The Place to Post all things Intel v AMD

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Placebo that's TODAY that you're talking about.



    -Better dual-processor support



    The Pentium D is just a stopgap until Yonah and Conroe come next year. Intel is basing their future lineup on the same core characteristics that make the Pentium M notebooks perform well. Yonah hits Q1 2006 with a Dual Core 2MB shared cache(no need to use the FSB for cache coherency)all at 25 watts. Steve wasn't talking about todays Intels when he said we'll have a high Power to Watt ratio



    -Existing dual-core production



    Have you priced the AMD Dual Cores versus the Pentium D? No contest Intel is beating AMD in everything but overall performance.



    -64-bit processors for both the low- and high-end



    Why would a low end computer need a 64bit processor??





    The next question to you is what is in AMD's future roadmap that is going to compare with Intel's nextgen cores?



    I think Apple should utilize AMD as a second source but based on info trickling onto the net Intel is about to leave AMD in the dust if



    A. AMD cannot get power consumption down to livable levels

    B. AMD cannot fab their nextgen processors at a level that is competitive with Intel.





    I know some like AMD because they like to root for the underdog but Intel has a masterstroke coming in their upcoming stuff. I was a doubter until I read a bit more and then faced the music that the Pentium M processor is better than anything Apple has right now and that the G5 Powerbook would have only brought Powerbooks up to par only to have Dual Core Yonah notebooks eat its lunch next year.



    Now imagine late next year when the Desktop version of the Pentium M comes in Conroe and Workstation in Woodcrest. Apple has many more options than what even AMDs roadmap shows.



    65nm is coming and it will be far more painless than the 90nm transition. Thank God



    Quote:

    It kind of leaves me wondering about why Apple chose to go with Intel.



    Research man research! Jobs pretty much spelled it out. Mac users now need to be in tune with what's coming from Intel and AMD. Intel so far looks like the better solution based on the available info today.
  • Reply 22 of 49
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    My conception on universal 64-bitness was that if every line of Apple's could be on 64-bit architectures, it would encourage the development of native 64-bit apps (which we'll have to wait until Leopard to behold, by the looks of it)



    Also, I just wanted Apple to prove Dvorak wrong.



    Overall, I'm happy that Apple made this transition.
  • Reply 23 of 49
    cosmos 1999cosmos 1999 Posts: 149member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    My conception on universal 64-bitness was that if every line of Apple's could be on 64-bit architectures, it would encourage the development of native 64-bit apps



    Don't worry, by the end of 2006, all Intel processors will be 64-bit.
  • Reply 24 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Yes by the time the transition is complete Intel will be 64bit throughout the line.



    I'm a bit confused but it seems that Yonah is the first proc to come on 65nm but then Intel is developing Merom another portable chip? There is some confusion as to whether Merom is a portable chip or the name for the core that the nextgen chips will use. Yonah as of today is a 32bit processor but it's portable and I'd rather have the ultimate in battery life.
  • Reply 25 of 49
    power applepower apple Posts: 335member
    Intel manufactors motherboards and chipsets as well, AMD does not, AFAIK.
  • Reply 26 of 49
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Intel already designed the Yonah Mac Mini for Apple: http://news.com.com/Intel+shows+off+...3-5596629.html
  • Reply 27 of 49
    igrantigrant Posts: 180member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cosmos 1999

    Don't worry, by the end of 2006, all Intel processors will be 64-bit.



    Even if they don't, but most likely they will, Intel has always made reiable high speed processor. I have built a 64 bit AMD computer for myself, and it was fast. I then built a P4 machine for my aunt and not only did it cost less, the machine is fast, its a 2.8 with 1mb L2 cache, 512 ram, sata hard drive, and its still running fine almost a year later. I think it was wise for Apple to go with Intel instead of AMD.
  • Reply 28 of 49
    keotkeot Posts: 116member
    I read somewhere that AMDs production facilities are smaller than IBMs. Both have less production capacity than Intel.

    Jobs was becoming fed up of IBM not producing enough, fast enough and cool enough. Intel should be able to perform adequately.
  • Reply 29 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Power Apple

    Intel manufactors motherboards and chipsets as well, AMD does not, AFAIK.



    AMD has manufactured chipsets before but they don't like to. Intel handles the whole shebang for you if you want. It'll be interesting to see what Intel has late 2006 for chipsets. I'd assume this means we'll also be getting better audio support in Macs.



    I'm becoming more and more positive that this will be a good thing for us all. Even the stubborness in me is waning after reading about Intel's future lineup. I think it is important for Apple to make inroads with AMD as well to make sure they have multiple sourcing options.
  • Reply 30 of 49
    thttht Posts: 4,443member
    AMD shares fabrication technology with IBM. If it weren't for AMD's technology sharing deals with IBM, AMD wouldn't be where it is at today.



    If Apple wasn't confident about IBM's fabrication technology, and IBM's 90 nm performance is ample proof that they weren't doing that great, then they wouldn't be confident in AMD's fab tech either.
  • Reply 31 of 49
    What exactly makes Intel's production facilities that much better than IBM and AMD?
  • Reply 32 of 49
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ben Huebscher

    What exactly makes Intel's production facilities that much better than IBM and AMD?



    Money, effort, people. Intel has the most money, puts in the most effort, and has the smartest people. Go figure.
  • Reply 33 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Plus Intel has what like 7 fab facilities? AMD is the sexy choice right now but I'm doubting that they will offer such advantages in mid 2006 into 2007
  • Reply 34 of 49
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Plus Intel has what like 7 fab facilities? AMD is the sexy choice right now but I'm doubting that they will offer such advantages in mid 2006 into 2007



    That's what people sad before the K6, K7, K8 Athlon, Opteron, Dual cores.. I think the book is out on that one, but I also think that the intel branding will help. It's all x86 to me.
  • Reply 35 of 49
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I think this dismissal of AMD is just more of the usual "our chip is the best!" reactionary prattle. I seriously doubt they would have a difficult time actually providing what Apple needs, it's not like Apple is really that big, fellas.



