• 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.

Is it just me or is Intel just stupid?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: hardcandy2
But you have to admire a company that can convince people to pay more for their products due to style rather than substance. I mean look at Sony- they are the "Apple" of the PC world.
Apple is a very good promoter and you have to admit you all would take an Apple 30" display in a heartbeat if they were half the price. Their equipment is good to look at, and their computers are quiet, even if they are underpowered.

Dell uses the same exact LCD as Apple does, plus you do not need to OWN a MAC to make adjustments to a DELL Monitor like you do an Apple.

Oh and Dell crams in a ton of features with a better backlight for a lower price than APPLE. The Dell displays have better electronics inside that allow them to render their images more accurately.

I cannot remember where I saw it but some site did a compairison of the DELL and Apple. The Dell came out on top in terms of quality of image and build.
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Mac owners have always tried to say that their computers were superior in every way, shape, and form than a PC. That's all that commercial is... just a continuation of that whole belief.

That belief was sort of true in the Windows 3.11 days, but now, nah.

Yes, but why would intel do this? they should know as we all know that pc's are better.

My FAT A$$ pc's suck a$$

(sorry this subject always gets be mad, due to the fact that people like |videogames101| cant see that most of the people stating that DONT play video games and prefer there Mac because it is just a faster OS there?s no complication, unless you make it!)
 
Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

Ugh...

agree as you see here Text

the intel chip whopps a$$

ALSO here Text

here too

Text

maybe not here

Text

But here

Text

still in there

Text




Case closed
 
Yeah, like the others said, this is old news, so meh. But seriously guys, marketing is marketing. Take it for what it is. A lot of other companies do similar things (ever seen car commercials? They're always claiming that the competition sucks). Somebody might say "But Microsoft doesn't do it!" Yeah, and they also hold 95% of the market. They barely advertise their consumer side of stuff as it is. They really don't need to. Small companies like Apple tend to do this kind of advertising. The idea is to break into some mindshare by pointing out your advantages over the competition, rather than just showing people that you have a product, like Microsoft does. The difference with Apple is that they tend to overdo it, being creative, as they are. The company that has the majority of the market doesn't need to advertise like that. If they did, that would suggest insecurity.

Honestly, I wouldn't complain so much about the Mac community. On the face of it, sure, there are a lot of zealots. The PC community is the same way, and honestly, I hate the loudmouth idiots on each side. But it's not all bad, and that's the case with most things. If you can get into a Mac forum, there's usually a bunch of cool people in there somewhere, and while most of those people believe to some extent that they're using the better OS, most Windows people believe the same thing about theirs. I've been sitting on the fence for a few years until now (both PC and Mac since 2002, finally sold my A64 for a new Core Duo iMac) so it's kinda opened me up to noticing this stuff more easily.

And please guys, don't be stupid. Preference as to which is better is just that -- preference. You can't just make blanket statements about this stuff without looking ignorant. Each one has it's strengths and weaknesses. OS X tends to be a lot more straightforward to use because Apple has very strict UI guidelines, Windows tends to be more popular because it has a larger game base (although the Mac has been catching up rapidly in this, usually only being 4 months behind on some games -- better than the years of before) and because everyone wants to develop for the OS with the largest share. The only real problem with being the big guy out there is that plenty of crap code gets written, and viruses and spyware, of course. And yes, you can avoid it. But, OS X does have something going for it with security through obscurity. That and I haven't seen much malicious unix code out there...

Yeah, and about that Intel vs. AMD thing. Just take a nice look at Yonah. Intel is making a turnaround. And if you still think Macs are slow, you haven't used a G5, and most definitely not a Core Duo Mac.
 
Originally posted by: alimoalem
oh yea, another thing: if amd's raping intel on the pc side, what options does intel have left? they have to go to mac

wow, thats pretty sad. i never thought i would see intel have to go to the budget chips and Macs!!!
 
Originally posted by: theman
Originally posted by: alimoalem
oh yea, another thing: if amd's raping intel on the pc side, what options does intel have left? they have to go to mac

wow, thats pretty sad. i never thought i would see intel have to go to the budget chips and Macs!!!


acualy the intel chips are costing more to apple ( per ghz ) than ibm and motorola









Originally posted by: StratusFearX
Originally posted by: theman
wow, thats pretty sad. i never thought i would see intel have to go to the budget chips and Macs!!!

Intel didn't go to Apple. Apple went to Intel because IBM sucks.




Agree 🙂



 
Originally posted by: StratusFearX
Originally posted by: theman
wow, thats pretty sad. i never thought i would see intel have to go to the budget chips and Macs!!!

Intel didn't go to Apple. Apple went to Intel because IBM sucks.

Rather Apple was the red pimple on Big Blue's Ass, and it didn't care.
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Originally posted by: StratusFearX
Originally posted by: theman
wow, thats pretty sad. i never thought i would see intel have to go to the budget chips and Macs!!!

Intel didn't go to Apple. Apple went to Intel because IBM sucks.

Rather Apple was the red pimple on Big Blue's Ass, and it didn't care.

That's why IBM sucks. IBM doesn't care about anything anymore. All they really do now is make servers and work as a bunch of consultants.
 
Only enthusiasts really know the difference between an intel chip and an amd.

AMD only really kills Intel in gaming. Standard office applications don't stress any modern CPU's, and Intel is winning in the video-editing stakes. Also, Intel laptop's kill AMD.

