Reason why not AMD( at the moment) is Fabs. Intel owns theirs and AMD doesnt. Someone correct me if iam wrong but thats the heart of the matter. Plus 1 G5 cannot match one P4. 2 G5s can on somethings and on otherthings not.
I think Jobs was sick and tired of being with the underdog CPU supplier. As long as Apple is with the by far largest PC CPU supplier, not much can go wrong. Apple will always have performance parity with the majority of Wintel systems.
If Intel were to push a new SIMD unit, they would be able to make it a new standard, unlike AMD. I have no idea if Apple has the patent rights or if Intel would even be interested, but it would be interesting to see Altivec on an x86 CPU. But this goes for any CPU or mobo technology; if Intel promotes it, it becomes a standard by definition, and Apple can build off the standard with the knowledge that it isn't going away anytime soon.
Also, Jobs et. al. know in detail the future roadmaps for AMD, IBM, and Intel. Their choice was probably based on where these companies would be in 5-10 years, not on current offerings. Apple's choice suggests that Intel will soon recapture the lead in 64 bit CPUs.
The Pentium M is a killer, AMD hath no chance. Look at the benchmarks on this 'outdated chip', a few tweaks in the next revision will make it a screamer.
The Pentium M is a killer, AMD hath no chance. Look at the benchmarks on this 'outdated chip', a few tweaks in the next revision will make it a screamer.
Plus Steve dont play golf with no AMD chairman but he does with the Intel chair. Golf is a great game8)
Because they would still have to justify how 2.6 Ghz (AMD) is 'faster' than 3.6 Ghz (Intel). They would still have to talk about the Mhz myth, to explain how it doesn't really matter that you have a spankin'-ass 3.6 Intel because 2.6 AMD kicks ass!!111!!
They were tired of being the underdog, the one that always has to justify stuff with some benchmarks and megahertz myths. AMD *is* better, but Joe User doesn't get that. He's not into that. He knows Intel, and he wants Intel. The day AMD has a sizable chunk of the market share <40% than they will have no problem selling AMD's. Right now, as it stands, the move is risky enough from PPC > Intel. They didn't want to take the risk of going with AMD into the future with no clear roadmap and no low-power, great performance mobile chips from AMD.
Because they would still have to justify how 2.6 Ghz (AMD) is 'faster' than 3.6 Ghz (Intel). They would still have to talk about the Mhz myth, to explain how it doesn't really matter that you have a spankin'-ass 3.6 Intel because 2.6 AMD kicks ass!!111!!
They were tired of being the underdog, the one that always has to justify stuff with some benchmarks and megahertz myths. AMD *is* better, but Joe User doesn't get that. He's not into that. He knows Intel, and he wants Intel. The day AMD has a sizable chunk of the market share <40% than they will have no problem selling AMD's. Right now, as it stands, the move is risky enough from PPC > Intel. They didn't want to take the risk of going with AMD into the future with no clear roadmap and no low-power, great performance mobile chips from AMD.
Mobile chips. That's what Apple wants.
So True. Intel is the Logical choice. It took a long,long time but they are doing it.
Intel is the logical choice for apple now due to volume alone. But I disagree with the long term sucess of Intel's CPU design. "Itanium sux" Intel's current P4 dual core implementation is sloppy and seems rushed. Granted Intel's is R&D is dual core to the extream but whose isn't, at this point everyone is moving to it. Cell type design would have a better choice in my opinion. AMD's CPU's are a better design and will continue to be in the future. Intel is playing catch up in terms of performance. On a side note I'm not sure I would choose to work with a company who spefically designed a bus system to appeal to marketing rather than actual performance. "Netburst"
"GHZ is better" intial P4 performance was horrible, the chips were twice as expenceive as p3's and the p3's were faster.
Reason why not AMD( at the moment) is Fabs. Intel owns theirs and AMD doesnt. Someone correct me if iam wrong but thats the heart of the matter. Plus 1 G5 cannot match one P4. 2 G5s can on somethings and on otherthings not.
