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

having set up a intel box with a E2160 just recently i d'have to disagree... if you are into tweaking the E2140-E2200 totally blow the amd counterparts out of the water in price-performance

even with the stock cooler you can increase the clock ridiculously high without the fan speeding up or without increasing voltage

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.

the problem currently also is that nearly all CPUs from intel have still a lot of air upwards available in term of clock rate (400mhz on pretty much all cpus) so even if amd came out with a good cpu intel simply had to release a new "version" running at higher clock

and if nehalem at end of year will be the big step forward everybody expects AMD might be in problems .. especially on the server cpu side which is still comparable to intel

edit: and that's coming from somebody who sweared by AMD a few years ago ...
 
Intel is far better especially for Laptops they smoke AMD. Without intel The MacBook Air would not exist. There's no way AMD could make a chip that small at this point. The Core 2 is killing AMD and so is the Xeon.
 
To be honest I just liked Apple being more different. Now it's impossible for Apple to exceed the PC market in specs. I know, OS optimization, blah, blah, blah, blah... But it just give's PC users a reason to whine about how Macs aren't any faster then PCs and they're SO MUCH "MORE EXPENSIVE111?!/42"

s'ya.
 
To be honest I just liked Apple being more different. Now it's impossible for Apple to exceed the PC market in specs. I know, OS optimization, blah, blah, blah, blah... But it just give's PC users a reason to whine about how Macs aren't any faster then PCs and they're SO MUCH "MORE EXPENSIVE111?!/42"

s'ya.

Yeah, I think your right but when intel is the best it's impossible.
 
I've always preferred Intel, despite what Rodimus Prime thinks most of us used to think. I've only used AMD in lower end machines, Intel, whilst usually costing a bit more brings in longer systems life (AMD K6, "Thunderbird", Athlon MP something - all died after 3 years). I was using Intel way before I got my first Mac, way before they switched to Intel and I'll be using them for the foreseeable future.

My sister still uses our 500mhz Pentium 3 system. Still chugging along after a good 7-8 or so years, runs XP quite well too.
 
I remember when I was going to buy my PC-Laptop about 1 year ago I was choosing between Intel and AMD Turion... AMD was a bit cheaper so I could get more packed model.. But I've chosen Intel one as it looks more powerful and reliable.. :)
 
Look back. It was lot of bashing X86. 2nd it was annoucned intel was the best thing since sliced bread and IBM sucked.
I don't know what you're remembering. There was plenty of bashing of the PPC, and lots of people saying Intel/AMD were better before hand. After the announcement of the switch, lots of people were disappointed too. Of course, who could blame them because IBM was making a lot of promises, AMD was actually doing pretty well, and when people thought of Intel, they thought of the P4, which wasn't great. Once the CoreDuo was out, based on the Pentium-M, which was based on the P3, which was actually pretty nice, it was no contest. We were hesitant, but the proof changed most of our minds. We were right to be cautious, and others were right to criticize PPC, but it's not like we all loved PPC and hated Intel, then everyone switched after they announced it. Some liked it before and after. Some hated it before and after. Most of us who did change our minds did so because the facts changed. That happens.

Anyway, right now Intel is better. PPC was nice, but woefully underdeveloped. The G5 was awesome, but that didn't last. The G3 and G4 had their hey days at first too. AMD blew it out of the water, and for a time Intel even regained. As of the CD and especially the C2D, Intel is the fastest and actually cooler in most cases. AMD may regain eventually. PPC may even too. Who knows.
 
For years AMD was on top, now its back to Intel. I'm an Intel/ATI (yes AMD own ATI) man myself, but I like AMD, and I kinda hope they get back with it, because Intel need competition. If Intel were the only CPU company, then we'd all be using 400mhz Pentium 2's right about now (although that wouldn't be too bad because it would force coders to code efficiently).

What would have been great was if Apple had used AMD instead of Intel (and at the time of the switch AMD were pwning Intel), AMD being the smaller company meant Apple could have worked with AMD.
 
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.

Explain to me how your statements are fundamentally different from those of the "apple worshippers" who drink the "kool-aid," blindly supporting and defending all of Apple's actions regardless of the facts? You claim that such a question is not worthwhile on these forums because the responses are untrustworthy due to the pro-Apple bias of the people on these forums; and that, the question is better discussed on PC forums, presumably because the people on those forums are less biased and therefore trustworthy.

I will not argue that no one is unbiased, because psychologically that position is not defensible (hence, individuals on "PC forums" would also be biased to certain perceptions, like those here). But, what I will argue is this: you discredit the discussion in these forums by generalizing the people here as untrustworthy regardless of the facts that they discuss. I.e., you yourself are generalizing without providing facts, thereby committing the same sin which you accuse others of. So, if your hypothesis is that if people who give statements without facts (due to their biases, for example) are not trustworthy, then isn't your position logically discredited for the same reason?

In short, I find your argument, at best, intellectually uninteresting, but at worst, intellectually lazy.
 
What would have been great was if Apple had used AMD instead of Intel (and at the time of the switch AMD were pwning Intel), AMD being the smaller company meant Apple could have worked with AMD.

I dont think so...AMD is far too small to fulfill the demands of Apple. Intel was the only x86/x64 chip manufacturer that could supply Apple.
 
Explain to me how your statements are fundamentally different from those of the "apple worshippers" who drink the "kool-aid," blindly supporting and defending all of Apple's actions regardless of the facts? You claim that such a question is not worthwhile on these forums because the responses are untrustworthy due to the pro-Apple bias of the people on these forums; and that, the question is better discussed on PC forums, presumably because the people on those forums are less biased and therefore trustworthy.

I will not argue that no one is unbiased, because psychologically that position is not defensible (hence, individuals on "PC forums" would also be biased to certain perceptions, like those here). But, what I will argue is this: you discredit the discussion in these forums by generalizing the people here as untrustworthy regardless of the facts that they discuss. I.e., you yourself are generalizing without providing facts, thereby committing the same sin which you accuse others of. So, if your hypothesis is that if people who give statements without facts (due to their biases, for example) are not trustworthy, then isn't your position logically discredited for the same reason?

In short, I find your argument, at best, intellectually uninteresting, but at worst, intellectually lazy.

http://xkcd.com/406/ ;)
 
Sometimes I wish PPC was better and apple had stuck with it that way it could have been the fastest. They are still fast but They need better power efficiency that's about the only thing it needs I think the architecture is better, Maybe I'm wrong.
 
I don't know what you're remembering. There was plenty of bashing of the PPC, and lots of people saying Intel/AMD were better before hand. After the announcement of the switch, lots of people were disappointed too. Of course, who could blame them because IBM was making a lot of promises, AMD was actually doing pretty well, and when people thought of Intel, they thought of the P4, which wasn't great. Once the CoreDuo was out, based on the Pentium-M, which was based on the P3, which was actually pretty nice, it was no contest. We were hesitant, but the proof changed most of our minds. We were right to be cautious, and others were right to criticize PPC, but it's not like we all loved PPC and hated Intel, then everyone switched after they announced it. Some liked it before and after. Some hated it before and after. Most of us who did change our minds did so because the facts changed. That happens.

Nailed it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.