Why Intel was a bad idea (And should have gone AMD)

[celebrian23]

I don't know much about alienware, but from what I do know, if you're a hardcore gamer, it's what you want. They range from $700 to $10,000 with the average price being $4000 (obviously more than the average pc or apple desktop or notebook). With alienware you really don't want the base model. I don't think at this point a gaming computer like alienware would work for apple just because so much of the gaming software can't be played on a mac, and it doesn't look like there's a mad rush to develop these games for macs. My two cents.

 

[Gokhan]

k

yes i agree with the first poster apple should have either gone to amd or stayed with ibm or even motorola , intel are the satans of the computing world never to be trusted with our lovely macs !!!

 

[plinkoman]

is it just me or is this whole amd>intel thing starting to get really annoying.

hey, guess what, my powerbook, with its wicked slow G4, can still do everything i ask it(which is alot), and is by no means slow.
my pc, which i built nearly 4 years ago, with a wicked slow 2.2P4, still performs better then half the pc's on the market today.

an amd chip is not god, Get over it.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

o.k. last try to get some useful information into this thread.

how much did your alienware cost?
what gpu is in your alienware?
is there a chance to get a mac mini with a decent enough gpu for 800-900 dollar so that gamers might be interested in the machine?
or would you have to change the formfactor very much? in that case what system with what formfactor would be an acceptable machine to a gamer?

to come back to the original thread: would an AMD chipset be significantly better than Intel to build a machine like this?

i'm asking because i think it is a gap in apples lineup that there is no machine for gaming. only the imac with some compromises and the powermac for a lot of money.

You miss the whole point, im not saying put in a 7800 in a Mini, iam saying give it a $20 -$30 Gpu, not a freebie here you go because you bought our cpu. A computer is the some of all its parts, and boy did apple throw on the handicap with the Intel freebie.
By the way you want to know about the Alienware so here you go. AMD 3500+, sitting in socket 939,. 6800 Gt with 1 gig corsair and a cuda drive. 1/1/2 yrs old but still sails through whatever i throw on it. My mini is the 1.42/9200 32mb, that same G4 mated to any modern low end gpu makes for a nice little gaming machine, mated to Intels 99 cent special it doesnt.
I agree that Apple went Intel because they offer it all, Amd doesnt but who know Apple has a history of pissing off anyone it gets in bed with so maybe its only a matter of time before it gets a AMD

 

[Glen Quagmire]

not so. besides the fact that the test was a pre-production chip that no one else has tested, ie Tom's Hardware or other third party, the Athlon 64 FX-60 is a currently shipping chip. If you look closley, AnAnd used a crippled AMD box with an out of date BIOS. All the Intel procs are updated Pentium 3's. When conroe ships, then test it against a currently shipping Athlon. Also for the pro end, the Core procs are not 64-bit, and probably won't for AT LEAST a year, and only after they copy AMD64 instructions. Conroe/Merom, guess what, it is 32 bit as well. Too bad OS X is a 64-bit OS with lots of wasted potential.

So, you and the person whose blog posting you blatantly stole are some sort of experts and Apple got it wrong? I expect Mr Jobs to hand in his resignation tomorrow and be deported to a remote desert island. There is enough misinformation and untruths in your posts to last a life time.

Plenty of people have tested Conroe, not just Anand. Hexus have tested it, as have Tech Report. They all report the same - the current pre-production version of Conroe beats the Athlon 64.

Anand re-tested the Conroe against the AMD box with an up-to-date BIOS. He even installed his own software (a game of some description, I forget which) on it to benchmark it. Intel freely let him do this, and update the BIOS.

What would Intel possibly have to gain by faking the Conroe results? Why would they stake their reputations on this? If Conroe comes out in six months and is slower than the current tests indicate, Intel are going to be a laughing stock. They will get mocked and ridiculed in the press. AMD will further increase its market share and the age-old rumours of Dell defecting will rear their heads - again.

What's wrong with the genesis of Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom being Pentium 3. Would you rather they had used Prescotts? The original P3 architecture was very good. P4 was not so good. Intel's mobile chips (Yonah/Dothan/etc) are highly regarded by most if not all credible people (which rules you out).

Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest will be 64-bit from the start.

Intel chips - Pentium D et al - already ship with the 64-bit AMD instructions.

