Maybe..., just maybe....

[Larry-K]

Do you also care about the power supply in your fridge?

Did you check to see if your fridge has a power supply?

 

[cynics]

Look.

I don't think they're going to do it. alright

They aren't that stupid, and as we know here, they are stupid.

I don't care if it performs the same as an Intel processor, I don't want to be mocked by everyone I talk about computers with (literally) because I have an AMD processor. And then I have to say "Oh you know this ones different look at the specs"... I'm not buying a computer with an AMD processor. Everyone knows AMD is the laughing stock of the CPU world. They've always been terrible.

And it is for that reason that Apple won't do it. Us Mac users can successfully fend off the Apple haters because we have substance to back up our side, if Apple's quality drops so low that they're using AMD everything, we don't have a case anymore.
[doublepost=1475297521][/doublepost]
I haven't used a PC since OS 9 in the 90s for that exact reason. Also won't buy crapMD (AMD), better out there for my money.

Apple has been using AMD components for at least 20years probably longer (LC3 is my reference point that I know of without research).
[doublepost=1475325727][/doublepost]

The problem is that tasks that are written for multiple cores are the minority, even if they can benefit from them. Lightroom and Photoshop for example, are primarily boosted by single core perf, while certain subtasks may be multi-threaded like filters. Photoshop in particular is just too old. And tasks in that case which are massively parallel are already being moved to the GPU rather than being left on the CPU. And if your work tends to be of the office variety, you can stress the CPU when working in Pages/Word/whatever and those are primarily single-threaded apps. Apps like browsers will also tend to feel more performant when you have stronger single-threaded due to the final compositing that tends to need to be done all on a single thread (because UI interaction is required to be on the main thread, even if you can do some work off the main thread).

The reality is that CPUs at the moment have gotten ahead of the workloads people put on them in most cases. Basically, if you know more cores will help you, great. But if you aren't sure, the answer is likely "no". I do have some things that would benefit from Zen or Broadwell-E, but I don't honestly do them often enough on an iMac for it to matter. And ironically, in the office, I have a Mac Pro for the one day-to-day thing where it does.

My main point here is that if we are looking at common workloads, 8-core systems are currently overkill. And I'm not convinced it would be the right call to push Zen across all iMac models, and Apple is unlikely to put Zen, and the required motherboard design changes into a single high-end model.

I'm not saying you are wrong but the difference are vast. The bumps in single core performance are only measurable in benchmarks.

If you take a 13% hit in something that takes a fraction of a second to perform it's a tough sale. Well it's an easy sale for Intel they've done a great job marketing it.

However if you gain 30% performance in something that take 3 hours those are some real gains.

I agree with you I think it's unlikely we will see an AMD processor in an iMac for a long time.

Also I'm not talking about the entire Mac line getting 8 core CPU's. Just making that option available instead of restricting it to the Mac Pro line.
[doublepost=1475326178][/doublepost]

You like being ridiculed by other people about the stuff you spend thousands of dollars on? Have fun !!

It's not fanboyism it's called (very) simple logic.


How preposterous

And you people are making fun of me.

Oh man!!!

I think their point was it's impossible to tell the CPU in your PC short of doing very specific task so why would one be embarrassed about what they need to rely on software to tell them "about this Mac". Especially if the machine is literally faster. That's purely brand name marketing.

 

[varian55zx]

I think their point was it's impossible to tell the CPU in your PC short of doing very specific task so why would one be embarrassed about what they need to rely on software to tell them "about this Mac". Especially if the machine is literally faster. That's purely brand name marketing.

Don't care, I'm still not buying AMcrap for that reason, and for the reason that their processors always blow anyway. I'm not buying some dollar store processor in a 3k computer.

 

[Krevnik]

Also I'm not talking about the entire Mac line getting 8 core CPU's. Just making that option available instead of restricting it to the Mac Pro line.

And this is why I think we won't see it. It would be a useful option as a cheaper variant to the Mac Pro, yes. But I would be floored if Apple builds and designs two different logic boards, built around different chipsets to offer a BTO-style option.

 

[cynics]

Don't care, I'm still not buying AMcrap for that reason, and for the reason that their processors always blow anyway. I'm not buying some dollar store processor in a 3k computer.

I respect your opinion but short of Intel fanboyism, popularity, artificially inflated prices or Intels clever marketing do you have any actual reasons?

Seems brash considering modern day Intel CPUs still revolve around the core implementation from AMD in 64 bit computing.

I'm just not getting it. "Hey I paid more for something worse" (hypothetically) confuses me. Then again I'm the type that would buy a fully equipped Nissan over a entry model BMW.

I too prefer Intel, never owned anything AMD actually. But if they put out something that is better at a better price I'm all for it.

 

[varian55zx]

Then again I'm the type that would buy a fully equipped Nissan over a entry model BMW.

And there is your explanation then.

I, under no circumstances, would ever do that. I don't like Nissan

I drive a German make now and I love it very much. A BMW and Nissan aren't comparable at all!

If someone gave me a specs list for the two processors side by side, I mean I'd take a look

But it has held true for many years that AMD was the dollar store brand when it came to processors, and Intel was the brand you wanted to get. Again, I'll see the numbers, and I'll make a decision.

 

[cynics]

And there is your explanation then.

I, under no circumstances, would ever do that. I don't like Nissan

I drive a German make now and I love it very much. A BMW and Nissan aren't comparable at all!

If someone gave me a specs list for the two processors side by side, I mean I'd take a look

But it has held true for many years that AMD was the dollar store brand when it came to processors, and Intel was the brand you wanted to get. Again, I'll see the numbers, and I'll make a decision.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I also regret using a car analogy. But I said entry model...so in the case of BMW would be a 2 series...no one should own a 2 series. Designed specifically for suckers buying a badge, the build quality isn't even there. I used BMW because I used to work on them, Audi and Merc are equally as guilty.

But getting away from cars.

AMD has been the less expensive brand because they haven't put anything out. Like they typically do, and what makes me the most excited for Zen is how it will reshape the market. You'll see processors fall out of Intels high-end line down to the consumer line with the 6700k, which intel marketing has convinced most people is high end.

Either way for me is a win. A better AMD processor or a more reasonably priced Intel...doesn't matter to me.

BTW this is all based on the assumption that Zen is good/competitive. If not my point is moot.

 

[varian55zx]

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I also regret using a car analogy. But I said entry model...so in the case of BMW would be a 2 series...no one should own a 2 series. Designed specifically for suckers buying a badge, the build quality isn't even there. I used BMW because I used to work on them, Audi and Merc are equally as guilty.

But getting away from cars.

AMD has been the less expensive brand because they haven't put anything out. Like they typically do, and what makes me the most excited for Zen is how it will reshape the market. You'll see processors fall out of Intels high-end line down to the consumer line with the 6700k, which intel marketing has convinced most people is high end.

Either way for me is a win. A better AMD processor or a more reasonably priced Intel...doesn't matter to me.

BTW this is all based on the assumption that Zen is good/competitive. If not my point is moot.

We'll see, if they can reshape their brand image and put out something of quality, I'm all for it. I want to see everyone succeed

If this "Zen" proves to perform better than the current skylake i5s, then we'll see. That is something that I would definitely have to look at.