Why no AMD iMacs?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Bkxmnr, Feb 15, 2009.

  1. Bkxmnr macrumors regular


    Feb 9, 2009
    Wichita, KS
    Why is there no option for an AMD iMac? Seems to me it would be a little cheaper and with a performance boost to boot. I dunno. Thoughts? :confused:
  2. r.j.s Moderator emeritus


    Mar 7, 2007
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Aug 13, 2006
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    AMD is the bargain bin of processors.

    Performance boost? Have you seen Nehalem?
  4. sgibson macrumors regular


    Mar 24, 2008
    Sadly it's been several years since AMD had both cheaper and faster chips. They've been lagging behind Intel since the Cores were released and don't have much of a price advantage either.

    Pity, I used to be a die hard AMD fanboy.
  5. ceezy3000 macrumors 6502


    Jan 10, 2009
    The Valley!!
    we need to bring back PowerPc have our own propietary format agian
  6. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Jul 5, 2008
    Thule GL @ the TOW
  7. Hot Snowboarder macrumors 6502

    Jan 2, 2009
    Behind you...!
    There's Apple and there's Microsoft,
    Just like there's Intel and there's AMD.

    Yeah i'm an Intel fanboy. AMD just doesn't have the money to compete with Intel's RnD atm.
  8. Hellhammer Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 10, 2008
    Intel is the Ferrari of processors, AMD is Lada. AMD may have better clockspeed for same price but it have been tested that Intel's 1.8GHz processor is simular to AMD's 2.4GHz. Intels are much better, AMD is just cheap crap.
  9. ditzy macrumors 68000


    Sep 28, 2007
    You know, since I 'converted' to apple I've said that I would not go back. This would be about the only thing that would make me go back.
    And why no AMD iMacs why would you want one?
  10. millar876 macrumors 6502a


    May 13, 2004
    Kilmarnock, Scotland UK
    'cos AMD processors are poop, and the new intels run rings arround them.

    It's not all about clock Speed.
  11. Cromulent macrumors 603


    Oct 2, 2006
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    God knows why. The PowerPC processors were very good back in the day.

    They are used in the Xbox 360 for instance and are still in heavy use for small devices. Their big brothers the IBM Power line of CPUs are still used in heavy duty servers and other big computing systems.
  12. neonblue2 macrumors 6502a

    Aug 25, 2006
    Port Pirie, South Australia
    PowerPC chips are in all three home consoles. The 360 has a tri-core, the Wii has a modern G3 (PowerPC 970s still have their use) and the PS3 is using a Cell.
  13. qweefb macrumors newbie

    May 7, 2008
    I think Intel is a better choice than AMD's. When Intel get into 45nm, AMD still in 65nm. Also, some tests in magazine show that if two CPU in same clock rate, performance of Intel's CPU is much better than AMD' CPU.
  14. firestarter macrumors 603


    Dec 31, 2002
    Green and pleasant land
    It's pretty funny reading some of these comments about AMD.

    5 years ago Intel was stuck in a marketing-driven quest of ever higher clock speeds. They did this by subdividing each instruction into ever-smaller slices, so that they could get away with doing less work for each clock tick, and hence push the clock speeds higher.

    AMD were the company that managed to break this marketing gimmick, and they did this with the Athalon range that did more work for every clock cycle (so they were the ones that proved "It's not all about the clock speed"). AMD were also very quick to go onto smaller process sizes, and AMD developed the (now copied by Intel) 64 bit extensions to the processor.

    The Athalon series were great, they were better than the Intel equivalent and AMD were eating Intel's lunch (or drinking their milkshake, if you prefer!)

    In the end Intel woke up and were forced to eat humble pie by junking their 'netburst' architecture and going back to a more efficient architecture based on their old Pentium III.

    Intel has done great in the last few years, regaining the lead and producing better CPUs than AMD. Intel isn't perfect though, and the guys at AMD aren't fools. At the end of the day Intel is a bigger company with much greater resources and they were able to buy back the lead they lost.

    Apple went with Intel because Intel shared engineering costs for the first xx86 Macs and offered a great price. Apple also needed the trustworthy/'blue chip' image of Intel to help sell the migration.
  15. andiwm2003 macrumors 601


    Mar 29, 2004
    Boston, MA
    Power PC processors were great 5 or 6 years ago. But then they were not developed any further and Apple had huge problems. Remember the 3GHz promise of Steve Jobs? Or the 6 month wait time for the 2.5GHz G5? Or the endless wait for a dual core G5? Or the need for a water cooled Powermac? Or the mobile G5 that never came (Powerbook G5 next tuesday)?

    Then Apple switched to a company that has a predictable roadmap and that can deliver chips in quantities on time. And that in the critical mobile chip market. So Apple chose reliability first. On top of that Intel is better in the moment. But even if AMD had a 10% or 20% faster chip Apple would still stay with Intel because it's more reliable in terms of roadmap and delivery of high quantities. The speed differences between Intel and AMD don't matter that much anymore.
  16. TrapOx macrumors 6502

    Dec 4, 2008
    AMD used to be better than Intel. Then Intel got off their @sses and ditched the antiquated Pentium junk for the Core series. Since then, AMD has been seriously lagging in performance.

    AMD's 4-core CPU yield is so low, they have to offer a 3-core CPU to get rid of the faulty CPUs!

Share This Page