AMD for Apple...

[valanda]

I have been wondering for a while now, why did Apple choose Intel over AMD?

I am quite stumped about this one, since both companies like to "focus" on what they do best and all that. AMD has cranked out wonderful processors for a good qhile now and have recently acquired ATI, and Apple still uses ATI cards. Why did they opt to not use them (AMD that is)?

I would like to see the ability to run OSX on AMDware. I think that the potential is quite high if you match up the os with hardware like AMD. (and Apple is famous for controlling the hardware upon which it is installed).

Whom of you would like to see an AMD Apple? I know I would!! The bench marks would be interesting to copmare as well.

Wouldn't it be nice for a few more options of processor types and hardware configurations.


Please post comments and suggestions!! (yes there are hacks to the kernel that allow this--see the OSx86 project data for more on this)

Valanda

[curt]

[dungeon92]

Well it is probably because Intel is currently the fastest CPU on the market, also the Intel mobile CPU's trump AMD's easily which is what all but the Mac Pros use.
_________________
"You must control your future by taking command of your present, and fixing and learning from your past."

"When history is forgotten people don't realize when it repeats."

Going to Missouri S&T!!

[valanda]

While it is true that Intel has faster clock, isn't Apple the one that has always touted that "it's not about speed, it's about performance" ? Oh well. I suppose that the shift to Nvidia is also a definite indication as well. I still would like to see what some of those "quad cores to be" would do with osX under the soft-hood. I think that the design of the AMD quads will provide a significant number of advantages over Intel's design. Perhaps Apple will begin to release their OS so that it will be able to run on any type of chip. All you might have to do is select the particular hardware you have under the hard-hood and have the "installer" install the appropriate OS components for your system (or have it do all that automatically....).

Boy do I dream BIG!!

Valanda

[iMav]

A total random AMD v. Intel observation here.

I've got two systems that are currently doing nothing but folding (Stanford's F@H project). Anyway one system is an AMD Athlon64 X2 3.0Ghz machine and the other two are both Intel Core2Duo 2.0Ghz machines.

Both are (obviously) dual core. Both systems have 2GB of memory. The AMD has a 7200rpm internal SATA drive (3.5") and the Intel has a 5400rpm internal SATA drive (2.5", as it is a laptop). On comparable folding projects, the 2.0Ghz C2D is consistently faster than the 3.0Ghz AMD system (finishing each frame 2-3 minutes quicker).

My guess is that this is likely the L2 cache that makes the difference. The Intel had 4MB of cache that is shared between the two cores. The AMD has 2MB of cache...1MB dedicated to each core. (someone can correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyway, just thought I'd throw out one real-world comparision.
_________________
-=iMav=-
http://geekhack.org

[valanda]

[DCGuy]

For marketing purposes.

For average consumer user Intel is rather well known.

[g5g5]

Interesting bit of news related to the subject.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=12&articleId=9024243&intsrc=hm_topic
_________________
1.25GHz Mac Mini / 1.8GHz iMac G5 / 2.0GHz C2D Mac mini (2009)
4GB iPod mini / 2G iPod shuffle / 16GB iPhone 3G
Apple TV 2
iLife's a Bitch!

[jb]

[blazer]

[keirnna]

The funny thing is that AMD is looking to get out of the manufacturing business. This would have been the perfect place for apple to get everything from start to finish; however, I am happy with intel because their processors are currently much faster. I would however like more choice with macs.
_________________
Apple Certified Systems Administrator
Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator 2003: Security
PC = Personal Computer
Personal Computer = Mac
Mac = PC ?

[robinscruffy]