Intel and AMD have been copying features from each other since day one. Perhaps, if copying AMD-64 is so awful, AMD should develop its own ISA instead of relying on Intel's x86. Perhaps they should ditch MMX and SSE as well.

Your posts display a shocking level of ignorance and a complete disdain for the facts. It would serve you well to be more accurate in future.

 

[Tambien]

I don't know much about alienware, but from what I do know, if you're a hardcore gamer, it's what you want. They range from $700 to $10,000 with the average price being $4000 (obviously more than the average pc or apple desktop or notebook). With alienware you really don't want the base model. I don't think at this point a gaming computer like alienware would work for apple just because so much of the gaming software can't be played on a mac, and it doesn't look like there's a mad rush to develop these games for macs. My two cents.

Belive me, alienware is a rip off. It is very easy to make people belive Hardcore gamers should buy that. If one is that hardcore of a gamer, he/she will realize that building your own computer is much more cost effective and you build a better machine in the end.

 

[sideshow23bob]

I'd like to see this analysis after Conroe is out and real benchmarks can be done

 

[celebrian23]

I only know what my friends tell me. I'm not much of a gamer at all.

 

[matticus008]

You miss the whole point, im not saying put in a 7800 in a Mini, iam saying give it a $20 -$30 Gpu, not a freebie here you go because you bought our cpu. A computer is the some of all its parts, and boy did apple throw on the handicap with the Intel freebie.

Nothing you've said here makes any sense at all.

1. Again, how, where, and what do you want in the mini?
2. The GPU is *not* free because they've purchased Intel CPUs. It's part of the Intel chipset they've bought, and it's not exactly free, though it is very inexpensive.
3. "Throwing on the handicap" implies that the mini is worse than it was before, and it's not. In the overwhelming majority of benchmarks and usage patterns, the mini is a vast improvement in all fronts, including graphics. It's not like the old mini was a competent gaming machine, and no one should expect it to be. No low-end computer is going to be all that great unless it's coming from a small, boutique manufacturer dedicated to gaming performance.

So please, stop spewing crap.

 

[generik]

o.k. last try to get some useful information into this thread.

how much did your alienware cost?
what gpu is in your alienware?
is there a chance to get a mac mini with a decent enough gpu for 800-900 dollar so that gamers might be interested in the machine?
or would you have to change the formfactor very much? in that case what system with what formfactor would be an acceptable machine to a gamer?

to come back to the original thread: would an AMD chipset be significantly better than Intel to build a machine like this?

i'm asking because i think it is a gap in apples lineup that there is no machine for gaming. only the imac with some compromises and the powermac for a lot of money.

But seriously the point remains, if you are a mac user, forget about games.

Just forget about it, totally.

Unless all you are after are little games like maybe those Big Bang Board Games that came with the new macs, do you honestly think a $700 PC is capable of having a graphics chip in it that is capable of playing Guild Wars smoothly? When that card alone will make up almost half of the whole PC's price?

Likewise a Mini is a $800 PC that fits a very niche market, it is small, it is quiet, it consumes very little power. Nothing in it suggests that this machine should be powerful enough to handle games. Hell even a dual SLi rig's graphics cards ALONE will consume more power than this WHOLE mac mini computer!

What really gets to me is how people can't get over Apple's past propaganda. So in the past Apple said Intels were teh suk, and when Apple subsequently announced "We are using Intel processors!", did some of you brain washed "think different"ers have a cranial implosion?

Ditto for the integrated graphics saga.

End of the day, it works good enough, heck, overall the mini is a great machine. Don't think so? Buy a PC or shell out more molah for a PowerMac.

Before you argue further, well you were the ones who were singing praise about Apple's design techniques and how PCs are crappy because they are made from a whole lot of parts.

I never bought into that notion, in fact if I'd have my say MacOS X will go the OSX x86 project route. But hey, we digress.

Since you love MacOS X so much to keep it on so called "Apple build Macs" (which are essentially PCs), well, I guess it is time for you to suck it up and stop complaining.

[sarcasm]Obviously there are no virtues from your favourite OS being capable of running on a white box PC[/sarcasm]

 

[generik]

I have to add that Apple's OpenGL implementation is crap anyway, and hardware for hardware, clock for clock. Guess what? Games are still going to fly more brilliantly on Windows than on MacOS.

