True, but these things are cyclical and it wasn't too long ago when the AMD Athlons kicked the pants off their Pentium counterparts. Also, AMD won the 64-bit war and Intel licenses x86-64 from them.
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
True, but these things are cyclical and it wasn't too long ago when the AMD Athlons kicked the pants off their Pentium counterparts. Also, AMD won the 64-bit war and Intel licenses x86-64 from them.
oh god dont make me laugh!!! a phenom mini!!! hahahahahahahaha thats the funniest thing ive heard all week..
im sorry but AMD are too far behind the times lately. cheaper they may be, but you compromise that for performance.
apple would also have to code EVERYTHING from scratch. no thanks.
oh btw, why dont you just put leopard onto your AMD? (i.e. hackintosh). best of both worlds for you
hhhmm well the corei7 desktops look blazingly fast, especially for video encoding. i sure hope that your turion processors (whenever they are released that is) will be able to flogg the crap out of them and be cheaper, otherwise there wont be that much interest in them..
im sorry but AMD are too far behind the times lately. cheaper they may be, but you compromise that for performance.
apple would also have to code EVERYTHING from scratch. no thanks.
oh btw, why dont you just put leopard onto your AMD? (i.e. hackintosh). best of both worlds for you
hhhmm well the corei7 desktops look blazingly fast, especially for video encoding
. i sure hope that your turion processors (whenever they are released that is) will be able to flogg the crap out of them and be cheaper, otherwise there wont be that much interest in them..
You don't have the right perspective. You look at things from an end user perspective. You are going to buy one processor, and you would like to buy Intel or AMD, and buy whatever is best today. Tomorrow the other brand might be better, and then you buy the other chip. Intel and AMD don't care.
That's different with Apple. Apple is right now Intel's number one priority customer. When Apple says "jump", Intel says "how high". On the other hand, when Intel wants to know what its customers want, Apple has some top developers who spend real time to give Intel answers that are really useful. For Apple to buy AMD chips would mean to throw all this away. They would be stuck with AMD for a very long time. If they wanted to go back to Intel, they would find themselves at the back of the queue. No more special designs for MacBook Air. No more faster clock rates than everyone else. No more Nehalem one month before Dell gets them.
A switch to AMD would only happen if Intel falls seriously behind and there is no way that they can catch up or come close for the next year. That is not the case at the moment. In most people's judgement, including mine and most likely Apple's, Intel is far ahead. AMD is trying to improve as fast as possible, but Intel actually has developments they haven't published yet, because they are so far ahead.
That's different with Apple. Apple is right now Intel's number one priority customer. When Apple says "jump", Intel says "how high". On the other hand, when Intel wants to know what its customers want, Apple has some top developers who spend real time to give Intel answers that are really useful. For Apple to buy AMD chips would mean to throw all this away. They would be stuck with AMD for a very long time. If they wanted to go back to Intel, they would find themselves at the back of the queue. No more special designs for MacBook Air. No more faster clock rates than everyone else. No more Nehalem one month before Dell gets them.
A switch to AMD would only happen if Intel falls seriously behind and there is no way that they can catch up or come close for the next year. That is not the case at the moment. In most people's judgement, including mine and most likely Apple's, Intel is far ahead. AMD is trying to improve as fast as possible, but Intel actually has developments they haven't published yet, because they are so far ahead.
Here comes Nehalem.
So that's why the Core 2 was beating the Athlons…
Q3 2009 for 35 W Clarksfield (25 W in Penryn terms). The clocks aren't high but still. Core i7 won't have a mobile version though.
I firmly believe the only reason Intel released the Core architecture instead of continuing the uber-flawed Netburst architecture was in great part because of AMD. Therefore, I hope AMD stays around simply to provide competition to Intel.
However, I wouldn't purchase an AMD system today. Intel's technology is just superior in performance and power management.
From personal experience, AMD's mobile (Turion) and budget (Sempron) processors are just sad. I haven't used an Athlon-based machine in years. The Turion-based notebook I use at work is dog slow and has poor battery life. And Intel's Celeron blows the Sempron away in terms of performance. I use a relatively new Sempron in my home server, and I honestly believe my 6 year-old Pentium 4 is faster.
AMD needs to get its act together. They should have left ATI alone, and continued to focus on their strengths.
However, I wouldn't purchase an AMD system today. Intel's technology is just superior in performance and power management.
From personal experience, AMD's mobile (Turion) and budget (Sempron) processors are just sad. I haven't used an Athlon-based machine in years. The Turion-based notebook I use at work is dog slow and has poor battery life. And Intel's Celeron blows the Sempron away in terms of performance. I use a relatively new Sempron in my home server, and I honestly believe my 6 year-old Pentium 4 is faster.
AMD needs to get its act together. They should have left ATI alone, and continued to focus on their strengths.
I don't think it has anything to do with Intel being better than AMD, I think it's more for the sake of innovation.
Apple is a company that tries to innovate with concept (iPod, Macbook Air, iPhone, etc.), meaning they already have their hands full.
Intel is a company that tries to innovate with technology (see Core i7).
The Apple/Intel collaboration is, IMO, the best of both world. Concept meets Technology.
AMD, in no way being inferior, is just not huge on the R&D (sure they developed a few things before Intel) compared to Intel.
Apple is a company that tries to innovate with concept (iPod, Macbook Air, iPhone, etc.), meaning they already have their hands full.
Intel is a company that tries to innovate with technology (see Core i7).
The Apple/Intel collaboration is, IMO, the best of both world. Concept meets Technology.
