PDA

View Full Version : Why Intel over AMD?


TigerPRO
Jun 6, 2005, 04:09 PM
Personally, I haven't done much research, but I've heard a lot about AMD chips being better than Intel's. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Or did Apple just pick Intel for the heck of it without even considering AMD?

Toe
Jun 6, 2005, 04:11 PM
Personally, I haven't done much research, but I've heard a lot about AMD chips being better than Intel's. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Or did Apple just pick Intel for the heck of it without even considering AMD?My guess would be that Intel gave them the best deal. Getting Apple's business is no small beans, so they probably had a nice little bidding war.

WinterMute
Jun 6, 2005, 04:16 PM
Supply in a word, Intel can deliver volume way beyond anything AMD can deliver, AMD are sexier, but Stevo wants a big piece of the psychosoft pie, and Intel can give him the raw numbers for that.

That isn't to say we won't see bootstrapped AMD systems running OSX.....

Applespider
Jun 6, 2005, 04:31 PM
Or did Apple just pick Intel for the heck of it without even considering AMD?

I doubt it. Supply and manufacturing demand will be part of it; the rumours concerning WiMAX and the DRM'ed motherboard may also have played a part.

Part of me wishes I had a time-machine to hop forward 5 years and find a copy of the book outlining the 'behind the scenes' story as to why Apple are switching...

iGary
Jun 6, 2005, 04:43 PM
*throws up in mouth a little bit yet again*

You should have seen the PC heads at work descend upon my desk today with pointing fingers and laughing faces. :rolleyes:

Toe
Jun 6, 2005, 04:45 PM
According to Apple (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html):

“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,”

xwk88
Jun 6, 2005, 04:47 PM
I think steve jobs did alright selecting intels chips they're not my favorite but it's alright as long as my next beautiful PB does'nt have an intel logo I'm fine.
and I think that apple finally gave up on trying to tell people Ghz is a myth(not saying it isn't) as they say if you can't beat them join them and intel is also more popular then AMD so people might think of switching cause they think it's better then AMD wouldn't have the same impact as intel. ;)

I'm buying the first powerbook that comes out with pentium M.

Toe
Jun 6, 2005, 04:48 PM
*throws up in mouth a little bit yet again*

You should have seen the PC heads at work descend upon my desk today with pointing fingers and laughing faces. :rolleyes:
Why? PowerMacs already suck the doors (http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/) off Wintel machines. When the processors have parity, Macs will simply stomp Windows machines into the ground. I don't see why anyone (other than Microsoft... especially if Macs will dual-boot into Windows) would have a problem with this....

JDOG_
Jun 6, 2005, 05:02 PM
I don't think this discussion has any semblance of fact or fiction until we get to play with these machines ourselves. People are complaining sooo much about Intel, but I really doubt Steve Jobs would do this whole thing without being sure of its benefits to both Apple computers and Apple's image.

Besides everyone's been waiting eagerly for years for a Powerbook G5 and now we're going to get something faster (somehow) within a visible timeframe, which is more than we've been given before.

AMD is awesome, but I guess their "roadmap" didn't have as much promise as Intel. Hopefully Steve made the right choice in that department.

enginerd
Jun 6, 2005, 05:44 PM
AMD would probably never be able to supply enough chips to satisfy PC demand plus Apple. They're certainly expanding production capability, but Intel already has that. GIven IBM's problems ramping up the G5, Apple probably preferred the less risky choice.

Also, Intel macs won't actually ship until this time next year. We'll never see a P4-based Mac, they're going to be based on the latest Intel cores that are derived from the Pentium-M--more horsepower for the watt, as Apple said. The huge, power-guzzling P4 cores will be gone.

