Who thinks apple should make an AMD computer?

[foothead]

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.

[Cassie]

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.

[definitive]

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.

[Tallest Skil]

No.

AMD is the bargain-bin of processors. They're worthless and sinking fast.

[foothead]

No.

AMD is the bargain-bin of processors. They're worthless and sinking fast.

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.

[Jammers]

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.

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.

[blackhand1001]

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.

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.

[foothead]

Although you need a powerful computer a standard dual core 2 duo of 2.0ghz would thrash a quad G5 thee days.

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.

[Battlefield Fan]

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.

[flopticalcube]

Cheaper to produce doesn't always translate into cheaper to buy, particularly where Apple is concerned.

[foothead]

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.

[foothead]

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.

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.

[itommyboy]

Amd. Lulzorz! :)

[Battlefield Fan]

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

[queshy]

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.

[foothead]

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

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.

[flopticalcube]

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.

[Creative One]

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.

Keyword being Value.

[ButtUglyJeff]

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........

[localoid]

AMD?

No thanks.

[MisterMe]

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. ...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.

[michael.lauden]

AMD?

No thanks.

yeah intel is progressing like CRAZY... look at the benchmarks year by year, model by model. there is always an increase.

[Malfoy]

Intel please.

[blackhand1001]

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.

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.

[NT1440]

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.

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.

[Cyberius]

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.

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.

[MacDawg]

Put me in the Intel column
I have no interest in an AMD Mac

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Benguitar]

No.

AMD is the bargain-bin of processors. They're worthless and sinking fast.

I agree.

I disagree with this.

Of course you disagree, you made the thread. :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

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 :)

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.

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..

[netdog]

The most important answer to your original question is that Steve Jobs doesn't think that Apple should make an AMD computer.

End of story. Apple isn't a democracy.

[gnasher729]

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.

[iMacmatician]

They are matching the core 2 quads in performance now, Here comes Nehalem.

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. So that's why the Core 2 was beating the Athlons…

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.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.

[jaw04005]

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.

[SimD]

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.

[blackhand1001]

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.

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.

[Rodimus Prime]

No.

AMD is the bargain-bin of processors. They're worthless and sinking fast.

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.

[michael.lauden]

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.

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

[Brien]

AMD used to be great. Then they tanked.

Now they're on the rebound. I don't really care what's in my box as long as it's fast. :D

[Rodimus Prime]

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.

[Cassie]

Of course you disagree, you made the thread. :rolleyes:

Well, what do you want him to say? "You're right, sorry for making this thread."?

[MikhailT]

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.


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.

[Rodimus Prime]

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.

[thejadedmonkey]

No.

AMD is the bargain-bin of processors. They're worthless and sinking fast.

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.

[foothead]

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.

[DoFoT9]

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..

[foothead]

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.

[DoFoT9]

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. :cool:

[foothead]

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. :cool:

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.

[DoFoT9]

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 :):)

[foothead]

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.

[DoFoT9]

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.

interesting. having built a computer last year im not that interested in currently updating. i prefer to skip a generation of updates & the way my funds are currently i may have to wait for 2 years at least, hopefully by then the corei7 will be updated more as will the AM3 (maybe AM4s by then haha?). the power of those machines will be awsome.

i would of never considered an AMD, but the phenom seems quite (ironically) phenomenal

[ezekielrage_99]

AMD used to be great. Then they tanked.

Now they're on the rebound. I don't really care what's in my box as long as it's fast. :D

I agree, their mobile CPUs are rubbish while there desktop CPUs aren't bad they are still behind Intel. AMD CPUs generally run hotter than the Intel equivalent which would be far less than ideal in a Mac Mini or iMac.

If I had a choice I would still go for the Intel CPU.

[foothead]

I agree, their mobile CPUs are rubbish while there desktop CPUs aren't bad they are still behind Intel. AMD CPUs generally run hotter than the Intel equivalent which would be far less than ideal in a Mac Mini or iMac.

If I had a choice I would still go for the Intel CPU.

Actually, this used to be the case, but now, their 45 nm CPUs are cooler and more efficient than intels. they have them down to less than 40 watts.

[J the Ninja]

Actually, this used to be the case, but now, their 45 nm CPUs are cooler and more efficient than intels. they have them down to less than 40 watts.

Not for the same performance. Phenom II X4 955 is a 125w part, not much different from the 130w Core i7s, and slower.

Granted, also proportionally much cheaper, and that is before you factor in platform costs (usually widening the cost gap. Gah, 3x DDR3 sticks).