Does Apple look out of touch teamin up with intel?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by needthephone, Jun 3, 2006.

  1. needthephone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    sydney
    #1
    Apple announced with much fan fare that they are going with intel but to me they look like they are behind the times and out of touch which could dent their cutting edge image.

    It's like they decide to move but the world has changed and left the intel camp behind.

    You can't fail to notice all the publicity around how AMD are now considered to have out flanked intel, who still persist with out of date architecture and still have foolishly kept with the pentium name many years after it was first relased. To the average consmer they are confused as to what the latest pentium offers in comprison to the one they have, so why change to another pentium-the AMD one has a snazzier name.

    It could have been an opportunity for Apple to carp at the out of date intel chips in PC's but instead they have jumped onto the back of a dead horse!

    Dell have stopped using Intel exclusively and are going with superior AMD procesors.

    To me this could seriously back fire on Apple as to me they seem to be using out of date technology at the heart of their systems.

    Probaly unfair but perception is everything.
     
  2. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    You need to consider a few things.

    First off, Intel still has 80% of the entire retail processor market.

    AMD cannot supply more chips with their current capacity to capture more than the percentage of the market they have now. AMD has a supply problem. They don't have money to upgrade their fabs to 65nm, let alone 45nm (look at Dresden Fab36).

    Intel could supply the number of chips Apple needed and had the most exciting processor roadmap this year.

    On Tuesday Intel will announce the Conroe (also known as Core 2 Duo) which will leapfrog any processor we have ever seen in performance. On top of that, it will use less wattage than AMD based processor with a Thermal Design Power of 65Watt for their desktop processors, not only giving it the performance crown but also the Performance per Watt crown. The mobile version of Conroe is the Merom, with an optimized Thermal Design Power equal or less than the current Yonah (Core Duo).

    Edit: The Yonah (Core Duo) is actually on par with the AMD Athlon64 X2 architecture, though they differ with the Yonah being a lower Thermal Design Power chip.

    Dell is only selling AMD chips in their server offerings. Hardly a victory. Woodcrest based on the Conroe architecture will also rule this niche.

    Big things from Intel is coming this year, stay tuned.

    So I wouldn't say you have mastered the art of perception ;)
     
  3. Maxiseller macrumors 6502a

    Maxiseller

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    Little grey, chilly island.
    #3

    erm, hello?
     

    Attached Files:

  4. mandis macrumors regular

    mandis

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4

    Most people in this forum will say that Intel is better than AMD because they can produce higher volumes of chips as well as the accompanying chipsets that allow Apple to produce their systems faster. In my opinion Apple was simply not brave enough or perhaps not knowledgeable enough to go with AMD. This resulted in systems like the macbook and Mac mini coming out with cheap and underpowered IGPs, which cripple Apples image. This also means that we will never see a decent desktop system, as Intel doesn't produce a chipset that allows SLI or Crossfire GPU configurations. Most people will dispute that of course, suggesting that this kind of power is not really necessary.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    At least Apple isnt using G5s & 4s anymore, pretty hard to sell new machines with no advancement.
     
  6. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #6
    The Intel i975X chipset does in fact support CrossFire and SLI but I have a hard time seeing what this has to do with Apple? If Apple wants CrossFire or SLI, Intel will gladly enable those features on the boards they produce for Apple. But in the end, it's really up to nVIDIA or ATI (that is, CrossFire is working on Intel chipsets).

    They can also use the soon to be announced ATI RD600, which features an DirectX 9.0 dicrete chip.

    It's not as if AMD even makes chipsets for their own processors or has an IGP in the making.