Here's some articles about what Intel is working on for the PC side--we'll probably see these same cpus in Macs too.

http://news.com.com/Intel+highlights+its+next-gen+dual-core+chips/2100-1006_3-5697088.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/13/intel_confirms_netburst_end/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/intel_conroe_revealed/

Check out the links on the Register page also.

vouder17
Jun 6, 2005, 05:54 PM
*throws up in mouth a little bit yet again*

You should have seen the PC heads at work descend upon my desk today with pointing fingers and laughing faces. :rolleyes:

i dont understand why you are so negative. The PC heads run on windows. That happens to be an OS that is built on x86 architecture. Apple also has built there OS on x86 architecture and now we are gonna start using it...This isn't a blow in our faces and it definitely isn't a plus point for Windows users. i will enjoy the day when Mac OS X on Intel performs the same task as a Windows XP machine in a faster time. Then you can laugh at your PC heads..
I for one am really happy with this transition. The people i think who might be a little negative are the developers...but it seems as though apple is willing to help them out as much as possible.. i mean if Mathematica was ported to Intel in just two days..anything is possible.. :cool:

stcanard
Jun 6, 2005, 05:55 PM
IMO the biggest reason for this switch is the PowerBook. Its at the point where even diehard Mac fans can't justify it.

If you want to build a high-performance, cool, low-power system everything I read says that the Pentium-M is king, and Intel makes the Pentium-M.

I'm betting the first Mac x86 we will see will be a Pentium-M based laptop. Hence a deal with Intel is important because it will give the biggest, fastest impact (leap-frogging the Apple laptop offerings).

If in the future they decide that Intel is lagging on server performance I bet nothing precludes them from talking to AMD.

stcanard
Jun 6, 2005, 05:56 PM
You should have seen the PC heads at work descend upon my desk today with pointing fingers and laughing faces. :rolleyes:

Why? Are they stupid enough to think this will make any difference to the Apple experience, or bring it any closer to Windows?

If so just laugh at their ignorance in return.

Mord
Jun 6, 2005, 06:00 PM
the CEO (who shares my name) of AMD has history with apple he used to run motorola and was the reason for the stagnant g4 progress and why it did not get proper DDR support and why the bus stayed slow as the clock was cranked, he cut the funds for the semi conductor side and focused on mobile phones and effectively killed the powerpcs performance, because of this history apple is probably reluctant to be involved with him.

also intel is no longer cranking the clock speed, and this means that they are no longer crippled by there own thirst for clock speed and will start going for IPC and will slowly but surely take the lead from AMD once again, it's a sad but true fact x86 has won and like the fictional city of Anark Morpork (if you dont read terry partchet you should) instead of fighting an onslaughting army (RISC) embracing them and welcoming them in to do business.

i have to admit i was a tad (understatement of the year) overzealous against intel but i had not realized what they are doing now the p4 is dead.

although a feel a bit like a jedi at the end of episode 3 things are not as bad as they seem for there is new hope.

(oh god oh god i cant believe i wrote that)

Lloyd1994
Jun 6, 2005, 06:13 PM
Why Intel? SUPPORT! From the Apple press release today:

Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

Intel spends a lot of time and effort to make sure their compilers are top notch and this is a huge resource for Apple to have at their disposal. Compilers are where the rubber meets the road (or should I say the unintelligible strings of ASCII text meets the metal and electrons) and any help they can get to make this HUGE trasition I'm assuming they will take with open arms. Having Intel build compilers that take PPC-specialized code to make x86 code would greatly reduce porting time and offload performance optimizations from Apple. And compilers are just one area of support Intel will provide.

bosrs1
Jun 6, 2005, 06:53 PM
My guess would be that Intel gave them the best deal. Getting Apple's business is no small beans, so they probably had a nice little bidding war.
Plus AMD being smaller could have the same supply issues that IBM does. Not that they didn't talk to AMD. I have it on good authority that they did, but nothing came of it.

javiercr
Jun 6, 2005, 06:56 PM
Why? PowerMacs already When the processors have parity, Macs will simply stomp Windows machines into the ground.

in what sense? performance? you don't know that, but i guess we'll finally find out now.

bosrs1
Jun 6, 2005, 06:58 PM
in what sense? performance? you don't know that, but i guess we'll finally find out now.
They don't. Everyone I know who works at Apple knows that a highend PC stomps a G5 right now.

