no, AMD may have help Apple
AMD would of bring the price of their products down thus expanding marketshare
AMD would of bring the price of their products down thus expanding marketshare
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Did Apple Do The Right Thing in Moving To Intel From PowerPC???
- Thread starter rashdown_online
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not quite sure how that would make a difference. AMD PCs weren't significantly cheaper than Intel PCs. The $449 Dell systems I see in circulars every week have Intel chips in them, and Dell is about as cheap as computers go - with the exception of ones Walmart sells.
This is assuming that:
- AMD had a road-map that Apple liked.
- AMD wanted to not only deal with Apple, but was willing to make special chips like the one in the MacBook Air.
- AMD could make enough chips to satisfy Apple's particular demands.
- Apple's products are priced in a direct relationship with the cost of materials.
- And, market-share is driven by price.
Well, when you look at it in terms of price drops on CPUs and other components post-introduction, and how Apple doesn't drop their prices on hardware unlike how other PC vendors do, it's clear that #4 is not something which applies to Apple's business strategy.
Of course, in all fairness it's not like Dell has the same kind of R&D costs going on that Apple does, and neither Dell nor HP nor almost anyone else in the PC world is "another Apple", but still it's worth noting this fact.
Personally, I would love it as much as the next guy if I knew an iMac 2.4GHz 24" at introduction was $1800, and then 3-4 months later it was $1600, and then $1400, and so on, but knowing Apple, I'm well aware this isn't going to happen.
Of course, Apple's in the enviable position of having a product which people want to buy rather than it being their default option, as is the case with PC vendors' hardware.
Of course, I'd like to have an exact road-map for all of Apple's products and price declines. I've been relatively lucky, but then I spend time here in MacRumors.
I just thought the OP's comment contained so many assumptions I thought it was worth commenting on them in some detail.
i don't get the whole love/hate relationship apple always ends up in with its cpu vendors. can't apple have a core2-based performance line and a power-efficient ppc line at the same time? what was the 'boo! ibm can't deliver high wattage cpus on schedule, jump ship!' drive, so that now those who are interested in apple's power-efficient products (read: the mini and the macbook line) have to wait for intel to play catch-up on the power-efficiency front.
personally, my interest was in the mini line and that took a step back with the move to intel - power-efficiency dropped notably, for a dubious performance gain.
personally, my interest was in the mini line and that took a step back with the move to intel - power-efficiency dropped notably, for a dubious performance gain.
Disagree. People buy what they need generally.
For example, I use a Windows PC for my main machine because it's a quad core gaming monster. Apple simply don't offer anything that's comparable yet.
But, monster gaming machines are a PC-land niche, a big one with very loud adherents, but nonetheless a niche. The problem for Apple with this niche in particular is the constant drive for each and every frame-rate and Apple has had trouble getting the right drivers and video cards in order to engage this market. It's a troublesome and expensive niche to play with, and thus Apple is less interested in it than someone like Alienware who lives and dies by the frame-rate.
Apple's Intel move was the best decision the company has made for the Mac since the decision to go to Unix. With virtualization soon to be a dominant force in the home as well as enterprise markets, being on a platform that can easily be exploited for virtualization purposes is a huge plus. Being able to easily run Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, etc, alongside OSX on Mac hardware is a huge plus. It makes using Macs in the enterprise that much more realistic an option, and it makes the whole process of switching much easier. It also makes the higher pricetag for Mac hardware more acceptable to those who may be on the fence.
I don't see a PowerPC chip that has the same low-heat, low-wattage that IBM has been able to deliver with their C2D chips. The chips that are coming from IBM are for servers, not for little boxes like the Mini and certainly not comparable to the C2D in the MacBook line.
Am I missing something or is there some secret IBM chip that doesn't require the cooling of the G5?
I have a 2.4Ghz MBP and dual 2.0Ghz dual-core Mac Pro here at work, a dual 2.0Ghz PowerMac G5 at home. However, I rather use the G5 box than a MBP/Mac Pro, call me weird.
I just feel much more smoother on the G5, that's the reason why I still haven't upgraded.