Don't get me wrong - i love AMD. But be realistic - it's gonna be a long while before AMD outsells Intel.

RoD
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
For the record I've switched ~40 die hard Apple fans to Opteron workstations in the past year. 🙂

Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

send them here 😎

All hail Ribbon13:thumbsup:
 
I find it amazing that Apple started over when it went with the Power PC design and is now going to it's third instruction set since inception!

I have a feeling our Windows boxes would be a lot faster if MS and Intel went with a new RISC based instruction set 10 years ago.

I hope this Intel inside a Mac thing does well for Apple. MS needs the competition.
 
acualy the intel chips are costing more to apple ( per ghz ) than ibm and motorola

Not surprising......the Motorola chips had piss poor performance per ghz (the G4s), and the G5s weren't that much better but made up for it by clocking high. I'd imagine a 2.2ghz Core duo will outperform even a dual 2.7ghz G5 in most tasks, if nothing else due to the vastly improved memory controller. (wtf did G5 based computers have memory latency on par with a VIA KT266 PC2100 system?)
 
Originally posted by: Fox5
acualy the intel chips are costing more to apple ( per ghz ) than ibm and motorola

Not surprising......the Motorola chips had piss poor performance per ghz (the G4s), and the G5s weren't that much better but made up for it by clocking high. I'd imagine a 2.2ghz Core duo will outperform even a dual 2.7ghz G5 in most tasks, if nothing else due to the vastly improved memory controller. (wtf did G5 based computers have memory latency on par with a VIA KT266 PC2100 system?)

The G4 and G5 were IBM Power based processors.
 
Originally posted by: StratusFearX
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Originally posted by: StratusFearX
Originally posted by: theman
wow, thats pretty sad. i never thought i would see intel have to go to the budget chips and Macs!!!

Intel didn't go to Apple. Apple went to Intel because IBM sucks.

Rather Apple was the red pimple on Big Blue's Ass, and it didn't care.

That's why IBM sucks. IBM doesn't care about anything anymore. All they really do now is make servers and work as a bunch of consultants.

i think IBM stopped caring after they secured the rights to the main processor for all three next generation home consoles.
 
Originally posted by: alfa147x
Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

Ugh...

agree as you see here Text

the intel chip whopps a$$

...

You have to factor in many other things besides just performance you know... AMD CPUs are cheaper than Intel CPUs that offer the same performance. Also, Intel's inefficient and retarded Netburst architecture leaves it with an enormous amount of energy consumption and heat generation. This also makes AMD CPUs a lot more overclockable. Next time, don't just go blowing off how something kicks ass until you actually know some stuff.
 
Originally posted by: Hulk
I find it amazing that Apple started over when it went with the Power PC design and is now going to it's third instruction set since inception!

I have a feeling our Windows boxes would be a lot faster if MS and Intel went with a new RISC based instruction set 10 years ago.

I hope this Intel inside a Mac thing does well for Apple. MS needs the competition.



Apple doesn't support installing Windows on your mac although there is nothing to prevent it.
The x86 OS is 100% compatable with all PowerPC code so there is no worry there.


Anyway I think most PC users fail to understand that people use macs because they hate windows and everything about it. Just look at all the security updates for the core OS, IE, WMP and then look at apple's updates. Apple almost never releases a security update because the OS is safer so to speak. Now take it the other way. If MacOS was 90%+ of the market I believe there would be more security flaws in the OS. Why? Because more people will become victems. Most people who decide to take advantage of security risks wouldn't bother with a 5% or so piece of the market. It's too limited to get noticed.

In the end it was like this. Motorola chips were slow. IBM couldn't deliver the performance and started falling behind in the CPU market, no innovations. Intel has a solid strategy for upcomming CPUs.

The whole reason apple used Intel chips and not AMD is because Intel outperforms AMD in the mobile/notebook market. Later on when Conroe etc is announced on PC I bet there will be Macs with those chips. The CoreDuo was just the beginning using the low power concumption and performance per mhz for Imacs and laptops. Had Intel and AMD been reversed I think you'd see AMD chips in macs.
 
Hopefully the Intel/Mac relationship will lead to the demise of both *rubs hands together*

LONG LIVE AMD!! :beer:
 
Originally posted by: acole1
Hopefully the Intel/Mac relationship will lead to the demise of both *rubs hands together*

LONG LIVE AMD!! :beer:

Never gonna happen. There's too many places and people that use macs because of 2 things
1)font management
2)Windows has issues
 
Originally posted by: Sonikku
Not necessarily. A techie that I know informed me that his Intel Pentium 4 was faster then my Athlon 64 3500+ Venice because the Intel was running at a whopping 3 ghz vs the 2.2 of my chip.

Ugh...


rofl, man, how i would love to see the expression on his face when he gets spammed by amd'ers everywhere😀
 
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Never gonna happen. There's too many places and people that use macs because of 2 things
1)font management
2)Windows has issues

1. Last time I checked, Aldus was no more, Pagemaker is no longer developed, Adobe is moving away form Apple, and Type1 was dying.
2. Ahem...
 
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: acole1
Hopefully the Intel/Mac relationship will lead to the demise of both *rubs hands together*

LONG LIVE AMD!! :beer:

Never gonna happen. There's too many places and people that use macs because of 2 things
1)font management
2)Windows has issues

ur one of the few that understand and have a brain That u use
 
Back
Top