    I agree that the entire NetBurst architecture (P4) have become an achilles heel for Intel but it was great for its time. Now to take over is the new Conroe. Wait till Tuesday . . . or if you want Conroe benchmarks now I can direct you to a few ;)
     
  7. needthephone thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    sydney
    #7
    I don't know much about processors as you have probably guessed! but to me a lay man reading the newspapers it seems to me Intel is taking a serious beating and AMD seem to be the new flavour of the month. Even the old boss of intel is having a go at the new CEO. I remember when the there was a 386 a 486 then a pentium then a pentium 100 etc etc-you could follow what was going on,things were getting faster. But now I really don't know if my pentium is as fast or faster than the pentiums they are selling today-I'm a consumer and need to be told these things in easy to understand language. When I said perception is everything, I was getting at that its easy to get the wrong idea quite easily by reading newspapers. Well to me anyway (and to a few of my freinds who Iv'e taliked to about this) Apple seem to be backing the wrong horse right now.

    These are some of the several articles I have read recently(well you can't avoid seeing them)-well I certainly won't be clamouring to buy a machine with the "intel inside" sticker anymore

    http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19294654^15322^^nbv^15306,00.html

    http://www.antandsons.com/2006/05/amd-intel-rivalry-heats-up.html
     
  8. thumb macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    #8
    hmm, i think we are missing a fairly big point here.

    remember, apple sells to obsessed fans (who will buy whatever they put out), creative professionals (who like their design, alas no longer because apple controls audio and imaging), the the parents and grandparents of these first two types.

    moving over to intel was not just a performance issue, it was at least as much a marketing move, esp. for category three above.

    as good as AMD is, and as much as PC enthusiasts may (or may not) think they are superior to Intel, the truth is Intel is still the defining name in PCland, esp. for non enthusiasts.

    apples move was meant to be symbolic of a major shift. using AMD in its ad campaign would have just looked silly.

    once the marketing power of the switch abates, i think apple will be free to use whatever chips it feels would make the most sense, which i assume will remain intel unless something dramatic happens.

    my thoughts
     
  9. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #9
    Don't worry, I think AMD's FAB partner IBM will do a good job holding them back.
     
  10. joebells macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    #10
    Right now amd with its integrated memory controller and intel with its completly crap "netburst" architecture(pentium 4) amd definately has the upper hand in desktop and server systems. But intel is abandoning the netburst architecture smartly, and the new core 2 duo architecture is supposed to be better clock for clock compared to amd now. I believe intel is also working on an integrated memory controller also(not completely sure about that one) so intel has the ability to ship as many chips as apple might need, intel's coming chips are in some ways better and some ways not quite as good as amd's chips but the performance disparity isn't nearly as bad as it was a couple of months ago and Intel is also better able to help apple design motherboards and such.

    I really like amd though and use them in some of my desktops I'm not in any way an intel fanboy.
     
  11. poppe macrumors 68020

    poppe

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Location:
    Woodland Hills
    #11
    You say creative professionals... but to me it seems like its slipping away from that. The Powerbook back a year ago seemed to me to be top of the line and really great for video editing... but really this MBP isn't very much a massively powerful computer I once thought Apple produced.... For 8 month's I've known I was getting a MBP/Powerbook, but I keep questioning why I should anymore. I love OS X but I need a powerful laptop that can handle high rendering (and I dont use Final Cut).
     
  12. thumb macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    #12
    i agree, i don't think mac is doing enough to keep its creative pros as dedicated as they once were. for them/us, it has almost become more a choice of style than obvious substance (this is not to say they are not very good, but they are not as clear cut winners as once before). harder to justify some of the prices this way...

    i do hope the "real" mbp and macpro fill these needs.
     
  13. tipdrill407 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    #13
    Intel was stupid to create the Netburst architecture, but they've smartened up now. The next generation Intel chips will surely beat AMD's offerings and Apple knows it. Apple was smart for choosing Intel.
     
  14. matthew24 macrumors 6502

    matthew24

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #14
    The Intel procs Apple are using right now (Core Duo) are already the fastest in its class, the reason Apple choose Intel was the roadmap, Apple of course already knew what Intel would produce for the next PM, it is going to be nice.:D Wait and see.

    AMD at the moment has no possibilties to produce 65nm chips, the new 32/64bit core-duo Intel cpu are/will be 65nm. Apple's got Intel moving again.
     