Yes, that's right folks! Even with the "antivirus scanner blazing in the background" and with the system choked with "tons of spyware", whereever you get that idea from...

MacOS for work, Windows/consoles for games!

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nothing you've said here makes any sense at all.

1. Again, how, where, and what do you want in the mini?
2. The GPU is *not* free because they've purchased Intel CPUs. It's part of the Intel chipset they've bought, and it's not exactly free, though it is very inexpensive.
3. "Throwing on the handicap" implies that the mini is worse than it was before, and it's not. In the overwhelming majority of benchmarks and usage patterns, the mini is a vast improvement in all fronts, including graphics. It's not like the old mini was a competent gaming machine, and no one should expect it to be. No low-end computer is going to be all that great unless it's coming from a small, boutique manufacturer dedicated to gaming performance.

So please, stop spewing crap.

Sorry , I wont stop telling the truth and the truth is Integrated graphics suck! so stop your spinning fan boy. Anyone with half a brain knows you just cant get any cheaper.

 

[matticus008]

Sorry , I wont stop telling the truth and the truth is Integrated graphics suck! so stop your spinning fan boy. Anyone with half a brain knows you just cant get any cheaper.

I really don't want to hear "fan boy" again. Seriously. It's inaccurate, annoying, and completely without substance.

The vast majority of computers below $750, almost every single notebook below $1100 or so, and tablets up to $1600 all have integrated graphics. It's par for the course, and it gets the job done. It's the best solution for space, heat, power, and price concerns, and it's good enough to do most things. This isn't just an Apple decision, so stop treating it like one. There are plenty of worse decisions they could have made, like a crappier IGC or leaving in the Radeon 9200.

GMA950 isn't impressive, but your complaints are pointless. A $20 GPU is cheap because it's old and outdated, like the 9200. At least GMA950 will RUN programs using newer features and capabilities, unlike a 9200. Mediocre performance maybe, but that's much better than no performance. If you want better 3D gaming performance, buy a different computer.

 

[wongulous]

Dear current thread,

Why are you so obnoxiously laced with idiocy? Why are there so many "fanboy" and "spinning" references? I honestly think if I see those words again I'm going to scream. Why do illiterate trolls keep talking about "99 cents" and Intel's integrated graphics being the "cheapist" (SIC)? Isn't repetition what happens when someone really has no defense for the crap they're spewing?

Don't you realize that you make me pull my hair out when you dilute the actually interesting, technical, knowledgeable folks' posts about this debate? Why does anyone give any credence or bother to put an ounce of effort in a reply to some foaming-at-the-mouth broken-record annoyance that is droning on about putting a spin on things (ironic) and constantly referencing our president and politics, when in the same thread there is useful, valid data about AMD's processor advantages, Intel's business advantages, and why Apple made the choice they made? I'm baffled by this, though I shouldn't expect anything less from MR forums.

Yours,
B.

 

[asencif]

Dear current thread,

Why are you so obnoxiously laced with idiocy? Why are there so many "fanboy" and "spinning" references? I honestly think if I see those words again I'm going to scream. Why do illiterate trolls keep talking about "99 cents" and Intel's integrated graphics being the "cheapist" (SIC)? Isn't repetition what happens when someone really has no defense for the crap they're spewing?

Don't you realize that you make me pull my hair out when you dilute the actually interesting, technical, knowledgeable folks' posts about this debate? Why does anyone give any credence or bother to put an ounce of effort in a reply to some foaming-at-the-mouth broken-record annoyance that is droning on about putting a spin on things (ironic) and constantly referencing our president and politics, when in the same thread there is useful, valid data about AMD's processor advantages, Intel's business advantages, and why Apple made the choice they made? I'm baffled by this, though I shouldn't expect anything less from MR forums.

Yours,
B.

I agree...This thread has gotten out of hand when it probably should have died after 5 posts the most. I will say this though...

Now we have all these Intel backers with tons of facts why they are better, however they were like 5% of them when Apple made the switch. Most were shocked, dissapointed, confused, and a few also hopeful. It was to most mac users belief that the G5 was the future, made mac technology distinct, and Intel couldn't match. Now almost a year later we have this great excitement over Intel, possibly from the same people that made fun and hated this company because of it's Wintel PC market dominance. So now wonder threads like this come up...Now we have some of those haters going to the AMD side or mac users who have PC's as well, but with AMD coming out thrashing Intel.

