[Windowsrookie]

I don't know about this. I'm an intel person myself but I do know getting OSX86 to run on AMD CPU's was a major pain in the butt.

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20061115PR207.html

[rollercoaster375]

Meh. I don't buy it. Apple has a good thing going with Intel, and honestly, AMD has an image that Apple doesn't want—Hardcore techy/cheap-ish.

[chucker]

DigiTimes. 'nuff said.

[rasmits]

Servers, maybe, but I doubt they'll put AMD in their laptops. The Core 2 Duo is a really good laptop chip.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by rasmits Servers, maybe, but I doubt they'll put AMD in their laptops. The Core 2 Duo is a really good laptop chip.

^^

Nothing more needs to be said. AMD is outclassed up and down the product line. The only place where AMD has a partial advantage is in big iron where HT interconnects allow for better arbitration between CPUs.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Eugene Nothing more needs to be said. AMD is outclassed up and down the product line.

Ehh, for now. AMD has extremely good engineers... they'll be back on top soon enough.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Anthem Ehh, for now. AMD has extremely good engineers... they'll be back on top soon enough.

and Intel doesn't?

Get real.

[chucker]

Healthy competition between Intel and AMD is in our very own best interest, but neither AM2 nor 4x4 have me intrigued. I hope they'll try harder.

[PB PM]

AMD does not have any good notebook chips, and are horrible in terms of battery life, I hope it isn't true.

[washington mac user]

AMD's K8L should bring some good competition and plus the new turions and athlons coming out should bring some good competition to the mobile markets. If you play games, you go AMD. Since Apple used PowerPC chips, I don't think anyone here realized how much better AMD chips were compared to Intel chips before the Core Duos. Don't count AMD out, thats all I'm saying. Its funny I think Intel resembles Microsoft and AMD resembles Apple. Intel has all the money and can do anything with it and tries to fuck over AMD just like what Microsoft tries to do with Apple. No one will be talking crap about AMD once Apple starts using their chips. The only reason why people are talking crap now is because Apple doesn't use their processors, yet.

[washington mac user]

Here are some good articles from ARS if anybody wants to read them. The compare what the new AMD processors have to offer compared to the new Intel processors.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061011-7961.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060602-6977.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7535.html

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by washington mac user No one will be talking crap about AMD once Apple starts using their chips. The only reason why people are talking crap now is because Apple doesn't use their processors, yet.

Uh no. I use an Athlon X2 3800+ box alongside my Power Mac G4 2x1000 MHz. I chose AMD because the Intel alternative would have been a Pentium D. Likewise, before that, I chose the Pentium 4 2.4B over AMD's options because it was the best bang for the buck at the time.

AMD and Intel have equal mindshare...whoever has the better product at the time gets my support. I have no doubt that eventually the pendulum will swing back in AMD's favor, but not in the near future.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses and Intel doesn't? Get real.

Not when compared to AMD's, no. Intel can whoop AMD any day of the week when it comes to their manufacturing plants (meaning that making good chips in high volume is easier for them) but when it comes to making a better, faster, cheaper desktop chip? AMD, FTW.

That said, this makes no sense because even when we were rockin' the woefully underpowered Pentium M, Intel outbenched AMD. While AMD is great with desktops, they can't deliver with the notebooks.

If the article said "Mac Pro's to ship with AMD option" I might believe it. But an AMD notebook? No fuckin' way.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by chucker DigiTimes. 'nuff said.

What he said.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by washington mac user AMD's K8L should bring some good competition and plus the new turions and athlons coming out should bring some good competition to the mobile markets. If you play games, you go AMD. Since Apple used PowerPC chips, I don't think anyone here realized how much better AMD chips were compared to Intel chips before the Core Duos. Don't count AMD out, thats all I'm saying. Its funny I think Intel resembles Microsoft and AMD resembles Apple. Intel has all the money and can do anything with it and tries to fuck over AMD just like what Microsoft tries to do with Apple. No one will be talking crap about AMD once Apple starts using their chips. The only reason why people are talking crap now is because Apple doesn't use their processors, yet.

I disagree. Many of the notebook owners I know have AMD based machines because they are cheaper, but they suffer because the AMD chips are far more power hungry than even some of the older Intel chipsets. Two hours battery life is common with most AMD based notebooks, at least in my experience. I know enough AMD fanboys who agree on this matter to say that without hesitation.

[Enki]

And those AMD laptops are what, about 2" thick too? I don't see Apple shipping portable desktop machines, they haven't done that sine they retired the original Macintosh Portable in '91.

[k squared]

Even if the story is not true, it's good to see the possibility of Apple using AMD chips. The more OS X moves toward processor independence, the better.

[rollercoaster375]

Intel and AMD use the same architecture: if something works on one, it'll work on the other (With the possible exception of SSE3 code—I don't know if AMD's lineup supports it or not). There's no more independence being achieved.

[Schnauzer]

I have an AMD X2 4200+ in my custom built pc and the intel core duo in my imac..... the intel core duo just seems alot more speedy that the amd (when both in windows)

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Schnauzer I have an AMD X2 4200+ in my custom built pc and the intel core duo in my imac..... the intel core duo just seems alot more speedy that the amd (when both in windows)

It should... it's a generation more recent than the AMD offering.

AMD's always been half a generation behind Intel in terms of fabs.

[Yonzie]

Originally Posted by Anthem AMD's always been half a generation behind Intel in terms of fabs.

