What would you say...

[SkyBell]

...if Apple had switched to AMD processors instead of Intel?

I would have much ratherd they switched to AMD, just becasue of the good luck I've had with them.

 

[72930]

It would have been lose-lose:

1. If there was no random-shutdown issues, we would not know about the intel problems, and would complain about the speed difference.

2. If there were problems, we would be even worse, and whine for intel.

 

[mkrishnan]

I'll throw in a "meh." I think AMD is a great company, and I like it when they succeed. But I'm not sure I understand "good luck" with respect to processors. It's not like they have a high defect rate. What do you mean by that? I've never had an AMD, Intel, or IBM / Freescale / Motorolla processor go bad on me, as far as I know. Not even in the old days....

Do you mean good luck in terms of the future-proofness of their designs? Considering how many P3's there are running around still, it seems like Intel does pretty well for themselves in this regard.

As far as future pipeline is concerned, that's always a topic of debate, but Apple seems to have adequately investigated that issue in prepping for the switch.

And the final meh-er is just that switching back and forth between Intel and AMD probably will not be that tough for Apple should they chose to do so at some point....

 

[jdechko]

I voted "Meh". I could really care less about what the name tag says on an internal component. As long as the computer works, and the programs run, I really don't care. Intel has a good roadmap (maybe better than AMD, maybe not) and a lot of manufacturing facilities: many more than AMD. In any case, we've gotten a lot of updates and with new chips coming out every few weeks it seems one would hope that we could just change out the chips for faster ones.

 

[yg17]

I also voted "meh"

For one reason or another, I've always preferred AMD when it comes to PCs. The first PC I built myself was AMD and I just continued using their chips because a few years ago, AMD beat Intel in cost to power ratio. But now, I think the playing field is more even. Plus, Intel has the name recognition which Apple needs. If you asked my parents who AMD was, they would have no idea. Ask them who Intel is, and they'd probably say something like "Oh, they're the company that makes computer thingys and they have those TV commercials with the ding music at the end." I don't think it matters who they went with, but that they went x86 because since IBM and Motorola were working at a snails pace with PPC, a change was needed.

 

[bousozoku]

We've debated this too much already. It really doesn't matter. It's unlikely they'll change course again until such a time when Intel can't produce something useful.

I voted meh, but there should be a fourth choice: "this argument is giving me a headache" and I would vote that instead.

 

[SkyBell]

I'll throw in a "meh." I think AMD is a great company, and I like it when they succeed. But I'm not sure I understand "good luck" with respect to processors. It's not like they have a high defect rate. What do you mean by that? I've never had an AMD, Intel, or IBM / Freescale / Motorolla processor go bad on me, as far as I know. Not even in the old days....

I've always had bad luck with Intel... All my Intel computers, just seem to stop working. Something goes bad, or burns out, or something like that. Ive never had any kind of problem with an AMD. Maybe I'm just lucky, though.

 

[miniConvert]

Intel was the right move. Their extensive range of processors will enable Apple to innovate like never before.

 

[ziwi]

Don't think it would have mattered - it is the OS afterall and not the engine that matters to most end users.

 

[beatsme]

whichever processor supports the most varieties of games is what they should have chosen. I'm not a PC gamer so I have no idea if they did, but from a "getting PC users to switch" point of view it's definitely what you want to do.

 

[dextertangocci]

I prefer intel, but AMD is also good

 

[mkrishnan]

whichever processor supports the most varieties of games is what they should have chosen. I'm not a PC gamer so I have no idea if they did, but from a "getting PC users to switch" point of view it's definitely what you want to do.

So I actually don't understand this very well...can anyone educate me?

Given two systems:

- Windows XP / SP2 / 32 Bit (I guess? I'm not sure if games are written frequently for XP-64?)
- Same SATA HD, same video card, etc, of your choosing
- Approximately equivalent latest processors (I think this would mean Athlon 64 X2 and Core 2 Duo?)

What percentage of games in particular or applications in general will run on this setup if it has the Athlon and not the C2D or vice versa?

My impression is that the AMD/Intel issue is transparent to users of Windows -- that as long as the processor is reasonably new, things run on both of them.

Is this correct, or not?

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Meh...

I would have preferred that Apple stayed on the PPC platform, but since the development of new chips, particularly for portables, I reluctantly admit that changing platform was a good move. Now, Intel over AMD, I don't know... I guess Apple just went for the biggest supplier... I don't really care...

But I do love my MacBook though... 2 GHz Intel Core Duo seems like a very capable little chip...

 

[beatsme]

Is this correct, or not?

essentially, yes. They use the same instruction set, since they're both based on the x86 architecture, but they offer different levels of performance and handle information in slightly different ways. You could run Unreal Tournament on either an AMD or an Intel, but you might get slightly different results from equivalent AMD/Intel processors.