AMD, in no way being inferior, is just not huge on the R&D (sure they developed a few things before Intel) compared to Intel.
Intel innovates but core i7 was just a copy of the phenom architecture. True quad core, 3 level cache, memory controller combined with their existing core 2.
not always. I quite following the 2 a little while ago but when I built my computer 4.5 year I was looking over the history and AMD and intel trade off who is better all the time.
I build my computer back when the athons were king. They where kicking the snot out of anything intel had to offer. I was using an Athon 3000+ and in test after test that chip was beating an intel cheap that cost 2-3 times as much.
Now when the core duo came out they dead the same to AMD as the Athon had been doing to intel.
I might like to point out that the 64 bit techology in Intels chips is AMD handy work. The experts in the field said it was very clear it was reversed engineered off of AMD. Mind you a lot of it comes the cross licensing agreement between the 2 companies regarding X86 so you are not going to see law suits over it.
In the next year I will be looking at the 2 chips closely yet again as I will be building a new PC tower.
o mi gosh AMd rulez intel sukz so bade!
Apple isn't going to leave intel for AMD any time soon bud. if you think the AMD's are so much better you should build a hackintosh
End of the day I feel AMD does by far better R&D with far less put into it. If you compare R&D budgets Intel has a much larger one and for the most part AMD is keeping pace and quite often doing better.
Something has to be said for quality over quantity. Intel view of R&D seem to be quantity. AMD is good at quality R&D.
Something has to be said for quality over quantity. Intel view of R&D seem to be quantity. AMD is good at quality R&D.
Of course you disagree, you made the thread.
Well, what do you want him to say? "You're right, sorry for making this thread."?
Intel wouldn't be Intel today if it wasn't for AMD. Without AMD, Intel would be selling P4-D for 600$ today and there would be P4-M in laptops as well.
Intel needs AMD to be alive in order to keep pushing itself to the next level.
AMD is awesome for their engineers and their ideas but due to their budget and small RD, they are too slow to the market with new technologies. Every once in the while, almost like a cycle, AMD will come out with the best and awesome new technology and rule the market for a short while until Intel comes out with the same or improved technology and AMD goes back into a crappy "recession" until they come up with better technology.
If amd went under Intel would be slammed for being a monopoly like no tomorrow.
Chances are they would be forced to break up in to several companies.
Core Due can thank AMD athon for being around and it uses very heavily the techology from the athon in it cheaps. X86-64 are AMD design and AMD holds the patents on it.
Chances are they would be forced to break up in to several companies.
Core Due can thank AMD athon for being around and it uses very heavily the techology from the athon in it cheaps. X86-64 are AMD design and AMD holds the patents on it.
Agreed. But thanks to Apple's crap industrial design and inability to dissipate heat when the ambient air is 85º, I get better frame rates running WoW on my custom PC (which uses a $20 AMD processor, and integrated 3200HD) then I do on my 2007 MBP.
Plus, AMD's sinking bargain-bin processors allowed me to put my computer together for about $300 less then a comparable intel system.
oh god dont make me laugh!!! a phenom mini!!! hahahahahahahaha thats the funniest thing ive heard all week..
im sorry but AMD are too far behind the times lately. cheaper they may be, but you compromise that for performance.
apple would also have to code EVERYTHING from scratch. no thanks.
oh btw, why dont you just put leopard onto your AMD? (i.e. hackintosh). best of both worlds for you
I am considering that, but my motherboard doesn't have a supported OS X driver. I already did it on my core duo when I built my phenom rig, but the install was very difficult because I had to find almost every driver for it, and then dual boot it, and manually insert the drivers. I couldn't find one for my phenom though.
oh, well that sucks.. i wonder what the performance of the top Phenom would be compared to a reasonably configured quad core MP. would be interesting to see..
Not really sure, but I would like to see also. I have the phenom 2.3 and it is 20% faster than my friend's Q6600 clocked at 2.4, so I think it would hold up. Anyone have the mac pro or the top phenom model, feel free to post speed ratings. I know that AMD has OC'd the phenom 2 to over 6.2 GHZ, while remaining stable, and it is possible to get 4.5 with stock cooling, so they're pretty fast. Plus, their stock has gone up 60% in the last 5 weeks, so apparently others agree.
thats quite impressive! sounds like AMD are starting to get their act together. 6.2GHz sounds like a nice number! haha! i wonder what the results from nitrogen cooling would yield.
thats quite impressive! sounds like AMD are starting to get their act together. 6.2GHz sounds like a nice number! haha! i wonder what the results from nitrogen cooling would yield.
IDK, but they used a mineral water cooling system that only costs like $100, because they wanted it to be something that anyone could redo, unlike intel, where they use the most advanced cooling available for their tests.
well thats intel for you, they are becoming much like other companies that aren'y really interested in what the consumer wants (i.e. power at affordable prices) - AMD seems to be pulling that off well at the moment.
i am not that mainstream with AMDs products nor am i comfortable building a machine with their CPU - i might just have to soon but
well thats intel for you, they are becoming much like other companies that aren'y really interested in what the consumer wants (i.e. power at affordable prices) - AMD seems to be pulling that off well at the moment.
i am not that mainstream with AMDs products nor am i comfortable building a machine with their CPU - i might just have to soon but
Go for it. I've had nothing but good experience with AMD. Plus their x4 is cheaper than c2d's so it is worth it. BTW if its a major build, go with the AM3 with phenom 2. It costs more, but it is worth it for media. the 3.0 is more than comparable to an i7 IMO.