why not AMD?
i know that Intel is the best for image rendering etc. and miltitasking but so far the new AMD Athlon 64 X2's are smoking the Intel dual core processors. If AMD continues to do so then why would Apple go with Intel. Assuming AMD's X2 processors perform better for quite some time, why are we playing MORE for intel processors? I know intel advertises a lot so most people think that they are better but judging by the benchmarks that i have seen AMD has a pretty big lead. Sorry i dont have the site right now but I'll try and find it. Although i think Apple is interested in showing high GHz, AMD's processors do way more per cycle and i believe the only reason Intel can go so high in that area is because of their pipelines being bigger.
Also, isn't Apple supposed to be a highly innovative company? I dont think Intel is even close to being one. I believe AMD is more innovative because they are also (like Apple) trying to beat out a company that sucks. My opinion is somewhat biased but i do think that Apple should have atleast considered AMD. AMD also has their new Turion CPUs for notebooks coming out soon.
well, what do u guys think.
Also, isn't Apple supposed to be a highly innovative company? I dont think Intel is even close to being one. I believe AMD is more innovative because they are also (like Apple) trying to beat out a company that sucks. My opinion is somewhat biased but i do think that Apple should have atleast considered AMD. AMD also has their new Turion CPUs for notebooks coming out soon.
well, what do u guys think.
Comments
AMD would be the proper choice is the switch was happening "Today" however we still have 9 months to go and thinks are changing rapidly in Intel land.
Here's what I've read.
Intel has multiple teams designing processors. One stateside in the US and another in Israel. They both work on different designs.
The current Pentium 4 "Netburst" architecture was designed here while the new Pentium M was designed in Israel. Some time in the last 2 yrs it became abundantly clear to Intel that the Netburst architecture wasn't going to hit their goals. They were going to hit the wall much sooner. They promptly cancelled Tejas the next big Netburst upgrade and the successor to the Xeon.
In the meantime the Israel team delivered the Pentium M which traces its lineage not to Netburst but rather the Pentium III. The Pentium M is far more of an efficient processor in IPC and power efficiency. Intel decided that this was the way of the future because dual cores allow them to reduce their focus megahertz and just add more cores.
Thus Intel's roadmap is now completely centered around dual cores and the efficient Pentium M core(Banias). They have a Banias replacement for the Netburst desktop and workstation coming. I'm assuming these chips will likely have 2-4MB of shared L2 cache and a bevvy of other nifty things. I'd love to see a new SIMD unit as well.
AMD has Turion coming but it is no match for Yonah which will be out Q1 2006. I'm also thinking that due to the similarities of the Athlon/Opteron to the G5 it'll be hard for AMD to patch the power efficiency of the desktop and workstation Banias Dual Cores.
Thus not only do I think that Intel will match AMD in speed for the most part but they will do it using far less watts than the comparable AMD part. No more liquid cooling!!
Summary. AMD is "the" solution today..Intel the solution for tomorrow.
Originally posted by SteveGTA
yea i know they need to look at the future but thats why i made this topic because it seems to me that AMD's X2s are better than the intel dual core CPU's. I guess i just think that AMD chips are better but theyre cheaper too but i guess there are other things that comes into play like fab capacity and stuff. Also, how would AMD not be able to keep up with the next die shrink?
The AMDs are better at the desktop level. The Turion seems to be a capable competitor to the Pentium M but then Yonah will come and demolish it.
I figure AMDs Athlon and Opteron will eventually give way to the Conroe and Woodcrest chips as well.
I knew it was basically power consumption but now that i think about it, don't dual cores take up twice the power and quad cores take up 4x the power. if they are having trouble getting the G5 into a notebook, imagine a dual/quad core G5.
That said... this transition is not about high-performance CPUs. It is about low-power laptop CPUs. AMD's laptop CPUs are not as good as Intel's at this point.
Originally posted by SteveGTA
so what you are saying is that the AMD X2 is like the first and only revision of dual core CPU for AMD but the one Pentium has now is just rev 1 out of 2 and that rev 2 of the pentium will knock out the AMD X2s?
yes in a way. Although I'd hesitate to say that AMD won't have improvements as well. Intel though is clearly moving away from Netburst in favor of Banias tech and has saved their "real" dual core offerings for next year with Yonah and Conroe. The race will get a lot tighter then.
I knew it was basically power consumption but now that i think about it, don't dual cores take up twice the power and quad cores take up 4x the power. if they are having trouble getting the G5 into a notebook, imagine a dual/quad core G5.
EXACTLY. I think Apple is so sick about not having a stellar iBook/Powerbook lineup. I think they're tired of the potential problems with liquid cooling. I don't rule out Apple and AMD linking up but perhaps they better set a rather narrow target(CPU and chipset) and get that up and running to acceptable standards first.
The thing they want immediately if not sooner, is something that will move the Powerbook forward, since portables are eclipsing desktop sales. 64 bit high-end chips are less pressing, so it doesn't matter so much that AMD is ahead in those areas.
I'm beginning to recover from the shock and dismay, and am finally seeing the long-term logic behind this move. It'll be tough in the short-term, probably a lot tougher than Job's PR machine spun it at the WWDC Keynote, but if they survive the next 18 months, they will have done the right thing. I am getting sick of Apple being in a nearly-constant state of transition, though. I thought we'd finally settled down with the G5 and OS 10.3.
Originally posted by SteveGTA
because Intel offers better prices to you if you only buy from them.
God knows Apple doesn't like charging premiums for processors... oh wait.
I'm beginning to recover from the shock and dismay, and am finally seeing the long-term logic behind this move. It'll be tough in the short-term
My sentiments exactly. I don't rule out AMD but that may be a ways down the road. Right now I'm looking forward to a dual core Powerbook available as soon as next year. That's exciting. I'll move to AMD for my next desktop PCs running Longhorn.
That must be a nightmare awaiting to happen for Apple.
Originally posted by groverat
God knows Apple doesn't like charging premiums for processors... oh wait.
Grove now that's just facetious :P
Hell, only Apple blew money to denounce Intel, IBM just went "meh, we don't just make PowerPCs, this is Apple's battle for mindshare".
I want them cheap. I want them fast. I want them running Mac OS X better than ever. Tired of cheerleading PowerPC. The real world doesn't give a frig if it's Intel inside so long as it has more than 20 minutes battery life and it doesn't need 25 fans.
<speculation>
What I REALLY am suspicious of now is: Has Steve Jobs been using Intel Macs (hacked to hide the processor ID) for the last five years during his various keynote demos???
I seriously suspect this to be the case. He's consistently had blazing performance that, when I make it to the Mac store and play with the best that they have, I can never seem to duplicate.
Imagine how illegal that would be and how embarrassing.</speculation>
Back in ancient times, at least as far as computers go, Intel would often sit on faster processors in order for their slower parts to "earn out" on the investment. Then, between AMD and PPC, Intel began to feel the heat from competition. This drove a great burst of speed in processing power. Not just in clock speeds, either. The whole RISC v CISC debate became moot because Intel took lessons from both, blurring the distinction.
If PPC and AMD fade, what keeps Intel honest? I like competition because it drives innovation.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
If PPC and AMD fade, what keeps Intel honest? I like competition because it drives innovation.
The irony of the situation is that IBM/PPC appears to be on the move right now, e.g., MS switching from Intel to IBM, and Cell.