So it goes up and down like a roller coaster...Intel is the s#%t now and Apple is smart, however as much as I think Apple computers are the best in the market, it's all marketing. How about in a 2 years if someone has a better roadmap like AMD or IBM decided to get back into it and come out with a G6? Then Apple switches back or to Amd and explains they have a better roadmap and they are the future. Another shock and another year later...IBM is the best or Amd is the best. So all this becomes pointless. Macs are great and the final product with a great built in OS is what counts at the end.

 

[DeathChill]

I definitely would have liked a real video card in the Mini, but I understand that it is NOT FEASIBLE.

The GMA 945/950 card is actually better then the Radeon 9200 at most things, so that's a plus. Also, it supports Core Image which is something that I want. The benchmarks were done to show that the GMA card was up to par (and above par) with the 9200, so I don't get the whining. It does suck that it takes some of the computer's RAM away, but hell, it's better then having 256 MB of RAM like my current first-generating Mini.

Also, Apple is not going to go to AMD, ever, in my opinion. Think of all the labeling they do with the Mac's and OS X. It says 'Intel' when compiling in XCode, they're called Intel Mac's on Apple's site, and universal application's x86 side is called Intel. Do you REALLY think Apple's going to suddenly change all the labeling of everything to x86 instead of Intel? While it certainly wouldn't be a big change, it'd be a silly one as Apple has made sure that they don't call it x86 to the public, they call it Intel.

 

[electronbee]

Buy a XBOX or PS2 for games...

Thats what they do best.

A real GPU costs real money. Plus heat and power which will mean more noise. Those upper-end video cards that people want so bad make a lot of noise to keep cool.

But, I understand the concept of the $20-$30 GPU upgrade. Probably would have been better and GFX performance would have also improved had the GPU had it's own RAM and did not share. As, GFX card RAM is typically faster.

But, as for a reliable, all-in-one package, it was their best bet. And, the macMini is a macMini not a desktop.

 

[Counterfit]

Dear current thread,

Why are you so obnoxiously laced with idiocy? Why are there so many "fanboy" and "spinning" references? I honestly think if I see those words again I'm going to scream. Why do illiterate trolls keep talking about "99 cents" and Intel's integrated graphics being the "cheapist" (SIC)? Isn't repetition what happens when someone really has no defense for the crap they're spewing?

Don't you realize that you make me pull my hair out when you dilute the actually interesting, technical, knowledgeable folks' posts about this debate? Why does anyone give any credence or bother to put an ounce of effort in a reply to some foaming-at-the-mouth broken-record annoyance that is droning on about putting a spin on things (ironic) and constantly referencing our president and politics, when in the same thread there is useful, valid data about AMD's processor advantages, Intel's business advantages, and why Apple made the choice they made? I'm baffled by this, though I shouldn't expect anything less from MR forums.

Yours,
B.

I think we all know who to thank for that.

Dont Hurt Me:
Just.
Stop.
Seriously, you sound like a ****ing politician (the Bush kind) with all your talk of spinning. Just because you want a computer that does everything as fast as possible, doesn't mean everyone else does. And for all the **** you spew about Apple being a ripoff, you bought a ****ing Alienware. You probably could have cut $1k off the price, and gotten rid of the ass-ugly tower by building it yourself, which I assume you're capable of since you can obviously spot every single flaw in every Apple product ever made, and would have done a much better job if you were in Greg Joswiak's position.

 

[Nickygoat]

What would Intel possibly have to gain by faking the Conroe results? Why would they stake their reputations on this? If Conroe comes out in six months and is slower than the current tests indicate, Intel are going to be a laughing stock. They will get mocked and ridiculed in the press. AMD will further increase its market share and the age-old rumours of Dell defecting will rear their heads - again.

If you read this AMD's market share is growing more slowly than Intel's, off a smaller revenue base.
A summary (from The Register) here.
I fail to see what this thread has to do with the Mini having IIG, but hey.

 

[Dane D.]

I thought this thread was about Intel vs. AMD? I stated earlier that a computer is the sum of its parts. The CPU is just one part in the mix, the parts then must work together, so going the Intel route was the wise move. From my limited PC experience, I would say that the Intel based systems are less problematic from the time you start using it. AMD systems I have been around seem to always require searching for the correct drivers, then hoping that it will work with the rest of the hardware.

