Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

intel(x86) vs PPC

PPC or Intel

  • PPC

    Votes: 7 11.3%

  • Intel(x86)

    Votes: 34 54.8%

  • Not sure yet, need to see more intel Macs

    Votes: 21 33.9%
  • Total voters
    62
zap2

zap2

macrumors 604
Original poster
Mar 8, 2005
7,252
8
Washington D.C
Ok, we have the PPC to intel switch happing, so after seeing some intel macs what do you think?

Did Steve call it right or could PPC have done just as good?
 
Intel all the way, baby!

Intel%20logo.gif
 
Not really a fair poll. Intel Processors don't yet run all programs, but they are faster and the wave of the future. I'll stick with PPC for another year or two. Intel after that.
 
Laser47 said:
A year ago I would have said PPC, intel now

Remember This? I guess they take it all back
Click to expand...

No... at the time the Pentium 2 was awful. They haven't gone back on their word... the core duo is a new chip.
 
SpaceMagic said:
No... at the time the Pentium 2 was awful. They haven't gone back on their word... the core duo is a new chip.
Click to expand...
Wow i cant believe I forgot how much the PII sucked, I remember using them in middle school.
 
give me a redesigned macbook pro (no isight) or a whatever is in my signiture now, and i would say intel. but right now, im not sure.
 
I don't think there is much of a question, we aren't seeing much progress with PPC.

If you need current applications that haven't been converted and you need to work today, you'll have to go with PPC machines.

If you have less strict needs, you should go for the Core Duo machines because performance in the long run will be much better.
 
Intel! :)

While I still love my iBook G4 and Power Mac G5, the future is clearly with Intel- Steve made the right choice (I hope).
 

Attachments

  • icd_rgb_68.gif
    icd_rgb_68.gif
    2.6 KB · Views: 533
My vote is for Intel - perhaps not for what they've done so far, since we're just getting started, not all the apps run natively on x86 yet, etc., but rather for where they will be in a few months, and ultimately by the end of 2006 when all Macs are Intel-based. :cool:
 
~Shard~ said:
Not the best when it comes to stability though, no? So I've heard at least...
Click to expand...

I've had no problems with stability, though unlike Intel, AMD (mostly) leave to others to make chipsets for their CPUs, and stability can vary between the different chipset makers.

VIA had some really bad chipsets back in the days before Athlon 64. Truly horrible ones; truly painful. I've heard they've improved much lately, but I stick to NVIDIA anyway.


And I voted for x86. I think it's one of the best things they could do at this point. (or worst... we'll see :p)
 
dubbz said:
I've had no problems with stability, though unlike Intel, AMD (mostly) leave to others to make chipsets for their CPUs, and stability can vary between the different chipset makers.

VIA had some really bad chipsets back in the days before Athlon 64. Truly horrible ones; truly painful. I've heard they've improved much lately, but I stick to NVIDIA anyway.


And I voted for x86. I think it's one of the best things they could do at this point. (or worst... we'll see :p)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification on this, that's essentially what I was referring to.
 
~Shard~ said:
Not the best when it comes to stability though, no? So I've heard at least...
Click to expand...

I had an Athlon 64 3000+ in a HP Pavilion notebook about a year ago (sold it for my iBook G4) and it ran fine....well, as fine as windows xpee would allow it... :rolleyes: :)

But as dubbz has said, the instability that you are referring to probably has something to do with rogue chipsets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back