i know that i am partial to Intel because it is in many macs but other than this just wondering what other people thought. whose better when it comes down to raw power, efficiency, quality and cost
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.
whats better Intel or AMD
- Thread starter graphiteG4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
at first it was Intel, then it was AMD, and not its back in Intel favor currently, but that could change.
IBM G processors. Stupid Apple. 
I don't care if your laptop is 3 inches thick and has a heat sink the size of a small vehicle, it'd be faster.
I don't care if your laptop is 3 inches thick and has a heat sink the size of a small vehicle, it'd be faster.
currently the lead belongs to intel, at least in the mid to high end range. In the low end range there is some debate about who is better but my personal opinion is that AMD has a little bit better processors at the low end then intel does.
I am glad that intel is doing so well, but AMD really needs to kick it into gear. Intel has been slow to release there 45nm desktop processors (e8200, e8400, and e8500) cause AMD cannot and does not have anything that can compete with the current offerings. Hopefully AMD can kick it into gear and we can see some competition.
I am glad that intel is doing so well, but AMD really needs to kick it into gear. Intel has been slow to release there 45nm desktop processors (e8200, e8400, and e8500) cause AMD cannot and does not have anything that can compete with the current offerings. Hopefully AMD can kick it into gear and we can see some competition.
IBM G processors. Stupid Apple.
I don't care if your laptop is 3 inches thick and has a heat sink the size of a small vehicle, it'd be faster.
"Stupid IBM" is more like it. They're the ones whose dual-core CPUs needed massively over-engineered liquid cooling, couldn't get their chips to run at 3.0GHz despite their promises to Steve Jobs, and couldn't come close to making a fast CPU suitable for portable machines.
I really drank the IBM Kool-Aid back in 2003. They talked a mean game about beating Intel senseless back in those days. They failed, Intel came out with chips based around a much more sensible architecture, Apple switched, I moved on. (Well, I don't even own an Intel Mac yet, but still.)
IBM G processors. Stupid Apple.
I don't care if your laptop is 3 inches thick and has a heat sink the size of a small vehicle, it'd be faster.
You do realize that all benchmarks show today's MacBook Pros are faster than G5 workstations from a couple years ago, right?
Face it, the POWER architecture was dead-end, at least on the desktop. It's brilliant in areas where the manufacturer has a reason to actually ramp it, but for Apple switching to Intel was a no-brainer.
Exactly, and that is what it is all about. Power-efficiency. Without it, our laptops would be slow as hell. I personally think that that is one of the main reasons why the portable market has picked up so quickly in the past few years, since their power is actually comparable to that of a desktop.
Personally, I'm a fan of PPC, but between Intel and AMD, gotta say AMD> I have never had a single problem with an AMD computer, plus I think they run faster then the Intel equivlent.
My household has 2 HP desktops, 1 Intel powered and 1 AMD powered. The Intel wins in the snappiness and 'ill show you what you are looking for now but freeze in 10 seconds' department. The AMD wins in overall speed and 'ill get what you want done the right way but a tad slower' department.
Not as of anything lately. Sadly enough. AMD's chips are lagging behind Intel in just about every possible scenario. I used to build AMD only systems for work. The last 5 have been Intel C2D 2.66GHz.
I'm seeing Q6600's (Kentsfield) for 250 on Newegg, which usually has the best or very close to the best price. I'd love to see a Q6600 for 189.
http://www.netaffilia.com/ad/electronics/frys/i/2008/03/28/30984.html
Bought it before the sales tax hike.
It's just nice to be in a more competitive chip market after the switch to x86. PPC was pretty much limited to IBM, who didn't really give a damn about Apple.
On these forms that is a stupid question. Way to many people drink the apple koolaid to really think amd is better.
Because apple is using Intel they will say it is better and for no other reason. Go back and dig up some post back before the announcement of the intel switch. There was a lot of bashing intel up until it was announced and then you see them singing intels praises and it was the same people who are bashing it.
Because apple is using Intel they will say it is better and for no other reason. Go back and dig up some post back before the announcement of the intel switch. There was a lot of bashing intel up until it was announced and then you see them singing intels praises and it was the same people who are bashing it.
AMD is pretty power hungry. The last time I upgraded a motherboard with an AMD chip, it kept crashing and it turned out that the power supply wasn't quite good enough for the AMD chip. I spent a lot of money on a new power supply. However, the system was smoking fast.
Cheers.
Cheers.
The reason all the bashing was going on was cause AMD was still "leading" at that point in time. Most people wanted to see apple switch to AMD over intel, cause AMD's chips were bigger, better and faster. Obviously intel showed apple what was coming and made it happen. I don't really know what would have happened if apple had went with AMD instead of Intel but i would guess that Apple products would be lagging behind the market a tad.
Why does it matter, at all? I mean, unless you're a super enthusiast or building computers/servers, why does it matter at all? All I care about it performance vs price, and right now Intel is far in the lead in all categories, if AMD starts taking the lead I'd favor them.
Damnit, don't remind me.Bought it before the sales tax hike.
Anyway, Intel is currently the better choice. AMD is technologically inferior at the moment.
That was true in the days of the Athlon 64. (I was a measly 12 years old or so..) Now it's pretty much been flipped with the core wars. AMD's Phenom series have been a disappointment and Intel's new Kentsfield lineup seems to be a winner.
I do not think that is the reason at all.
Look back. It was lot of bashing X86. 2nd it was annoucned intel was the best thing since sliced bread and IBM sucked.
I do not think it was the CPU why apple went with intel. It was the fact intel makes there own motherboards and designs them. That and intel had better mobile chips.
But I stand by my point. That is a stupid question to ask on these boards. Way WAY to many apple worshipers here to get a real answer. PC forms are by far a better place to go for that question but that is because well they have a choice on CPU.