How well Apple is doing with Intel...

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by fiercetiger224, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Jan 27, 2004
    Now that Apple has converted 50% of its product line to Intel based processors, what do you guys think of it? So far, I think Apple is handling it very well. Without their marketing or engineers, they wouldn't be able to pull it off as smoothly as they did.

    Okay, a little off topic. But what if they chose AMD instead of Intel? First off, I'd like to just state that I love both AMD and Intel equally. I have nothing against either of them; they're just two competing companies striving to produce the world's fastest processors. Here's my pitch: if Apple chose AMD, would they have even better performance? Maybe just a little more. But Apple chose Intel for a reason.

    AMD may have the performance lead, only because of the onchip memory controller. Think about this: what if the Athlon 64 processors DIDN'T have an onchip memory controller? Would they be in line with Intel in processing power? I think if they didn't have the onchip memory controller, the Core Duo would definitely be beat the crap outta the Athlon X2 processors! OR if the Core Duo had an onchip memory controller, they would have already had an advantage. I mean, c'mon, the Core Duo pretty much trails or does better in some benchmarks compared to the Athlon X2 at similar clock speeds, using a decade old FSB technology. Just some interesting thoughts that I'd like you guys to know.

    Apple made the decision to go with Intel because they have an edge in manufacturing, and eventually reach past AMD in performance, thanks to their long roadmap that concerns performance per watt. Hopefully, they have some kind of new memory controller technology by next year.

    Anyway, I'm actually very excited about the Mac Mini announced today! Finally, a small pc with almost the power of a standard iMac! YAAAAY! CORE DUO POWER! WOOT WOOT!
  2. wahgnube macrumors member


    Feb 15, 2006
    I was about to "answer your question" before I read through and realised you'd answered it yourself. So the point of what you just said was to answer people who might be asking the question, "why not AMD"?

    And let's not forget that AMD started off as little more than an x86 clone manufacturer---licensed with the knowhow by Intel no less.

    Anyway, I'd like to think Apple's transition is working. At least it won them one customer, me. I hadn't considered an Apple product ever before, and I ordered a relatively expensive laptop after (because of) the move to Intel.
  3. Clydefrog macrumors 6502a


    Feb 24, 2006
    I believe Apple switched to Intel instead of AMD, because Intel has a low voltage, fast chip that Intel could supply with such a big demand. AMD really doesn't have a verstile chip that can be used in a desktop and a laptop. Apple didn't want to wait for AMD, they probably wanted to switch as soon as possible and Intel was ready. Anyway, if you look at it benchmark wise, AMD beats the pulp out of Intel in every catagory of performance (video rendering, gaming, apps,etc)

Share This Page