• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD an option for Apple.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LOL. I don't understand why intel fanboi's would be so happy to see AMD gone. You guys don't realize, its AMD that keeps Intel somewhat honest. If they were the undistputed champs of CPU manufacturing, then Intel chips would be like Microsoft's OS.
 
OK apart from all the fanboy, Intel vs AMD discussion can anyone please (if they know) tell me why Apple (which is far better than Intel) is switching to Intel for their processors and not AMD (which could have given Apple a better deal and the needed performance). I think (correct me if I am wrong) AMD, with their good performance (the X2) would have kept Apple's "good for multimedia" name high in the market.

And FYI, I am not a fanboy of either AMD or Intel.

I side the best performer because I am a CUSTOMER and I am the WINNER no matter Intel or AMD.😉 right?!!!
 
Originally posted by: sunilv
can anyone please (if they know) tell me why Apple (which is far better than Intel) is switching to Intel for their processors and not AMD (which could have given Apple a...
Click to expand...

What the...

Uhm... no. Apple *is not better* than Intel because Intel does not compete with *Apple*; heck, if you mean the Power G5 processor Apple use, they still cannot be compared because of their (extremly different) arquitectures: RISC and x86; And Intel was chosen before AMD due to their production capacities, their roadmap on processors, their scability (Dual processor G5 required... err... two G5 processors; a Dual Core Pentium would cost much much less and still give dual processor performance), and because Intel can make lots of technologies that Apple would be willing to adopt inmediately.

There-

 
Apple is able to see someting we can't. They definately have some inside benchmarks from some secret intel prototypes I bet. I don't think Apple would be that stupid. I think if they wanted to start selling them today they would have choose AMD.
 
Originally posted by: Aenslead
Its VERY stupid for Apple to move desktops to Intel, considering that ALL of their benchmarks where done ALWAYS runing against a Pentium class processor. Its plain stupid. Should they chose AMD... that'd give them a great boost.

It simply doesnt make much sense.
Click to expand...

They ran their benches against Intel because they knew people associated Intel with Windows PC, the top competition in their particular market. Apple didn't even acknowledge AMD because they probably didn't want to acknowledge the presence of another possible contender. Especially when AMD chips either made for cheap yet robust PC or since the A64/Opteron, fewer and fewer benches Apple could rig to make it look like their solution was actually the fastest out there.

Since they tried to compete with Intel, they discovered they couldn't beat even them. "If you can't beat'em, join'em"

While it would make some sense for Apple to partner with AMD, its more of a risk. Yes AMD can claim performance king now, but the future is always hazy. That and Apple's one major area of success in their computer line has been their laptops, something that would be MUCH better with the Pentium M in terms of boosting sales. The Turion would be successful, and would even boast 64bit support that I'm sure Apple would offer for right off the bat, but it doesn't have the name recognition. Who knows, maybe the P-M will have 64bit support by the time Intel is actually providing CPUs for Apple.

I could see Apple becoming a real force in the laptop market with the P-M on their side, so much so that it pushes their OS to new levels, making it an actual threat to Windows - that is unless we can get some company to actually make notebooks that look as sleek and simple and have great functionality and battery life. Most PC latops look like garbage in comparison, and the ones that do look really good are generally very expensive - low end iBooks generally wouldn't have much competition
 
Everyone does realize that if AMD goes under, Intel won't have any competition or inspiration and will end up like MS and make a sh***y product for the next 15 years.
 
AMD will not go away or anything by the like, guys, please.

Since they've sold the FLASH memory division, they are solely a CPU maker. They have been steadily ganing market share, and CPU Division on AMD made profit last quarter and the one before it.

AMD is doing great on the CPU front. They've catched the server market (read: most profitable) quite well, and most of the tech-savies get AMD processors. They have a safe market.
 
Originally posted by: MBrown
Apple is able to see someting we can't. They definately have some inside benchmarks from some secret intel prototypes I bet. I don't think Apple would be that stupid. I think if they wanted to start selling them today they would have choose AMD.
Click to expand...
I kinda doubt that they have any super secret insider info that shows intel with super performance. They probably have some insider info on futre intel products but this info is probably more or less in line with what is generally known and believed. I believe apple just went with intel because intel is the major player and a safer business bet.

 
Originally posted by: Aenslead
Originally posted by: sunilv
can anyone please (if they know) tell me why Apple (which is far better than Intel) is switching to Intel for their processors and not AMD (which could have given Apple a...
Click to expand...

What the...

Uhm... no. Apple *is not better* than Intel because Intel does not compete with *Apple*; heck, if you mean the Power G5 processor Apple use, they still cannot be compared because of their (extremly different) arquitectures: RISC and x86; And Intel was chosen before AMD due to their production capacities, their roadmap on processors, their scability (Dual processor G5 required... err... two G5 processors; a Dual Core Pentium would cost much much less and still give dual processor performance), and because Intel can make lots of technologies that Apple would be willing to adopt inmediately.

True... and AMD's dual core is starting at such a high price...
There-
Click to expand...

 
Rhetoric asides, Apple will stick with intel for the mobile and desktop processors. IBM still got Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony. Each of these three companies will buy more processors from IBM than Apple had ever done. AMD still has Anandtech members for support, everyone wins 😉.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top