Jobs and Intel - The wrong choice? - CNET: Dual-core desktop CPU bout: AMD vs. Intel

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by amac4me, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. amac4me macrumors 65816


    Apr 26, 2005
    The conclusion from the artcile:

    "It wasn't even close.

    After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced Intel equivalent.

    If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two, AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores.

    Whatever Intel's strategy, it doesn't seem to have held up. We're very interested to see what happens when the next generation of chips and chipsets hits the market starting in January. But until then, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 should be your dual-core processor of choice. "

    So was Job's decision to jump to Intel a mistake? Should he have considered AMD processors? Jobs commented WWDC that about "Intel's roadmap" and the "power per watt" of the Intel processors the compelling reason for the switch.

    Overall, I thought the article was interesting.
  2. Bear macrumors G3

    Jul 23, 2002
    Sol III - Terra
    We won't really know until we see the actual chips that Apple uses and wait until those chips have valid comparisons made.
  3. gnasher729 macrumors P6


    Nov 25, 2005
    No, the mistake is that the article compares desktop CPUs. Apple doesn't need any new desktop CPUs. Quad G5s are just fine for this and the next year. Apple needs a good laptop CPU.

    And guess what: Intels laptop CPUs (dual core Yonah available in January) come close to the fastest AMD desktop CPUs, at considerably lower power consumption. Nothing that AMD has can beat Intel in a laptop.

    And what makes the think that AMD wasn't considered for the switch? Do you think nobody told Steve Jobs that Intel isn't the only one making x86 CPUs? Of course they were considered. The reason for going with Intel are: 1. Better laptop performance. 2. Better roadmap ahead. 3. Guaranteed chip availability in any numbers Apple wants. 4. Whatever goodies Intel threw in to get a deal with Apple, which is absolutely important for Intel from a marketing point of view.
  4. Dr. Dastardly macrumors 65816

    Dr. Dastardly

    Jun 26, 2004
    I live in a giant bucket!
    OK this has been done to death on these boards. Yeah AMD has some nice chips. Yeah I think AMD is actually better than Intel at this point in time. But come on, we don't even know for a fact what chips the next Macs will be shipping and what the specs will be.

    Also keep in mind how large Intel is compared to AMD. AMD would not be able to keep up with the orders that Apple would demand. Plain and simple. Intel is able to pump out millions of chips a day without blinking an eye. AMD might be more powerful and its "not even close" but really what good is that to you if you can't even get your computer in three months because supply is so tight.
  5. BornAgainMac macrumors 603


    Feb 4, 2004
    Florida Resident
    AMD is really impressive. Perhaps in June, Jobs will announce yet another transition. ;)
  6. crap freakboy macrumors 6502a

    crap freakboy

    Jul 17, 2002
    nar in Gainsborough, me duck
    Could whine about the benchmarks, but what is the point? The decision is that Apple are using Intel. Things change.
    The thing that makes the difference to me is OSX, simple as that.:D
  7. ewinemiller macrumors 6502

    Aug 29, 2001
    west of Philly
    That comparison is using Intel's dead end desktop line of chips. There's been no indication that those are the line of chips Apple is interested in and given the big noise about performance/watt every indication that it isn't what they are interested in.

    Intead go here

    and think about that dual core yonah in your next powerbook, keeping up with the same clocked dual core AMD, but light enough on the juice that it goes in your laptop.

Share This Page