  15. cyberdogl2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    #15
    i bet when apple wanted to switch to cisc processors they chose intel because they could work closely with their motherboard, graphics, and processor teams. Apple loves colaboration (although anything after the collaboration i up in the air), and AMD doesn't have the main power or the right team to hold apple's hand through the transition.
     
  16. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    apple is not going intel because of supply, AMD could of handled them easy, it's because intel is going to kick ass with new cpu's, apple did not switch for the P4, and is switching over as intle releases suitable cpus, why do you think they are using a mobile part in the imac, because it's the only suitable cpu from intel until conroe is available, intel did suck, but the sucked entirely because of the pentium, core beats all, AMD was about on par with the G5 on the desktop
     
  17. ddrueckhammer macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #17
    As others have said, AMD was ahead of Intel for sure until Intel released the Core-Duos. It is a much closer race right now and with the 65nm chips being released this summer Intel will be in a much better position than AMD. They may not be be ahead at this point but they are positioning themselves to pull ahead again...

    As you stated, it is hard to describe to the average consumers why these lower clockspeed processors are actually better. Intel could latch on to the dual core part for television spots but I'm not sure if many people besides computer enthusiasts know what that means (the same goes for 64-bit). Intel made a major mistake clinging to the megahertz myth. (i.e. faster clockspeeds make faster computers). While partly true, efficiency (per watt performance) is a better indicator of overall performance because you can push the chip farther before it is effected by its thermal output.

    Incidentally, it seems to me that this is being "discovered" (maybe not for the first time) in the automotive industry as well. I read this article today about a car that goes 0-60 in 3 seconds (faster than a Ferrari 360 Spider and a Porsche Carrera GT) on lithium ion batteries, charges in 4 hours, and has a one hundred mile range. The inventor was able to get this performance by using a computer algorithm to optimize the storage and release of energy from the batteries to the motor. Interesting reading. Efficiency is everything! Maybe that should be Intel's new slogan.

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology/business2_wrightspeed/index.htm

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/05/01/8375936/index.htm
     
  18. needthephone thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    sydney
    #18
    Thanks for the excellent answers. I have no axe to grind either way, just that Iv'e been seeing a lot about Intel lately and have recently switched to an imac (which I use along with my Dell PC).

    I do think that along the way the processor branders have failed to communicate this whole speed thing. As I mentioned before you use to know that when you upgraded to a p150 it was going to be faster than your old p100. Now I just don't know what is going on. Is My Burst Line Cache with Hyper Threading P4 faster than a Core Duo Processor T2300?? You all probaly know but what chance has teh average guy in the street got. My brother is a Science PHD and he is as baffled as me. Or is it about the Video Card now?

    Anyway that's my rant over-can Apple/Intel/AMD help "us" understand why I should buy a core duo or an Opteron in easy to digest language??
     
  19. bbrosemer macrumors 6502a

    bbrosemer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    #19
    Apple simply chose Intel because they wanted lower power high performance laptop's. The would have stuck with the PPC chips had they wanted power hungry desktops. Also they were pretty PO at IBM for neglecting trying to produce chips for the future, Intel had a better roadmap to the future and that is the simple reasons why, other then the poltics behind it.
     
  20. mmmcheese macrumors 6502a

    mmmcheese

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    #20
    I told myself that I wasn't going to say anything in this thread, but I will anyway...

    Although Intel brings decent processors and chipsets to the table, as well the ability to produce them in large quantities....Intel has something else it can offer companies like Apple as well...knowledge. Intel has huge amounts of resources available for its partners such as compilers, motherboard designers and software engineers (and many more things that I have missed). These things are just as attractive, if not more, than the first list of things. AMD just isn't big enough to be able to offer these things in the same quantity as Intel, and companies like Apple really do rely on this stuff.
     
  21. ManchesterTrix macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    #21
    I have no idea what you're intending to say here. How can you think the PowerBook was top of the line for video editing while the MacBook Pro isn't?
     

Share This Page