Why Intel over AMD?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by TigerPRO, Jun 6, 2005.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Toe
    macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    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.....
     
  4. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #4
    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...
     
  5. Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #5
    *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:
     
  6. Toe
    macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #6
    According to Apple:

    “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,”
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Toe
    macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #8
    Why? PowerMacs already suck the doors 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....
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    JDOG_

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Location:
    Oakland
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    vouder17

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Location:
    Home
    #11
    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:
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #14
    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)
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Location:
    Orygun
    #15
    Why Intel? SUPPORT! From the Apple press release today:

    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.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    javiercr

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #17
    in what sense? performance? you don't know that, but i guess we'll finally find out now.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #18
    They don't. Everyone I know who works at Apple knows that a highend PC stomps a G5 right now.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    James Philp

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford/London
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #20
    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
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    feakbeak

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Michigan
    #22
    I noticed that the "trophy" link in your signature to the thread you started about the PPC architecture beating x86 is now gone. ;)
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    JasonElise1983

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Location:
    Between a rock and a midget
    #23
    m, e, d, p?

    pentium M, PCI-express, Dual Core, production. Those are my guesses on the reason Apple chose Intel.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #24
    All of which trounce the G series.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page