James Philp
Jun 6, 2005, 07:01 PM
like the fictional city of Anark Morpork (if you dont read terry partchet you should)
You mean:
Ankh-Morpork
Terry Pratchett

Obviously don't read it that much then! :p

The answer is Demand:
Apple need a lot of chips, IBM can't even manage it, and what with all these consoles too! So the only manufacturer who can meet apple's need is intel.
That and they are making good mobile products, and are beginning to innovate once more.

feakbeak
Jun 6, 2005, 07:21 PM
IMO the biggest reason for this switch is the PowerBook. Its at the point where even diehard Mac fans can't justify it.

If you want to build a high-performance, cool, low-power system everything I read says that the Pentium-M is king, and Intel makes the Pentium-M.

I'm betting the first Mac x86 we will see will be a Pentium-M based laptop. Hence a deal with Intel is important because it will give the biggest, fastest impact (leap-frogging the Apple laptop offerings).

If in the future they decide that Intel is lagging on server performance I bet nothing precludes them from talking to AMD.I agree that the Pentium-M had to be one of the biggest factors in choosing Intel over AMD. Plus with all the supply issues from Moto and IBM over the years I'm sure it only pushed Apple towards Intel over AMD even more. The books are dying for an improved processor at the moment. I agree the first Macs on x86 will be the books, but also the Mac mini. That Intel Mac mini rip-off was probably a proof of concept in convincing Apple going with Intel was the best choice.

Once Apple is on x86 they could also talk to AMD, but Intel is really good at keeping their partners away from AMD. Look how long they've kept Dell away from AMD. Personally, I'd love to see OS X running on an X2, but I guess I'll have to take what I can get. Hopefully, there will be hacks to let you install OS X on whatever x86 hardware you like. I'm sure there are people just dying to run OS X on VIA C3! :D

bosrs1
Jun 6, 2005, 07:23 PM
I agree that the Pentium-M had to be one of the biggest factors in choosing Intel over AMD. Plus with all the supply issues from Moto and IBM over the years I'm sure it only pushed Apple towards Intel over AMD even more. The books are dying for an improved processor at the moment. I agree the first Macs on x86 will be the books, but also the Mac mini. That Intel Mac mini rip-off was probably a proof of concept in convincing Apple going with Intel was the best choice.

Once Apple is on x86 they could also talk to AMD, but Intel is really good at keeping their partners away from AMD. Look how long they've kept Dell away from AMD. Personally, I'd love to see OS X running on an X2, but I guess I'll have to take what I can get. Hopefully, there will be hacks to let you install OS X on whatever x86 hardware you like. I'm sure there are people just dying to run OS X on VIA C3! :D
I'll tell you what. A Pentium M or similar Mac sounds tasty. G4 is nice but old and slow. And G5 was so hot all Male Mac users would have eventually ended up sterile.

feakbeak
Jun 6, 2005, 07:25 PM
i have to admit i was a tad (understatement of the year) overzealous against intel but i had not realized what they are doing now the p4 is dead.I noticed that the "trophy" link in your signature to the thread you started about the PPC architecture beating x86 is now gone. ;)

JasonElise1983
Jun 6, 2005, 08:22 PM
pentium M, PCI-express, Dual Core, production. Those are my guesses on the reason Apple chose Intel.

bosrs1
Jun 6, 2005, 08:23 PM
pentium M, PCI-express, Dual Core, production. Those are my guesses on the reason Apple chose Intel.
All of which trounce the G series.

brap
Jun 6, 2005, 08:29 PM
All of which trounce the G series.Athlon X2. Fab 36. Dingdingding! Missed opportunity.

By (a) sticking with the relatively-small guy, thus alienating the userbase just a bit less, and (b) getting the fastest x86 CPU out there.

