The Place to Post all things Intel v AMD
Apple is going to switch to Intel. We all know that now after the keynote. What are the possibilities that they are also going to implement AMD processors into their computers as well. This would give them 2 huge chip suppliers and could choose from many different processors.
Macaddict16
Macaddict16
Comments
We might see none of the benefits of moving to Intel architecture.
Can I run OSX on my own homebuilt---NO
Then I don't really have any benefit other than Steve blustering about Roadmaps. Yeah I'm going to believe that. I'll never trust a damn thing that comes out Steve's mouth. No more snake oil.
Could Apple release Intel and AMD machines simultaniously to provide users with more choices?
C) What are the advantages of Intel? What are the advantages of AMD?
D) What is your opinion? (Not about Intel vs. PPC please, I'm talking Intel vs. AMD here)
Which company will ship a 65 nm CPU first?
Which company will ship a 45 nm CPU first?
The answer is Intel. They were the first to 130 nm, the first to 90 nm, and maybe even the first to 180 nm, but I don't quite remember that one.
I just read the Tom's Hardware Guide story on Yonah. Today AMD is competitive with Intel but I doubt that by 2007 AMD is going to be able to keep up with Intel.
Hell I must admit Dual Cores, 2MB shared L2 cache $ 25watts or less has to appeal to just about any road warrior.
Less is known about the nextgen Conroe/Merom desktop CPU but evidently Intel has figured out how to contain leakage at 65nm thus they should be efficient as well comparitively.
I've put enough vitriolic responses on these boards and honestly I missed probably the biggest point. 10.5 or Leopard is going to be on the ground floor of a new Intel core that will blow Netburst away. I expect many of my complaints about P4 to go away then.
This was probably the only way to get the Intel CEO on stage and since Apple will likely be only shipping Intel processors at first, its not a bad idea. Besides, the checkbox in XCode could easily be update to read "x86" or even add other checkboxes for future architectures.
At the end of the day, with Universal binaries, you assured support on two architectures. While I expect x86 will be the focus in 2007 and onward, this now places PPC as a backup plan in case intel/AMD flake.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...2/index.x?pg=1
Originally posted by corvette
read this article. it will be good for everyone..
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...2/index.x?pg=1
I wonder what this means for upgrades? Will Mac users finally be able to go out and buy a new CPU and drop it in if the pin counts match? I understand that maybe not everything will be upgradable but even just the CPU would be nice.
Macaddict16
Originally posted by Macaddict16
I wonder what this means for upgrades? Will Mac users finally be able to go out and buy a new CPU and drop it in if the pin counts match? I understand that maybe not everything will be upgradable but even just the CPU would be nice.
Macaddict16
That actually is a freaking fantastic realization. I would have to say yes! You should be able to upgrade an intelMac.
A) Switching to AMD wouldn't be hard to do. If you're already x86, or x86-64, you're already over the biggest hurdle by far. Neither one has an "Altivec-like" feature that would tie Apple to one supplier or the other. They each have their own particular strengths, but that's another question I'll answer in a sec.
In theory they could, but this sounds like Apple made an agreement specifically to Intel, and they will probably stick with them for a period of time.
C) Intel is stronger with media encoding. i.e, MP3, MPEG, DIVX or MPEG4 encoding, etc. AMD is stronger on game performance. All in all they are both pretty competitive, and the new dual-core chips are putting gas on the fire.
D) My opinion? I for one welcome our new Macintel Overlords. just kidding. Actually I personally don't care too much. The x86 platform is competitive, and if it means more power sooner, then I'm for the switch.
Really, the main cause of the shift here was R&D $$$. Intel has way more $$$ to put into R&D than anyone else, including AMD. And they're putting it into low power processors and compilers.
Now I wonder what happened to a guy that told me it was a bad idea for Apple to adopt IBM's compiler for the PowerPC because of all the hard work Apple had invested in the PowerPC version of GCC. Well, he better go shoot Jobs and get the deal with Intel undone.
-Better dual-processor support.
-Existing dual-core production
-64-bit processors for both the low- and high-end
It kind of leaves me wondering about why Apple chose to go with Intel.
Originally posted by Placebo
I mean, why not? Here are my reasons they should have:
-Better dual-processor support.
-Existing dual-core production
-64-bit processors for both the low- and high-end
It kind of leaves me wondering about why Apple chose to go with Intel.
My guess is that Intel offered Apple a better deal to use their processor rather than AMD . . . .
2/ 2007 and post-2007 roadmaps with massively multicore Intel chips.