    As far as confidence in their fab tech; I'll trust Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft's opinion of what IBM can do over what Apple says.



    I'd love to see this AMD roadmap that shows it is about to be "left in the dust". Perhaps they don't have any portable processors as compelling as Intel, but that's a whole other deal than desktop computing, where you can afford the cooling area required to power a big-ass chip. Not that AMD doesn't know about the big 65nm secret. Intel may be first out the door, but who can say AMD will actually be behind in any significant way?



    "The whole idea is to begin to process 65-nm in the middle of 2005 and bring it into production in 2006. We're certainly on schedule," Mr. Sonderman added.



    It's nothing more than a marketing move for Apple to stick solely with Intel. Even if you were concerned about AMD's production capability that's no logical reason to completely close the door on a very competitive/often superior processor lineup that would pose absolutely no technological challenge to adopt.



    Do not be fooled, my pretties.
  • Reply 36 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Well the fact is despite what AMD fanboys say AMD doesn't even have a capable answer for the Pentium M today. With Intel looking to sync the whole lineup on a new core based on Banias technology I don't see AMD really being able to match Intel here. If I'm wrong then I'd like to see some links.



    Will AMD be far behind? Probably not but I don't think they'll enjoy the advantage they have today. I think Intel knows that the P4 in its current form is dead.



    Should be interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing AMD Macs but I don't think it is all that necessary at this juncture.
  • Reply 37 of 49
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison





    Should be interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing AMD Macs but I don't think it is all that necessary at this juncture.




    True, we have a about a years wait before we see one of these x86 Mac's anyway. We'll know alot more about what AMD, and intel are going to look like then. We'll also probably have some idea on what's up with IBM too.
  • Reply 38 of 49
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    This message typed on a Pentium 4 system.



    Quote:

    Well the fact is despite what AMD fanboys say AMD doesn't even have a capable answer for the Pentium M today.



    Who said anything about having an "answer for the Pentium M today."?

    I remember specifically saying:

    Perhaps they don't have any portable processors as compelling as Intel, but that's a whole other deal than desktop computing







    Past that, they seem to be trying and having modest success with the Turion, which performs on par with the M but might not be quite as outstanding in the power consumption department. We'll see. But seriously, what in the recent history of either company would suggest that one is going to leave the other one behind in any significant way? Nothing.



    I don't see how acknowledging this simple fact categorizes one as a "fanboy".



    Quote:

    With Intel looking to sync the whole lineup on a new core based on Banias technology I don't see AMD really being able to match Intel here. If I'm wrong then I'd like to see some links.



    Some links to what? Benchmarks between processors that won't be released until late 2006/early 2007? Let me hop in my time machine right quick.



    I understand the fascination with the M, I do. It's very nice. My wife's cousin has an awesome little ultra-portable with a Pentium M and it's awesome and it makes me jealous. But it's not just about laptops. A lot of us want towers with lots of room to cool superfast components. I really don't care if the chip is hotter than lava so long as it is stable and runs everything as fast as is technologically possible.

    I don't give a damn about battery life when I'm plugged into the wall all day every day.



    Intel would not be wise to focus all its energies on getting a small power footprint. There are plenty of users who want raw power. Lots and lots and lots of users. Let's not just pick up on new Jobsisms ("performance per watt") and play the blind sheeplings yet again.



    I don't have any problem with watercooling. I like water, it keeps me alive.



    Quote:

    Should be interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing AMD Macs but I don't think it is all that necessary at this juncture.



    Necessary for what?

    Is the PPC->x86 transition necessary?



    ---



    We'll see what AMD does but it doesn't really matter because it's not an option anyway. Apple is married to Intel so the two can capitalize on each other's names more than anything truly technical.
  • Reply 39 of 49
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    No, that's unfair. For Intel its certainly a PR win and gives them access to Apple's 'cool' factory. For Apple however its all about the technology; more specifically the technology to actually deliver vast quantities of chips on time.



    You may enjoy ugly mod' boxes and water cooling and all that juvenile jazz, but its not the future.
  • Reply 40 of 49
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:

    Some links to what? Benchmarks between processors that won't be released until late 2006/early 2007? Let me hop in my time machine right quick.





    :P while I enjoy your vain attempts at humor the question still remains. Where is the comperable low power 65nm roadmap from AMD? It's getting a wee bit late for 11th hour heroics. Yonah info is out..Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest info will be forthcoming. Intel has a well defined strategy here whilst AMD fans revel in todays architecture.



    BTW I harbor now ill will against AMD. My next homebuilt PC will use an AMD. I like the bang for buck and I want to try something different. I just realize that Intel was the ideal solution for Apple to align with



    Personally I do have a problem with heat and components. It's a fact that heat breaks components down and if Intel can reduce power consumpting by a factor of 2 then we have the ability to run multiple dual core processors without resorting to extreme methods of cooling.



    The pentium m is more than just a cool running processor. It's pipeline length is shorter thant a P4 giving a higher IPC. Just like a G5 or AMD processor. Thus Intel was smart to hop the Megahurts train with the P4 yet throttle back when they realized that the roadmap for this wasn't conducive to longevity.



    If Yonah has a 2MB shared cache and memory controller then I could see Conroe having as high as a 4MB cache and other tweaks. We'll see if Intel can deliver. I think they can.
Sign In or Register to comment.