6 Comments

Summary:

MacDailyNews is running a story on the Intel Core 2 architecture coming out in a few weeks. The chip’s first impressions demonstrate it’s speed and efficiency (performance per watt) are way ahead of AMD’s top CPU. It seems Apple chose well going with Intel over AMD. […]

MacDailyNews is running a story on the Intel Core 2 architecture coming out in a few weeks. The chip’s first impressions demonstrate it’s speed and efficiency (performance per watt) are way ahead of AMD’s top CPU. It seems Apple chose well going with Intel over AMD. I’ve always had the suspicion that Intel would not sit comfortably at the #2 market spot. Conroe looks very nice for Apple customers.

  1. The evil side of me hopes that they wait a little while to release any substantial upgrades to the macbook pro line, since I just picked up my macbook pro.

    Share
  2. Just to let anyone who doesn’t want to bother reading full articles that are linked… The data you end up getting to at the end of the link trail is brutally skewed. The Intel Conroe system has totally different specs than the FX-62 system and the results aren’t really as ‘landslide’ as they sound.

    Might be a good idea to hold off judgement on this until we see some real benchmarks with shipping products.

    Share
  3. Intel’s representative:
    “Who’s going to win the processor wars doesn’t matter because this is competition at its best and the consumer is the ultimate winner with better products at lower prices so let the wars begin!”
    I don’t think that it’s going to make a difference in 1year, AMD will bring something new and then intel will make something better and it will keep like that for the next few years at least.

    Yeah for 2006 intel is a good choice what about 2007 or 2008?
    Personaly i would find it great if Apple whould stop choosing for me.
    In 2004 they were choosing IBM now they choose x86 but ONLY intel, why constict yourself like that.
    Wouldn’t it be great if you had mac’s with intel and AMD?
    This way you can actualy “think different” and buy the system with the better processor that’s on the market at the time.

    Also, these benchmarks bring me memories from the megaherz myth days:
    http://www.asia.apple.com/g4/myth/

    Share
  4. Well, while I would enjoy a greater degree of control in a computer I customize; allowing for multiple current processor machines simply isn’t feasible for a small company like Apple. And I thought Conroe was 64-bit, not x86.
    Honestly, Intel as the company that invented the microprocessor, I expect a lot from them; while I do like AMD in theory, sometimes their processors just seem sluggish during use.
    I would like some realistic, in that user-like, benchmarks, however.

    Share
  5. Well i have to agree that they are the inventors of the microprocessor, but that was in 1971, i mean the wright brothers were the inventors of the airplane but the biggest leaps in aeronautic history were not made only by them.
    The 64bit processor for example is not intel’s invention so in the same way you could say that they would suck at making them.

    About the 64/x86 thing i wrote, it was a slip of the tong/finger. What i meant was that amd and intel use pretty much the same architecture. Windows and linux for example can work on both, so it’s not that big of a deal to do the same for macOSx(it has already been done actualy).

    “Small company like Apple” – i would love to know why it’s a small company, compared to what? And why would that be a problem? The cpu’s already exist, they just have to make an extra motherboard model. Or better yet, just change the cpu socket.

    As for amd being sluggish, even intel accepted that in the past 3 years amd processors have been faster. So…
    As for the benchmarks i totaly agree with Ryan, wait until they ship the cpu and then run them.

    Share
  6. “And I thought Conroe was 64-bit, not x86.”

    Just some info… AMD and Intel both have 64-bit cpus these days, as you know. Both flavors are still considered ‘x86′ since they both are still essentially the same architecture. The instruction set changed a bit, etc.

    Usually you just hear them named differently so you can distinguish which is which. Intel’s 64-bit technology is called EM64T, but it’s still an x86 cpu. Similarly, AMD’s 64-bit technology is called AMD64, also an x86 cpu.

    And my 2 cents :)… I’ve preferred AMD’s cpu’s for a good 2-3 years. Infact I once upgraded from a P4 3.0 (Northwood) to an Athlon64 3200 (Venice, 2.0ghz, fyi) and boy was it an upgrade in terms of game performance and regular winblows usage. Of course, the ‘sluggishness’ of a processor is probably not a very good way to benchmark them anyways. Too each for personal biases and so on to affect the way you perceive the speed. You can’t really test ‘overall OS performance’ very easily, and certainly not with ‘the naked eye’.

    Bottom line is that AMD has been landslide-slaughtering Intel for a few years and I’m just not about to change my mind on a few (possibly skewed) benchmark results. That’s all. When the time comes to test one myself at the local computer shop I will go with the best, whether it’s AMD or Intel.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post