I'm surprised that more people don't know this. If you want a computer that solves your problems, does your work flawlessly, doesn't require alot of attention, is relatively safe from the outside world then use a Mac.

But seriously the point remains, if you are a mac user, forget about games.
Just forget about it, totally.

I disagree, Macs can run games fine. You just don't get the high frame rates. Other than that, they play fine.

 

[n8236]

Just in case some people didn't know. Intel/AMD, by court order are to share technological advances w/ one another to keep the market "competitive." How ironic is that, lol. I don't have the link at the moment, but Google and you'll find it.

As w/ most people noted, this deal can't be seen from just a technological point of view, but also from the business perspective. The choice is quite clear. If you ran Apple and needed to bring it to the next level, would you choose AMD?

 

[Platform]

Thats what they do best.

A real GPU costs real money. Plus heat and power which will mean more noise. Those upper-end video cards that people want so bad make a lot of noise to keep cool.

But, I understand the concept of the $20-$30 GPU upgrade. Probably would have been better and GFX performance would have also improved had the GPU had it's own RAM and did not share. As, GFX card RAM is typically faster.

But, as for a reliable, all-in-one package, it was their best bet. And, the macMini is a macMini not a desktop.

I agree....Xbox/PSx/Nintendo etc for games

 

[Krevnik]

GMA950 isn't impressive, but your complaints are pointless. A $20 GPU is cheap because it's old and outdated, like the 9200. At least GMA950 will RUN programs using newer features and capabilities, unlike a 9200. Mediocre performance maybe, but that's much better than no performance. If you want better 3D gaming performance, buy a different computer.

Well, there are other things to consider here too. Apple's push is for things like Core Image support or Quartz 2D Extreme support (forthcoming). To do that, you need pixel pipes, and enough power in them to push a 1080p image using Apple's technologies. The 9200 can't, the GMA950 can. The x1300 Mobility would be not much different in terms of Core Image support, and cost quite a bit more. I am pretty sure Apple would not want to ship a 650-700$ Mac Mini for the low-end.

Not to mention that the GMA950 supports connections straight up to a DVI or HDMI port on a TV, and will output proper resolutions. Overscan isn't even an issue. ATi and nVidia are somewhat inconsistent of their support in this area.

The reasons for GMA950 being in the Mini go beyond performance/cost, although cost was definitely a reason. Priorities were met, and attracting /gamers/ to a non-upgradable box is NOT a tier-1 priority... the same Nintendo generation that games, doesn't do it on non-upgradable PCs, they either do it on upgradable PCs, or non-upgradable consoles.

 

[contoursvt]

Stop your stinking spin :relevant" bs, consumers are gamers like it or not this is the nintendo generation. having a real GPU is very relevant to many many people. stop the fanboy garbage Integrated graphics are the cheapist you can get. Stop making excuses, Apple could have used a $20 Gpu and Mini would have been great. Instead they used a freebie and the Apple brown nosers are now spinning this. Integrated graphics are cheap garbage.

Sounds like you're living in the past my friend. While integrated graphics may not be fast for gaming, there is nothing wrong with them. Nobody is going to buy a mac mini for any serious gaming of any kind. Its a small stylish computer for basic use. I've got an Asus laptop with a Centrino and integrated intel video and its fine for everything but hard core games. Heck I wouldnt even want a bigger GPU in the mac mini because it would be too much heat and maybe noise due to additional fans. Its fine the way it is.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

is it just me or is this whole amd>intel thing starting to get really annoying.

Welcome to the world of PC hardware. The AMD v.s. Intel debate is just as acrimonious as a Ford v.s. Chevy debate in some redneck bar.

FWIW, I'm not much of a die-hard user of any one type/brand of computer. Overall I prefer the Mac, but I've used Motorola, AMD, IBM and Intel chips and all of them have worked great for me (except the Celeron, but I imagine AMD's Sempron would suck similarly). Fanboyism is just silly.

AMD and Intel both make some great chips and some not-so-great chips. Neither company has a vastly superior product to the other IMHO. Apple's decision to go with Intel has little to do with the relative performance of AMD/Intel, since they are both very good. It has much more to do with Intel's volume capability. Plus we can hardly know just what kind of deal they inked but Intel may have offered Apple other incentives that we don't know about - discounts or gaurantees of product availability for example.