Which was really significant back when AMD won the race to 1Ghz, yeah... AMD may be behind on the size of the transistors they make in the fab, but their fab technology itself rocks (also shared with IBM). Their problem is that they haven't got intels deep pockets and number of fabs. So AMD can't have several 90nm fabs producing while retrofitting a number of other fabs to 65nm.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Yonzie Which was really significant back when AMD won the race to 1Ghz, yeah... AMD may be behind on the size of the transistors they make in the fab, but their fab technology itself rocks (also shared with IBM). Their problem is that they haven't got intels deep pockets and number of fabs. So AMD can't have several 90nm fabs producing while retrofitting a number of other fabs to 65nm.

Exactly.

Obviously, Intel's current offerings are superior. But AMD's been producing better chips for at least the past four years. So there's nothing that makes me suspect AMD's lineup won't continue to improve, or, at the very least, be competitve.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by chucker DigiTimes. 'nuff said.

The funny thing is that people still quote them generously.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Mugge The funny thing is that people still quote them generously.

Yeah, clearly there's still enough morons going there to support their ad revenue. Same for MOSR.

[mAc-warrior]

I doubt Apple will ever switch to AMD, unless there is a total reversal in the processor space, and AMD has superior laptop processors. Intel has always had better laptop chips. Faster, cooler, with better battery life. Apple has been ALL about the laptops recently. Both sides have fast desktop chips, but only Intel has fast laptop processors. And Apple needs those fast laptop processors. They will NOT have desktops running on AMD and laptops running on Intel. I repeat, this scenario will NOT occur. All this would do is piss off Intel. It's been fairly well proven that Apple has has enjoyed the status of Intel's preferential customer in the last year. Intel prefers Apple as a customer to say... Dell, and gives them new chips slightly ahead of other OEM's (in some cases... if I recall correctly that Apple had the Core Duos before anyone else?) as proof of this. Any relationship with AMD on Apple's part will ruin this good relationship with Intel, which is not in Apple's interest right now, or in the foreseeable future.

--mAc

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by mAc-warrior (in some cases... if I recall correctly that Apple had the Core Duos before anyone else?) as proof of this.

No, they just announced them first. Brands like Dell, HP, and Lenovo actually wait until they make a product before announcing it.

Seriously, though, you make a good point.

[chris e boy]

CPU comparisons aside, wouldnt this make a confusing line-up to users who didnt know the difference?

If theres one thing Apple are good at, its simplifying the buying decision. I think that having 5 or 6 different configurations on offer would be confusing which is why i cant see Apple going ahead with this unless they brought out a completely new product line which only used AMD.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by chris e boy CPU comparisons aside, wouldnt this make a confusing line-up to users who didnt know the difference? If theres one thing Apple are good at, its simplifying the buying decision. I think that having 5 or 6 different configurations on offer would be confusing which is why i cant see Apple going ahead with this unless they brought out a completely new product line which only used AMD.

Yep. If Apple uses AMD anywhere, it's likely to be in their server lineup.

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

It's not likely at all IMHO. Jobs has strong ties to Intel with being friends with the execs. This is widely established already. There's no advantages on the laptop level, as Intel is already faster and more energy efficient here than Turion. On the workstation/server level... AMD is faster in some things, but... not significantly so for Apple to put a strain on the Intel ties.

If there was one area that AMD clearly offers a significant advantage, it's in getting cheap Athlon64 processors for a consumer-oriented desktop. Here, an Athlon64 is significantly better performing than the P4's that are comparably priced in the BTO segment, and of which Intel has no real answer to in the Core Duo or Core 2 Duo market as of yet (all available for significantly higher pricetags than comparable AMD offerings). I would expect a future Celeron D, itself likely based off of the Core Duo/Core 2 Duo design but designed to be made cheaper to be an answer... but as of right now, in terms of bang for the $, AMD has that market sewed up.

Yet Apple has no offering in this segment other than the iMac's... and the iMac's are reasonably-well priced with LCD, so if Apple wanted to produce a machine for this market, it could likely build a $1,000-1,400-ish minitower or slab-style desktop using iMac internals/architecture as the foundation. A single Core2Duo or dual Core Duo would likely service this segment nice enough for it's needs.

There's little fruit to the article. What exactly can AMD/ATi offer Apple to lure them to sign on with them? I've heard processor independence but Apple hasn't placed any fruit in that basket, and with Jobs' friendships with key execs at Intel, I don't foresee it happening. With a company as big as Intel, there's really no need. Even when they're clearly behind in terms of chipset engineering from a core architecture standpoint (i.e. memory controller design), they dig a little deeper and move inferior chip design foundations to smaller fabs with tweak on the fly efforts at improving the architecture from Pentium M, -> Yonah -> Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest, ->Quad Core and provide a performance advantage. By the time AMD can get their stuff to 65nm en masse, Intel will likely have found a way to jump to 45nm and continue the advantage buying them time to reinvent the wheel from an architecture standpoint and find a way to hit smaller fabs with them. At that point... Intel should likely clean AMD's clocks.

As much as I like AMD... they have a steep incline to scale to beat Intel. They're behind in too many areas even with what advantages they have, have too many outstanding needs to address, and to truly defeat Intel... they're going to have to find a way to beat them at all. If they slip in one area, Intel will be on them like white on rice to retake it back. I don't foresee AMD beating Intel, they will get their advantage in one segment from time to time, but Intel have far too many resources to let AMD beat them at it for too long. Even when beat, it's not quantum leaps... but minor advantages that are easily overturned as Intel has shown.