I wonder if Freescale ever got around to making 7447s on a .09 micron process. That would have been freaking sweet -- but lets face it, Apple has sided with the proverbial heavily overweight gorilla.

TIGERmac
Jun 6, 2005, 09:16 PM
I recall reading a while back that Microsoft had began to align itself more closely with AMD; arguably ticking off Intel at the same time. Intel seems to be quite anxious to bring Apple into the fold and appears to have aggressively sought the relationship.

That begs the question "Why?"

One can certainly cross through any economic reasons, as Intel's bottom line will see little effect due to this arrangement (at least in the short-term). With that in mind, there is an important intangible that Intel is seeking: image.

I'd bet that Intel would love nothing more than to help Apple grow Mac market share. No doubt the company is tired of being paired with Microsoft ("Wintel") and the resulting negative conotation.

Looking forward, I see Apple as Intel's technology showcase. Apple has typically been among the first to adopt new standards and has arguably been the trend setter. The potential is huge for both companies, and obviously Intel sees something big resulting from the relationship.

Intel finally admitted that it had been overzealous in it's GHz ambitions, and appears to have changed its processor design philosophy. Couple this with its awesome mobile processors and virtually unlimited R&D and production capabilities, and it's not hard to see why Apple chose Intel over AMD.

brap
Jun 6, 2005, 09:18 PM
But, now you mention it, we should have seen this coming (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26/otellini_buy_apple/). Buy Apple indeed!

Toe
Jun 6, 2005, 09:46 PM
in what sense? performance? you don't know that, but i guess we'll finally find out now.
Hasn't anyone done benchmarks of Darwin on Intel vs. Windows on the same machine?

On another note, it's interesting that http://apple.com/powermac/performance/ talks about architecture but never directly says PPC G5 is better. Did that language recently change? That page does not really mention Windows at all... but does make a lot of references to the "Power Mac G5" trouncing a "Pentium 4."

TrumanApple
Jun 6, 2005, 09:53 PM
The reason that apple chose intel over AMD is clear. Intel has a better roadmap. Laptops are gaining marketshare compared to desktops and the pentium m is much better now and has a better road map than any AMD mobile processor. Also, in the long run intel has a better outlook on desktop chips also. The pentium 4 will die out soon in favor of a pentium m like design for desktops.

This article by Tomshardware.com explains alot of this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

(i posted this in another thread, but there are so many today on this issue that it is hard to limit it to one thread)

keysersoze
Jun 6, 2005, 10:09 PM
The reason that apple chose intel over AMD is clear. Intel has a better roadmap. Laptops are gaining marketshare compared to desktops and the pentium m is much better now and has a better road map than any AMD mobile processor. Also, in the long run intel has a better outlook on desktop chips also. The pentium 4 will die out soon in favor of a pentium m like design for desktops.

This article by Tomshardware.com explains alot of this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

(i posted this in another thread, but there are so many today on this issue that it is hard to limit it to one thread)

Yeah, to be honest it probably wasn't too tough for Apple to go with Intel. Intel has more resources, can likely win a bidding war with AMD, better roadmap, especially for Mobile solutions. All in all, I think Apple didn't have much to think about. And after all, nobody says they WON'T approach AMD at some point. I'd love an X2 running X.5

Abstract
Jun 6, 2005, 10:17 PM
The reason Apple didn't choose AMD is because AMD probably wasn't interested in Apple's business due to their requirements for the CPU. It would take a lot of time and resources to make Apple-specific changes to their chips, something that AMD doesn't have, or simply wouldn't bother with. Intel probably complied.

There's no way Apple switched to Intel to get their hands on the Pentium 4. Agreed? Its not even smart, and I'm sure many people here would tell you that. I mean, in 2 years, the P4 has gone from 3GHz to 3.6-3.8GHz. That's not much better than IBM, even when you take all the technology added to the P4 into consideration. Also, its too hot.

