What is Digg?37 Comments
- MWWLSE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When I make legal arguments, I often write "FACT"; this signals to judges and anyone briefing cases that what I just wrote is absolute truth, and they may stop all critical thinking.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow, when I minimized the window it said "MacWorld: Anal.."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel chips produce way more heat...FACT
- CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Athlon 64 XP FX???? WTF...guess this chip hasn't been introduced yet."
i believe he was refering to the whole line of chips including the fx-55 and fx-57 - meyerj88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Gamers, for example, who want the absolute fastest speed on traditional apps know that AMD’s single-core Athlon 64 XP FX chips offer an edge over Intel’s best right now.)"
Athlon 64 XP FX???? WTF...guess this chip hasn't been introduced yet. - Kriz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The optimal solution would have been for the new Mac desktops to have AMD 64 X2's, and the laptops to have Pentium M, but Intel would (and AMD as well, likely) would never have allowed it.
- theMetalEdge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I also believe it has to do with Intel's trusted computing initiative as well.
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think Apple will focus more on their laptops rather than their macs and the 'mobile' Intel chips kill AMD when it comes to heat. That's why we don't have G5 iBooks.
- ejoyner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What a load... AMD offers low voltage processors...http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~90300,00.html
I agree with the previous comment... it has more to do something with manufacturing capacity. - meyerj88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"i believe he was refering to the whole line of chips including the fx-55 and fx-57"
thanks for the clarification - MWWLSE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Surely more mundane reasons are at play here, like Intel's ability to deliver massive shipments at low cost over the long run, something that AMD may not be able to, and IBM apparently cannot deliver.
- hao2lian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000575.html
is a better (albeit different) explanation than MacWorld. - archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The apple intel chips will be based on the Pentium M. Which means very low heat and power consumption. And at a level of performance that AMD cannot touch. Yet.
- bigred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Intel chips are better made than amd ones....amd chips will fry where intel chips shutdown...FACT"
Although older Athlon XP Processors burned without a heatsink, newer AMD 64's will shutdown. Not to mention they run cooler and cost less, as well as use less power and perform better per mhz than intel chips... FACT. - Akia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple didn't know that when they made the decision 5 years ago... FACT (I think)
They planned the switch 5 years ago so they based it on what they saw back then. - freshgroundpepp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any estimates out there on when I can actually buy one of these Intel based Apples? All I've really heard is 2006. This article metions Q1, is that when I can get one? Any related stories?
- sneakerelph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intel chips are expensive...FACT
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, but only on the desktops. The mobile Intel CPU line is actually pretty nice.
Don't know why they wouldn't go with some AMD processors for the PowerMacs, though. Legal issues? - Chip_whitly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0AMD ALL THE WAY !!!
- xtremesniper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I already posted this way before this one was posted:
http://digg.com/technology/Analysis:_Why_Apple_picked_Intel_over_AMD - esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...well everybody else is saying it! LOL
- wireplay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But one aspect of the “Why switch processor suppliers?� question hasn’t been answered....The reason, industry analysts say...
hmm... industry speculation. Yay. - zenwhen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple didn't have a choice, really. If AMD had anything that matched the pure beauty of the Centrino platform, it would have been a different story altogether.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^^^ hahaha mwwlse that was brilliant. FACT.
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder what apple will switch to in another 10 years or so
- esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0FACT
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The whole argument over capacity seems erroneous to me. What percentage of the marketshare does Apple hold? 3% on a good day? I don't see how they could ever think to use up all of AMD's manufacturing capabilities with that small of a marketshare. AMD processors are in about 20% of PC's last I checked, though that number is probably rising. That's not to mention that they're increasing capacity with Fab 36.
- meddling.monkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh AMD, why were you bypassed despite your wonderous superiority? Alas...
- bitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Given a few years, I'm sure amd will gain enough marketshare, that they will be able to invest in such low power mobile computing. Right now it just is not part of their game plan. A plan which is working very well. Really this is going to suck most for apple users. The simple fact is the big money is just not in what intel is currently good at, and they are suffering big time for it. While adding apple to their list of customers will keep them up their sales numbers, it will probably not fuel any sort of recovery and possibly not even keep them going well enough.
Intel is heading into a very lame period and soon there just is going to be nothing worth reporting on from them.
Basically they won't have the server market, they won't have the desktop market, certainly the high end mobile market is out for them as well. Sure they will have a lock on the low end mobile market, which has yet to prove itself to be major enough to focus purely on.
Given 5 to 10 years, intel will not even be a 3rd rate chipmaker anymore.
Of course I could be wrong and intel could pull their heads from their arses, yeah miracles do and can happen, though it would require completely new management and other serious changes. Heck, who am I kidding their future really is a lock. - walkingmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple kept their OS flexible to migrate to another process architecture. While the G5 is great, IBM gave them the shaft. Hooking up with Intel was a smart move. I can't wait to see what Apple's engineers come up with utilizing the resources that Intel can produce.
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0It's funny how some of this coments end with the word FACT. Do you people are even a hardware engineer?
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yeah, AMD definitely only has a cult of personality. Apple would be plain ignorant to go with AMD over Intel. The Pentium M is essentially unmatched in terms of efficiency. Now, don't get me wrong, Apple will still suck, but at least Apple sheep will now have one less thing to bleat about.
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Don't we all know why they chose Intel over AMD already?
To stay alive. - zonemen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Most notably, AMD hasn’t invested in creating a line of low voltage and ultra-low voltage processors that competes with what Intel offers."
Steve Jobs, keep with the facts - AMD's Athlon64 X2 chip operates at 90W, while Intel's 3.2GHz runs at 130W. - VinniePaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"hey 7of7 why dont you stand in the middle of the road and get hit by a ***** bus you ***** *****. better yet, go push the carts back to kroger"
hahaha, thats the comment of the year - Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Intel chips are better made than amd ones....amd chips will fry where intel chips shutdown...FACT
- eigh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0hey 7of7 why dont you stand in the middle of the road and get hit by a ***** bus you ***** *****. better yet, go push the carts back to kroger
:D
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is