I wouldn't label myself a fanboy, I just don't like how a company like Intel can be praised for charging more for a 2nd rate product. All evidence points to the fact they will continue to be in 2nd place (though not in market share) in '07 as well. I just think Apple could have done better, and I will be awaiting a AMD (or any other CPU maker actually) port.j79zlr said:Wow, some serious AMD fanboying going on here.
the detailsXie said:Just a shame. The new roadmap for AMD that hit frontpages today sound sexy. Will have quad-core and chips using only 10w by '07, which is very interesting if they can pull it off.
Yeah saw that. Also read it on /. and others.perris said:
Geffy said:In the WWDC Jobs said they wanted a Performance per Watt not just outright performance. Personally I am glad they chose Intel rather than AMD. AMD do have a fantastic chip in the form of the amd64, but its not a cool operator, the Intel chips have the potential to be very cool, plus the fact that Intels chips can speed step based on temp a lot better than the AMD's can. All this I see as being very important to the future of the Mac line, especially the laptops.
Apple shouldnt have any problem running on Dual Cores, not only can they do it on Dual processors already, but BSD can already do dual core and so using more of the BSD code wouldnt be difficult to merge into Darwin.
Also the choice to go with Intel can be understood if you look at some of the problems with amd processor supporting motherboards in things like BSD whereas the Intel processor supporting motherboards have always been much easier to get running
Reason for Intel's hype over that small form-factor mini ripoff? Interesting in hindsight.X-Istence said:The Mac mini might even be first to switch, since they have a bit more room to play with than a laptop. As they can't just drop in a new replacement for the current CPU's, they need a new mobo as well.
X-Istence said:Sazar: Unofficial plans that i could get out of a person working at the Apple store who knows people high up the chain, they want to switch over with PowerBooks then iBooks first, then once Intel gets their new chip out (whatever it is), the PowerMac line goes over. iMac will be going shortly afterwards, and the Mac mini will probably get a pentium M later on, it is unsure though. The Mac mini might even be first to switch, since they have a bit more room to play with than a laptop. As they can't just drop in a new replacement for the current CPU's, they need a new mobo as well.
Son Goku said:The Pentium 4 has certainly had reports of running hot... I'd have to do a search to pull up some of the old articles I've seen on this.
Apple's decision is likely a business one (which is what some articles have suggested). There might be some thought to production capacity as well...though since Dresden came on line I don't remember mention that AMD was having troubles supplying chips... Intel does have more fabs overall, however...
/me thinking Apple's decision was more business related then technical wrt the chips themself... I would be interested to see what Intel would pull off with dual core Nakomas, or whatever it will be, when it comes out...
Sazar said:Nocoma afaik was their Sckt 478 based procs.
What does confuse me is that IBM and Intel both have a tremendous amount of Fabs out there with brilliant tech. Obviously IBM over-hypes theirs (re: Nvidia, nv3x) but they still have a lot of Fab capacity. Their lack of expertise or lack of cost-savings per wafer v/s Intel seems to have been the prime reason.
Woohoo! I lose. But I'm going to be the one sat behind a (hopefully) dual-core/cpu 4GHz PowerMac in a few years.Xie said:IMHO everyone using a Intel Mac is losing.
what the **** are you on about?perris said:I don't care what chip they use, since whatever it is, cherry is going to port it over to my amd 64 bit pc, and then I will get my chips performance on the apple os.
they will only charge a few dollars for their software, and I will be given a trial of 90 days...this is going to be sweet
of this I am certain
PowerMacs have 9 fans, and OS X already runs on Intel chips, it's been actively maintained over the past 5 years.LeeJend said:Actually you can predict it. Apple ditched IBM because they were power pigs. Steve Jobs has an obsession with "Apple's will not have a fan." You need low power CPU's for fan less operation and long charge life notebooks. Intel's M family wears the crown on low power chips and has for a while.
My money is on the following new Apple Line up in orrder of introduction:
-Extended life P4-M notebooks.
-"Cool and quiet" desktops with P4-M
-Top of line P4 EE dual CPU power user machine.
Note rewriting OS-X for P4 will take time. Making the new OS-I take full advantage of dual CPUs is even a longer road. Time to market for software updates and corporate obsessions will drive the Apple I line up.
Yeah but think how sexy a quad-core AMD would be. They are due in '07.SPeedY_B said:Woohoo! I lose. But I'm going to be the one sat behind a (hopefully) dual-core/cpu 4GHz PowerMac in a few years.
I'll think about them when I'm sat at my Intel Mac, yeah? Good.Xie said:Yeah but think how sexy a quad-core AMD would be. They are due in '07.
SPeedY_B said:I'll think about them when I'm sat at my Intel Mac, yeah? Good.