AMD own theirs too. One in Texas somewhere and one in Dresden, Germany. They just don't have as many as Intel.
I know it isn't possible, but it would have been perfect if we could have had AMD in our desktops and Intel in our notebooks (as long as they make their new Pentium Ms 64 bit).
I'm hoping to be able to retrofit some Athlons into my future Mac.
Comments
If Intel were to push a new SIMD unit, they would be able to make it a new standard, unlike AMD. I have no idea if Apple has the patent rights or if Intel would even be interested, but it would be interesting to see Altivec on an x86 CPU. But this goes for any CPU or mobo technology; if Intel promotes it, it becomes a standard by definition, and Apple can build off the standard with the knowledge that it isn't going away anytime soon.
Also, Jobs et. al. know in detail the future roadmaps for AMD, IBM, and Intel. Their choice was probably based on where these companies would be in 5-10 years, not on current offerings. Apple's choice suggests that Intel will soon recapture the lead in 64 bit CPUs.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
IIf Intel were to push a new SIMD unit, they would be able to make it a new standard, unlike AMD.
Except it was AMD that set the standard for x86-64 and intel was forced by the market to follow AMD's implementation.
The Pentium M is a killer, AMD hath no chance. Look at the benchmarks on this 'outdated chip', a few tweaks in the next revision will make it a screamer.
Originally posted by ZoranS
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html
The Pentium M is a killer, AMD hath no chance. Look at the benchmarks on this 'outdated chip', a few tweaks in the next revision will make it a screamer.
Plus Steve dont play golf with no AMD chairman but he does with the Intel chair. Golf is a great game8)
They were tired of being the underdog, the one that always has to justify stuff with some benchmarks and megahertz myths. AMD *is* better, but Joe User doesn't get that. He's not into that. He knows Intel, and he wants Intel. The day AMD has a sizable chunk of the market share <40% than they will have no problem selling AMD's. Right now, as it stands, the move is risky enough from PPC > Intel. They didn't want to take the risk of going with AMD into the future with no clear roadmap and no low-power, great performance mobile chips from AMD.
Mobile chips. That's what Apple wants.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Because they would still have to justify how 2.6 Ghz (AMD) is 'faster' than 3.6 Ghz (Intel). They would still have to talk about the Mhz myth, to explain how it doesn't really matter that you have a spankin'-ass 3.6 Intel because 2.6 AMD kicks ass!!111!!
They were tired of being the underdog, the one that always has to justify stuff with some benchmarks and megahertz myths. AMD *is* better, but Joe User doesn't get that. He's not into that. He knows Intel, and he wants Intel. The day AMD has a sizable chunk of the market share <40% than they will have no problem selling AMD's. Right now, as it stands, the move is risky enough from PPC > Intel. They didn't want to take the risk of going with AMD into the future with no clear roadmap and no low-power, great performance mobile chips from AMD.
Mobile chips. That's what Apple wants.
So True. Intel is the Logical choice. It took a long,long time but they are doing it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Mobile chips. That's what Apple wants.
Quoted for emphasis. Centrino "Napa" is the future of both the portable line, and the consumer desktops (mini & iMac).
"GHZ is better" intial P4 performance was horrible, the chips were twice as expenceive as p3's and the p3's were faster.
In all honesty though I feel x86 need to die
Just my 2 cents
Originally posted by Aurora
Reason why not AMD( at the moment) is Fabs. Intel owns theirs and AMD doesnt. Someone correct me if iam wrong but thats the heart of the matter. Plus 1 G5 cannot match one P4. 2 G5s can on somethings and on otherthings not.
AMD own theirs too. One in Texas somewhere and one in Dresden, Germany. They just don't have as many as Intel.
I know it isn't possible, but it would have been perfect if we could have had AMD in our desktops and Intel in our notebooks (as long as they make their new Pentium Ms 64 bit).
I'm hoping to be able to retrofit some Athlons into my future Mac.