Why no AMD iMacs?

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

  1. Bkxmnr macrumors regular

    Bkxmnr

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    #1
    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

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #3
    AMD is the bargain bin of processors.

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

    sgibson

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #4
    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

    ceezy3000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Location:
    The Valley!!
    #5
    we need to bring back PowerPc have our own propietary format agian
     
  6. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #6
    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Hot Snowboarder macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    Behind you...!
    #7
    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

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #8
    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

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #9
    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

    millar876

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Location:
    Peterhead, Scotland UK
    #10
    'cos AMD processors are poop, and the new intels run rings arround them.

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

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #11
    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

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Port Pirie, South Australia
    #12
    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

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #13
    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

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #14
    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

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #15
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    Denver
    #16
    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