So Apple switches to Intel, but not the P4. There's probably something in the works, but its probably based on the Pentium-M, but not quite the same. Probably a faster Pentium-M. I mean, if Apple is going to put these into towers, Steve probably doesn't have the same heat limitations if he's putting them into huge PowerMac desktops. Maybe we'll get dual, dual-core Pentium-Ms rather than a very fast P4. I don't know.

Also, a modified Pentium M would not allow WinXP or Windows apps from being installed onto Apple Hardware. Maybe AMD doesn't have the time or resources to do something like this for one customer. Also, IBM does produce some of the chips for AMD.

Anyway, there's no way Steve made this large a change to get his hands on a Pentium M and P4s. Does anybody think we're getting something that is NOT a P4 or a Pentium-M?? Something different?

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 6, 2005, 10:21 PM
i dont understand why you are so negative. The PC heads run on windows. That happens to be an OS that is built on x86 architecture. Apple also has built there OS on x86 architecture and now we are gonna start using it...This isn't a blow in our faces and it definitely isn't a plus point for Windows users. i will enjoy the day when Mac OS X on Intel performs the same task as a Windows XP machine in a faster time. Then you can laugh at your PC heads..
I for one am really happy with this transition. The people i think who might be a little negative are the developers...but it seems as though apple is willing to help them out as much as possible.. i mean if Mathematica was ported to Intel in just two days..anything is possible.. :cool:

I too am happy of sorts.

Yet, I see potential problems for Apple - if their pricing isn't lowered. With the PPC chip, it was easier for Apple to claim a higher price point. Yes, the OS X factors in to it too. But for the consumer all they will see is two machines with the same Intel chip, and several hundreds of dollars more - and wonder why.

Crikey
Jun 6, 2005, 10:21 PM
I doubt it. Supply and manufacturing demand will be part of it; the rumours concerning WiMAX and the DRM'ed motherboard may also have played a part.

Part of me wishes I had a time-machine to hop forward 5 years and find a copy of the book outlining the 'behind the scenes' story as to why Apple are switching...

Interesting, I'll have to track down those rumors.

Steve was pretty open about why Apple is switching. Didn't I read that more than half the systems Apple shipped last year were portables? The portable market is where the industry's growth, and margins, are. Apple's portables are stuck on the G4, which still works fine but came out a long time ago. There is no G5 for portables and won't ever be one: the chip is too big and hot. Moto/FreeScale's new G4-derivative might be good enough to run PowerBooks until the Intel switch, but Apple must not think they will be a match for Intel's Pentium M.

For now, the G5 is in the ballpark on the desktop, but progress plainly hasn't been as fast as Steve had hoped. Still, if it were all based on the desktop there wouldn't be such pressure to switch. I think the Pentium M is the reason they are switching and the reason it's to Intel rather than AMD.

Crikey

feakbeak
Jun 6, 2005, 10:27 PM
Also, a modified Pentium M would not allow WinXP or Windows apps from being installed onto Apple Hardware.I know a decent amount about hardware, but I'm not exactly a guru. I know it is not that hard to embed a serial number or something else into the firmare of the mobo chipset or even the CPU that the OS X software could check and would not allow an install unless it was Apple hardware. I realize this might be able to be hacked so that you can install OS X on any hardware.

The flip side, as Abstract mentions, preventing the installation of Windows on Apple x86 hardware would seem a much more difficult task. Apple's hardware will have to operate like any other x86 chips and since Windows doesn't care about what x86 hardware you are using, how could Apple prevent this on the hardware side? Is there any example of this form of technology already in the market today?

dotdotdot
Jun 6, 2005, 10:33 PM
Intel will probably make Apple DRM chips like it began doing for Microsoft.

But the Apple DRM chips will work with Windows AND Mac, but Mac OS X will NOT run on anything but these DRM chips, which can not be sold in stores.

Also, it will look cool and be called the G6... maybe...

Dippo
Jun 6, 2005, 10:39 PM
It would take a lot of time and resources to make Apple-specific changes to their chips, something that AMD doesn't have, or simply wouldn't bother with. Intel probably complied.


