I have been an AMD user for a long time, and recently switched to mac. Right now, all I have are powerpc macs because I need a higher powered computer, but can't afford a quad core mac pro. I think apple should make an AMD version of the mac mini with a phenom CPU, as it would be cheaper than the core 2 duo CPU, and the AMD motherboards are much cheaper to produce (not exactly sure why, I just know they are.) I believe that if apple were to do this, they could have a quad core mac mini for about the same price as the dual core intel. Please, let me know what you think about this.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who thinks apple should make an AMD computer?
- Thread starter foothead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eh, if given the option between an AMD Mac and an Intel Mac, I'd choose the AMD one. But it wouldn't matter to most people, unless the AMD machine was cheaper then the Intel one.
doesn't amd use more power than the intels?
knowing apple, they'd release it at the same price as the intel counter parts, and market it as giving people options to go with the company that they favor more.
knowing apple, they'd release it at the same price as the intel counter parts, and market it as giving people options to go with the company that they favor more.
I disagree with this. AMD processors are a much better value than the intel ones. They run about the same, just cost much less. what I want is a phenom x4 mini for about the same price as the intel one.
I built my newest media PC with an AMD phenom x4, 4GB 1066 DDR2, 1.5 TB HD, blu-ray for $600. I checked. to build an intel machine with the same specs would be over $1000.
Well Apple use a custom motherboard so this would negate the point about AMd motherboards being cheaper. Since Intel launched the Core 2 duo range of processors AMD have been in catch up mode and still are. AMD processors just don't come up to the same standards of Intel processors currently.
Although you need a powerful computer a standard dual core 2 duo of 2.0ghz would thrash a quad G5 thee days.
This was true for most things until AMD's 45nm chips came out. I think amd's 45nm is actually more energy efficient than intels as they have gotten a 2.3ghz quad core down to 40 watts and thats with a memory controller built on like core i7 which is very powerhungry even with core shutdown. I'd like to see what kinda power consumption they can muster on their 45nm dual cores. The 780g chipset has really low power consumption as well.
Exactly. That's why I want an AMD that can run OS X. Right now, I have a phenom x4 computer, but I can't have OS X, and I hate windows, so it has linux.
just buy an iMac. Unless you need expansion bays they are plenty fast.
If you complain about the price of a mac then maybe you should stop looking at them and just buy a pc. Macs aren't for everyone.
If you complain about the price of a mac then maybe you should stop looking at them and just buy a pc. Macs aren't for everyone.
Cheaper to produce doesn't always translate into cheaper to buy, particularly where Apple is concerned.
Well, either way, I don't think it would cost more than a mac pro, so even if it is a bit more expensive, I would definitely buy one, as long as it had a triple or quad core CPU.
Well, that's not really the problem. I mostly want a quad core mac that is reasonably priced. Since I'm sure this won't happen anytime soon, I probably am going to buy an iMac, I just want to wait for snow leopard.
well looking at your sig it looks like anything would be faster than those two. Also if apple included quad cores they would have slower clock speeds which means they would be slower at most applications. The advantage would come if the app was multi core coded.
And dont forget all iMacs have two cores which isnt bad
And dont forget all iMacs have two cores which isnt bad
For the average consumer an AMD processor is adequate, but a big problem with AMD is their lack of effective marketing. I worked at a big box store and people "wanted" intel no matter what. Even if it was just for granny to check her e-mail, she wanted Intel! Apple is a powerful brand name and so is Intel, so Apple is doing the best thing by associating itself with only Intel processors for its computers. Sure, an Apple AMD machine would probably be fine for most people (except maybe in laptops, where AMD processors don't do as well in the battery life department), but will we ever see it? no.
I know, for an iMac that it would be slower clock speeds, but I am talking about the mini, which currently has a dual 2.0. The slowest phenom CPU is the 2.3 GHZ one, and it can easily be OC'd. I have mine running at 2.6 with stock cooling, which has a really small heatsink. The new phenom 2 can be OC'd to over 6 GHZ, so no, the quad will definitely be faster.
Phenoms are desktop CPUs with a minimum TDP of 65W. It won't work in a package the size of a mini.
What would be the benefit of hurting the relationship with Intel?
AMD has nothing to offer Apple, except money in Apple's pocket. I don't think the savings would get passed on anyways. I'll take the better Intel........
AMD has nothing to offer Apple, except money in Apple's pocket. I don't think the savings would get passed on anyways. I'll take the better Intel........
Go back and read Apple's stated reasons for switching from IBM's PowerPC to Intel's x86. Apple did not make the transition so that it could build yet another Wintel beige box. Apple made the transition because Intel had developed a new process to manufacture substantially cooler processors. AMD does not employ Intel's manufacturing process. Apple will not use AMD processors.
yeah intel is progressing like CRAZY... look at the benchmarks year by year, model by model. there is always an increase.
This isn;t true anymore. Just wait for AMD to release their 45nm mobile chips. They are matching the core 2 quads in performance now, with eh added bonus of having a memory controller, so lets see what they can do in the mobile market. I believe that we may all be surprised with how the next generation turions do. AMD has the cheapest chips with memory controller on them out there, and apple exploited those on their website by posting memory bandwidth benchmarks for their new mac pro, so they could do the same for their macbooks or macbook pros.
I also have a feeling that mobile version of core i7 or core i5 are a long ways away based on their current power consumption.
It seems to me like intel has been at least a step ahead of amd for quite some time now, and amd is always playing catchup.