I just feel much more smoother on the G5, that's the reason why I still haven't upgraded.
Agree. The problem with Apple is the lack of upgrades you can make which are essential to any PC gamer. For example, I can take out my 65nm Kentsfield and stick in a 45nm higher powered Penryn or link 8800GTX Ultras in SLI if needed. Macs don't let me do that yet.
Although I would also argue that a lot of people buy cheap Dell boxes because they suit their needs too - a bit of browsing, the odd download and word processing, etc.
Why not? Don't tell me that you think that a Mac Pro with even a 8800GT can't handle a game well?
I'm not saying that at all, however:
1) The Mac Pro runs on Xeons which are really server chips, not gaming chips
2) Currently you can run 8800GTs on it or, if you're really, really flush, Quadros
3) The same configuration I have - and it's a bloody good MESH PC - would cost you £1,200 less.
Using a Mac Pro as a gaming machine would make about as much sense as using a Dell Server as one - it's total overkill. Apple list it as a business machine for a good reason .
I was always under the impression that for most 'serious' gamers, there wasn't any such thing as overkill.
I was always under the impression that for most 'serious' gamers, there wasn't any such thing as overkill.
We draw the line at workstations.
I could not agree more- I buy my Macs for Mac OS. That said, there are certain benefits to the switch to Intel processors (e.g., the ability to run Windows natively).
well, i used ibm as an emblematic example of a cpu vendor apple ceremonially broke up with, and not necessarily the sole producer of ppc chips (after all my mini has a motorola cpu). and yes, i know ibm's strength has been with power-hungry high-end parts.
but aside from that, on to your question: the latest G4 designs have been quite capable. intel has one major advantage - they're leaders in lithography. and now they actually have a decent core design for a change. but no, the duo is not my idea of a low-power-draw desktop part (and neither was the original core that went into the core mini). now, the late 7457 and 7448 (e600 and beyond) ppc designs would have been something else. i mean, look at the cheap 7447 - that little bugger is running circles in the g4 mini/powerbooks. only if apple had opted for the more expensive L3-cache-enabled 7457 we'd have had quite a different mac mini series (slow FSBs FTL). anyhow. the architecture jump apple performed had nothing to do with chip power/performance figures and all to do with vendor's reliability. intel is unbeatable when it comes to churning out dies. unfortunately, that does not concern me as a potential customer to efficient g4-like parts.
I was always under the impression that for most 'serious' gamers, there wasn't any such thing as overkill.
There are a few problems with the MP as a gaming computer. "Overkill" isn't the right word. It's just all wrong.
1) The computer has so many things that someone who just wants to play games doesn't need, and they are all expensive.
- Xeons are not needed. A single 3.2 GHz Kentsfield would be as good as, or better, and certainly much cheaper, than two Xeons. A dual core Conroe would be good enough, if it was 3.2 GHz or more, with Penryn versions.
- It uses slow, expensive RAM. ECC is pointless for games. 800MHz? How about 1200?
- An 8800 GT is fine, but it could be a little better. And how about SLI or Crossfire?
So, all of these costs add up. No reason Apple couldn't throw together a fast Conroe or Kentsfield with 4 GB of fast desktop RAM (not workstation) with one or two 8800 GT category GPUs. I'm sure that would more than cater for all but the very snobbish gamers, and would be far less expensive than a Mac Pro, and better for games. It wouldn't need to be anywhere near as big either.
But I will continue to settle with my MBP. : )
And for the record, I am a big fan of Intel, and think the transition was the best thing they could have done. I think their recent marketshare and stock price demonstrate that.
The G4 was a great chip, but the architecture was limited (as far as I know) to 32-bit, the vendors (both IBM and Moto') were unreliable, and the G5 would never have worked in the portable arena.
So, for consumers who waited years for the G4 to go from 550mhz to 1.5ghz, all of this matters. The PPC road-map looked good, but the results simply were never there.
Yep, the MacPro isn't made for gamers, but an entirely different kind of computing where things like error-correcting memory really matters.