There aren't going to be any "Apple specific" chips. They are going to be the exact same chips that are in your PC.

Go buy your development kit and you will see.

I am sure AMD might be used in the future if Apple wants to.

law guy
Jun 6, 2005, 10:52 PM
I know a decent amount about hardware, but I'm not exactly a guru. I know it is not that hard to embed a serial number or something else into the firmare of the mobo chipset or even the CPU that the OS X software could check and would not allow an install unless it was Apple hardware. I realize this might be able to be hacked so that you can install OS X on any hardware.

The flip side, as Abstract mentions, preventing the installation of Windows on Apple x86 hardware would seem a much more difficult task. Apple's hardware will have to operate like any other x86 chips and since Windows doesn't care about what x86 hardware you are using, how could Apple prevent this on the hardware side? Is there any example of this form of technology already in the market today?

Apple (Phil S.) has stated that Apple won't do anything to block folks from running windows on Intel Macs (they won't provide tech support for it, however).

Zachariah
Jun 6, 2005, 11:07 PM
Why Intel over AMD? AMD doesn't make motherboards.

spaceballl
Jun 6, 2005, 11:55 PM
two things that are funny...

Steve talked about performance per watt - Intel Prescotts are known for being furnaces...

Volume - Hah - like apple needs any sort of major volume. Either Intel or AMD could handle the load.

i bet it was basically a sell for the mobile parts and they just took a whole package deal from Intel to lower costs. Plus, Intel is more established.

Apple going x86 leaves the door open for AMD in the future though.

x86isslow
Jun 7, 2005, 12:11 AM
well the chart he put up was a future roadmap. so prescott won't be sold in retail macs, just in the dev kits.

amd looks good now, but intel looks good down the line. yonah. mmm…

spaceballl
Jun 7, 2005, 12:23 AM
amd looks good now, but intel looks good down the line. yonah. mmm…
Oh don't get me wrong... Intel's mobile stuff is AMAZING. But AMD's desktop stuff wins now, has won for the past couple years, and looks to continue to do so in the forseeable future.

Mord
Jun 7, 2005, 02:30 AM
Oh don't get me wrong... Intel's mobile stuff is AMAZING. But AMD's desktop stuff wins now, has won for the past couple years, and looks to continue to do so in the forseeable future.


i wouldent bet on it,once they start getting the dual core desktop pentium M's out the door AMD will be in a dust trail, for a long time competitors have only caught up with intel with a superior architecture and higher IPC, because of there thirst for clock speed and complete disregard for IPC intel has been stagnent with the P4, now this has changed and even a quick hack of a processor like the P-M is killing the competition, just you wait till a desktop version is comes out.

TIGERmac
Jun 7, 2005, 07:29 AM
two things that are funny...

Steve talked about performance per watt - Intel Prescotts are known for being furnaces...

Volume - Hah - like apple needs any sort of major volume. Either Intel or AMD could handle the load.

i bet it was basically a sell for the mobile parts and they just took a whole package deal from Intel to lower costs. Plus, Intel is more established.

Apple going x86 leaves the door open for AMD in the future though.

Intel has changed its policy on GHz. More isn't better. In fact, look for future Pentium processors to debut at lower clock speeds than Pentium 4's top out at.

I believe the next iteration of the Pentium is the dual-core Pentium D processor. From what it sounds like, these (or possibly forthcoming versions?) will be much more thermally efficient. I guess time will tell.

This whole partnership does make for interesting speculation.

Tealeaf
Jun 7, 2005, 07:47 AM
Intel has changed its policy on GHz. More isn't better. In fact, look for future Pentium processors to debut at lower clock speeds than Pentium 4s top out at.

I believe the next iteration of the Pentium is the dual-core Pentium D processor. From what it sounds like, these (or possibly forthcoming versions?) will be much more thermally efficient. I guess time will tell.

This whole partnership does make for interesting speculation.

