Will Apple Ever use AMD turion technology?

[Mr. MacBook]

Sup all,

These intel dual-core chips in our macbooks/macbook pros are fancy, but i really would like better for a single or dual-core turion 64.

Idk why, but my friend has a turion 64 2GHz processor and its a screamer- its blazing fast.

Also, turion technology is cheaper, i think.

I'd pick the AMD processor over intel core any day.

 

[72930]

Perhaps...

In recent years, AMD have been the company with superior technology, but for the first time, Intel are one step ahead technology-wise right now...

 

[mgargan1]

Sup all,

These intel dual-core chips in our macbooks/macbook pros are fancy, but i really would like better for a single or dual-core turion 64.

Idk why, but my friend has a turion 64 2GHz processor and its a screamer- its blazing fast.

Also, turion technology is cheaper, i think.

I'd pick the AMD processor over intel core any day.

Apple will go with AMD if/when there is a suitable business case for it. Right now, they are happy with Intel. In-fact, Intel's Core2Duo beats the turion in almost if not all benchmarks... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/27/dual_core_notebook_cpus_explored/index.html

Yes, the Turion is less expensive, but Intel is Apple's choice for now.

 

[savar]

Sup all,

These intel dual-core chips in our macbooks/macbook pros are fancy, but i really would like better for a single or dual-core turion 64.

Idk why, but my friend has a turion 64 2GHz processor and its a screamer- its blazing fast.

Also, turion technology is cheaper, i think.

I'd pick the AMD processor over intel core any day.

Anything is possible. It's not too long ago yet that we writing 1000+ posts about how an Intel mac would never happen.

Apple has a good relationship with Intel now -- not just buying CPUs but entire chipsets in a variety of product lines. I think that is going to keep them from dealing with AMD in the near future.

 

[Mr. MacBook]

1.8GHz turion x2 is cheaper than 1.83GHz core 2 duo.

Maybe apple could use that extra cash to add ATI cheap integrated(but better than 950GMA) graphics.
Also, AMD uses less power.

 

[mgargan1]

1.8GHz turion x2 is cheaper than 1.83GHz core 2 duo.

Maybe apple could use that extra cash to add ATI cheap integrated(but better than 950GMA) graphics.

I remember reading how much Intel has helped Apple with the transition from PPC to x86. I don't know if AMD would have or would continue to do that. Intel's pockets are much much deeper than AMD's. I don't think saving a few dollars on a chip would amount to the total cost of business that staying with Intel amounts to.

 

[Mr. MacBook]

I think apple should make a Core 2 Duo line for $1099, AMD turion 64 single core line with better integrated ATI graphics for the same price. I would give a arm and a leg for a macbook that can at least play light games, even if it had integrated graphics. Anythings better than that intel gma

 

[mgargan1]

I think apple should make a Core 2 Duo line for $1099, AMD turion 64 single core line with better integrated ATI graphics for the same price. I would give a arm and a leg for a macbook that can at least play light games, even if it had integrated graphics. Anythings better than that intel gma

The anemic performance you're referring to is real... but the new Santa Rosa platform which should be coming out soon will have Intel's new GMA x3000... which should be a lot better performer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3000

 

[mrgreen4242]

With the ATI/AMD merger it'll be interesting to see if they start offering complete chipset/platform combos like Intel does. As far as I've seen, Intel seems to be way ahead of AMD in terms of offering system builders complete ready to build a box around it and deploy packages.

I'd not be adverse to an AMD based Mac, though. Price for performance they have a edge on Intel usually, and they have some nice integrated GPU products in the pipes with ATI, or so I've heard. But, the Core2Duo line looks like it fits Apple pretty well, and Intel is, I think, doing a lot for Apple to help keep them as a showcase for new technology.

Hopefully the x3000 will work out well for Intel/Apple... I also wonder how AMD is working with EFI... I've not heard much about any non-Apple hardware and EFI lately, so it's no surprise that AMD hasn't come up much in that discussion. I wonder if they have systems support it ready or not?

 

[Cult Follower]

I hope they stay with intel, as they are moving ahead while AMD is running out of steam.

 

[booksacool1]

1.8GHz turion x2 is cheaper than 1.83GHz core 2 duo.

Maybe apple could use that extra cash to add ATI cheap integrated(but better than 950GMA) graphics.
Also, AMD uses less power.

The 1.83Ghz Core 2 duo is much faster then the amd Turion. Also, you'll probably find that the intel uses less power. Currently intel has the advantage.

 

[Pressure]

Why use inferior hardware? They are slower and have a worse Watt/Performance ratio.

Apple clearly took what was best on the market and looked hard at the road maps both companies offered. Intel won hands down.

 

[mgargan1]

Why use inferior hardware? They are slower and have a worse Watt/Performance ratio.

Apple clearly took what was best on the market and looked hard at the road maps both companies offered. Intel won hands down.

I think what s/he was trying to say, was that since AMD acquired ATI, they will probably have the upper-hand as far as video chipsets go.

 

[snowmoon]

Why use inferior hardware? They are slower and have a worse Watt/Performance ratio.

Apple clearly took what was best on the market and looked hard at the road maps both companies offered. Intel won hands down.

Yep... people forget that a quality product is more than just slapping a "faster" CPU in the box.

1) The intel deal gives them an almost perfect platform to start from.

2) Apple's all about simplifying and that includes R&D. If they went with AMD they would have to split development between laptops and desktops.

3) Hotter = shorter battery life, noisy fans, and larger boxes.


By choosing the cooler and more complete intel solution they can use the same design decisions to support their entire lineup. MB&Mini's are virtually the same hardware... MBP&iMac are virtually the same hardware. They keep their costs down and keep the quality up by building and supporting essentially 3 platforms ( 4 if you count the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone group ).

Software, support, and more can be focused on one cpu and chipset.