as natively compliant with 64bit architecture as G5. they sort-of do 64 bit, quite well. this is because they've got it out early, to look strong, to look like a real player. but AMD have always been in intels shadow. they are a company that clone intel chips. Jobs said, consistently, that they were looking at the next 10 years, not at now. intel have some major development up their sleeve. Apple is not going to go with the shiny pretty company, they're going for the best company.
 

chornbe

Who, me?
Qion said:
I don't think you will be able to run Windows on a Mac still... at least I damn well hope so. Can someone shed some light on this?
Meet my two friends: Para and noid. :)

No, at its heart, OSX is still a Unix based OS and no matter what you do, you can't run native Windows stuff on *nix without a thunking or emulation layer.

Look at it this way... Linux has run on Intel for years and years and years... I don't see many people confusing it with Windows.
 

larryrrw

Registered
+ a lttle story =>
imagine a factory has a client A. A orders 2 million units. suddenly client B shows up and he orders 20 million untits, and ask to be served first. If not, he will go eleswhere to buy. What do you do ?
a) tell client A go away.
b) tell client B to wait.
c) tell client A you have techn. problems and you will deliver as quick as possible ?

Think Different !

hey,
cool it. Apple is avantgarde in PC consumer world.
since they made parallel development since 5 years, we may imagine,
that they observed the roeadmaps of IBM, INTEL, AMD very closely.
when they decide to change to Intel, Intel will be then the best.
You´ll see. The developement to 64 bit is not new, but to bring it into the consumerworld in form of dualcore 90 nm(and smaller) chips is a major step.
the chips are not compareable to what they have been before.
Apple once was right in the time to choose the PPC. so we had the advantage of better performence then- until they others spteped over the 2.gighz line.
from there, the only adventage for Apple users was to have not a permanet heat and extreme noise problem, as the most PC users.

Now, remember three years ago, Apple moved to Nivida since ATI became lazzy with the development for better G-Cards for Apple. Sudenly, they made an effort and one Year later ATI cards where top again on Mac.

If Intel will brings out a very fast&cool 3gigHz dualcore chip (To start of with), that use less energy - and Applle puts two of them in the Mac - Oh boy, we will have fun !

what are the AMD 64bit owners do with theit 64 bit ? do they have a consumer 64 bit OS ? NO ! Are they able to use a 64bit optimized hardware-software as you may on an Apple since two years ? NO.
so what are they worth for ?
When finaly Longhorn comes out OS X will be in its 4th generation !

a nice day to all of you !
 

chornbe

Who, me?
Two Words:

Market. Share.

Intel has the facilities to meet any demand. They have across the board brand recognition and they have the quality. If you're going to argue that AMD is a better chip - and that's a marginally viable argument *only* for the amd 64 chip - then you'll be limiting yourself. Intel is at the top of their game and is well poised to continue owning the market.

Sirtovin said:
I watched the news today and to my dismay Apple has gone with Intel.
Why? Intel simply is NOT windows, if that's your concern let's remember Windows runs just ducky on AMD chips, too. And on PPC chips (Windows/Alpha)

Personally I welcome a better convergence of technologies, and let's remember, an Intel-powered Mac is still a Mac. That means different BIOS, different firmware, different... pretty much everything.

The pros are there finally... for Apple... but so are the cons...

Pros...

1. Apple prices will go down hopefully with the shift to Intel.
2. Apple will become backward compatible more friendly with Windoze... M$.
3. Apple will give Longhorn a real run for it's money.
4. Places like Best Buy, Circuit City, will now feel more obligated to buy Apple for their customers to choose from.

Cons...

1. Intel has yet to make a decent 64-bit processor as AMD has already been testing the waters for almost 2 years now.
2. The next Apple OS release will probably be backward compatible to Windows and run some major Window applications thus eliminating the need for M$ Virtual PC.

My big concern is why Apple did not go to AMD instead of Intel? AMD has a clear advantage when it comes to 64-bit. Does this mean perhaps that Intel will be stepping up it's 64-bit line for next year when they have been so far reluctant to go that route and stay with their 32-bit Pentium IV?
Apple's OSX will not be Windows. If that's your concern, I again point out that Linux runs just fine on Intel and AMD systems and is *not* Windows.
 

Sirtovin

Senior Switcher Tech Guru
I am just curious will Apple Intel processors be the same as X86 processors in code? If this is the case than eventually AMD will follow suit and release X86 processoes in code for Apple... So in a way it could really give Window's a run for thier money finally...

Longhorn is not everything that Billy wants it to be...
OS X-Tiger is way superior to Longhorn...
 

Pengu

Digital Music Pimp
I am just curious will Apple Intel processors be the same as X86 processors in code? If this is the case than eventually AMD will follow suit and release X86 processoes in code for Apple
WHAT?

you can't just unplug an Intel CPU and plug in an AMD CPU. on ANY computer. physically impossible. hell. each company has half a dozen or more different "types" of CPU that aren't interchangable because of physical size, pins, voltage, etc.

the same way you can't currently take your G5 1.6ghz and whop in a g4 2.0 ghz (IBM vs Moto) you won't be able to pop an AMD chip into an Intel-Mac.

And i believe it was mentioned several times that the change is to x86. i would have thought apple would have picked a more "high-end" chip rather than a "plain-jane" x86, but i can't say Im an expert on the differences/compatibility between things like Pentium, Xeon, Itanium, etc. Im wondering also, if the consumer line will get celerons (crippled pentiums... LITERALLY!)
 

Shookster

Registered
Could it also be due to the fact that less experienced buyers may look at a 2 GHz Mac and then a 3.4 GHz PC and buy the PC because it sounds faster? Presumably the Mac chips would run at similar clockspeeds to their PC equivalents.
 

Sirtovin

Senior Switcher Tech Guru
Pengu said:
I am just curious will Apple Intel processors be the same as X86 processors in code? If this is the case than eventually AMD will follow suit and release X86 processoes in code for Apple
WHAT?

you can't just unplug an Intel CPU and plug in an AMD CPU. on ANY computer. physically impossible. hell. each company has half a dozen or more different "types" of CPU that aren't interchangable because of physical size, pins, voltage, etc.

the same way you can't currently take your G5 1.6ghz and whop in a g4 2.0 ghz (IBM vs Moto) you won't be able to pop an AMD chip into an Intel-Mac.

And i believe it was mentioned several times that the change is to x86. i would have thought apple would have picked a more "high-end" chip rather than a "plain-jane" x86, but i can't say Im an expert on the differences/compatibility between things like Pentium, Xeon, Itanium, etc. Im wondering also, if the consumer line will get celerons (crippled pentiums... LITERALLY!)
Both AMD and INTEL, processors run the same codes for Windows programs and Hardware... This is what I am talking about. Everyone knows you can't plug in an INTEL to an AMD SLOT... (Back in the day of the old Pentium and AMD you could... 166Mhz... I remember it was possible... but now it is not.)

I am referring to will Intel design a new chip revolving around code only for Apple like a new schme... Pentium X for Macs... etc...

Obviously AMD, will want a piece of the action since X86 code is now going to have to be written for OS X to work.
 

nixgeek

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
Apple has been eyeing the Pentium D and future Intel processors. The keynote was running on a current P4 processor Mac.
 
Top