Pentium D is still based on the "Prescott" core - so it'll be great to use to heat your house during the winter months. So it won't be great.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389

Wait until the post-Netburst cores from Intel. They'll be better.

cube
Jun 7, 2005, 08:04 AM
Sanders testified in favor of M$ and it would still be x86.

Of course, it would still be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be helping Intel become an even bigger juggernaut.

feakbeak
Jun 7, 2005, 08:16 AM
Pentium D is still based on the "Prescott" core - so it'll be great to use to heat your house during the winter months. So it won't be great.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389

Wait until the post-Netburst cores from Intel. They'll be better.Yeah, I'm hoping they come out with a Pentium-M based next-gen chip that runs cooler and that Intel also produces a dual-core variant that is engineered better (i.e. two cores integrated to use the same resources rather than just packaging two independent more or less independent cores on a chip ilke the Pentium D today.)

Toe
Jun 7, 2005, 08:56 AM
When Apple first switched to PPC, from the Motorola 68K, the only real PPC player was Motorola. IBM was mentioned as a technology partner, but IIRC, they weren't actually building chips.

Later on, IBM makes most (all?) of the PPCs, and Motorola is a relatively minor player.

Who's to say that Macs won't have AMDs in them in a few years?

TigerPRO
Jun 7, 2005, 10:05 AM
Has anyone found the it amusing what the google ads at the bottom of the page are?

mellow2bits
Jun 7, 2005, 10:50 AM
Has anyone found the it amusing what the google ads at the bottom of the page are?

Amazing! I feel al little infiltrated... :eek:

Toe
Jun 7, 2005, 10:59 AM
Has anyone found the it amusing what the google ads at the bottom of the page are?
Ads? What are those (http://www.floppymoose.com/)?

;)

stcanard
Jun 7, 2005, 11:25 AM
Pentium D is still based on the "Prescott" core - so it'll be great to use to heat your house during the winter months. So it won't be great.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389

Wait until the post-Netburst cores from Intel. They'll be better.

Have you noticed the introduction date of June 2006. Coincidentally, according to Intel's roadmap that's the time frame for Pentium-M based dual-cores.

Mav451
Jun 7, 2005, 11:43 AM
i wouldent bet on it,once they start getting the dual core desktop pentium M's out the door AMD will be in a dust trail, for a long time competitors have only caught up with intel with a superior architecture and higher IPC, because of there thirst for clock speed and complete disregard for IPC intel has been stagnent with the P4, now this has changed and even a quick hack of a processor like the P-M is killing the competition, just you wait till a desktop version is comes out.

It IS already availabe on the desktop...if you like to dabble tho. In the mATX format, DFI has a motherboard with the socket 479 interface that takes the P-M chips.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/index.x?pg=1
That was back in Feb '05.

But the only problem, if you consider it at all, is the cost. Mobo + CPU alone comes to ~600. Then again, once overclocked, its performance is high-end (A64 4000+ territory aka FX-53); so the $430+ price tag for the P-M 755 is not a big deal.

This is, of course, thinking in cold, hard cash PC terms. No doubt Apple will increase the premium on this somehow, making the base model that houses these CPUs probably in the 1199-1399 price range.

Mord
Jun 7, 2005, 11:45 AM
It IS already availabe on the desktop...if you like to dabble tho. In the mATX format, DFI has a motherboard with the socket 479 interface that takes the P-M chips.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/index.x?pg=1
That was back in Feb '05.

But the only problem, if you consider it at all, is the cost. Mobo + CPU alone comes to ~600. Then again, once overclocked, its performance is high-end (A64 4000+ territory aka FX-53); so the $430+ price tag for the P-M 755 is not a big deal.

This is, of course, thinking in cold, hard cash PC terms. No doubt Apple will increase the premium on this somehow, making the base model that houses these CPUs probably in the 1199-1399 price range.


yeah i know, i meant when it's pushed as intels primary desktop cpu, not just in niche motherboards.