Jump to content

AMD prototype with Apple components...


REVENGE
 Share

56 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I think the battery has been photoshopped there, though its not very clear. Usually when a PCB ends, there is always some space and a nice big ass battery connector. Also why would they use packaged apple batterys, unpackeged batterys are cheaper and smaller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could someone please post to the stupid people on that diggs site.. that its a prototype- the heatsink isn't meant to fit inside a laptop, its not an apple motherboard. all that stuff is done later.

 

perhaps it has been photoshopped (idk), but if it is real, then the reason they would be using an apple battery would purely be to test battery life, and ensure they can get the most out of the battery.

it is possible that they are just using an apple battery by chance for testing battery life, or that it was 'before' when apple may have been considering AMD.

 

*if* they are going to use AMD, then it really should be in a different line, eg (formerly) iBook and Powerbook.

it would be too confusing to have different CPUs in the same line (re: performance).

 

and apple aren't stupid; their timing for going intel was no accident.

right now for the average home user AMD is cooler and faster.

but for apple, intel was the best choice; the laptop processors of the g4 were the problem with the PPC. intel has the best laptop processors now with the core duo (and solo).. less heat (= power consumption), and more processing power than the turions. (fairly close, but still). also AMD were quite a bit behind with dual core for laptops- which is the easiest 'get out' to saying that the intel chips are faster, when they've always denied they were in the past.

 

for large desktop, both intel and amd have faster processors than the G5 (afaik), and they aren't bothered by heat too much there; as they watercooled it anyway!

 

and for small desktops (ie those larger than a mac mini); amd does have the better situation now (quite cool, and faster) , but a little down the road and intel will have the lead here too. and be faster for the large desktops. and apple could use the core duo in these still, as its pretty fast anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys even seen Conroe's benchmarks?

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2712

 

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

 

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

 

Conroe destroy's AMD's fastest chips when they're overclocked to be even faster.

Lol, those benchmarks are a signal, not something defining. They were set up by Intel themselves, on a crummy r480 chipset. Also bittech showed charts where the oc'd fx60 actually did worse then a normal fx60. So please don't say Intel destroys AMD. It would be ludicrous for Intel to have nothing that could kick the strongest AMD out of the ring, amidst their new products :censored2: Everybody is screaming bloody murder because of those benchmarks, and nobody is looking any further then their nose is long :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I would rather Apple use AMD chips instead of Intel. I think AMDs get much better performance.

 

 

Apple makes stuff that works (mostly)!

 

AMD junk is not an option for anyone who values stability and dependability..

 

I know it has gotten better since the AthlonXP, but anything else would have been sadly impossible, and AMD chipsets is still junk, to put it VERY politely..

 

Apple makes Macs for people who work hard, and having them {censored} out on you is not an option if you're recording for a living..

 

Stability is absolutely the paramount thing, and if that means 10% less performance for the $$$, then so be it!

 

AMD is still very much a third rate company when it comes to quality, and no Anorak Propaganda will be able to change that..

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I would rather Apple use AMD chips instead of Intel. I think AMDs get much better performance.

Apple makes stuff that works (mostly)!

 

AMD junk is not an option for anyone who values stability and dependability..

 

I know it has gotten better since the AthlonXP, but anything else would have been sadly impossible, and AMD chipsets is still junk, to put it VERY politely..

 

Apple makes Macs for people who work hard, and having them {censored} out on you is not an option if you're recording for a living..

 

Stability is absolutely the paramount thing, and if that means 10% less performance for the $$$, then so be it!

 

AMD is still very much a third rate company when it comes to quality, and no Anorak Propaganda will be able to change that..

 

regards

 

I couldn't agree more. Intel cpu with Intel chipset is still by far the most stable set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys even seen Conroe's benchmarks?

...

...

Conroe destroy's AMD's fastest chips when they're overclocked to be even faster.

 

Conroe is not yet released. If you're going to compare chips, compare CURRENTLY AVAILIBLE with CURRENTLY AVAILIBLE chips.

 

AMD's K8L, with double the FP units of the previous K8, should be a contender for Conroe. Intel will leapfrog AMD (Conroe will likely ship before K8L), but only for a short period.

 

 

AMD junk is not an option for anyone who values stability and dependability..

 

AMD CPUs are perfectly stable. The stability of a system depends on the supporting components (chipset, power supply, ram, quality of capacitors used in the regulator, etc.). Compare the stability of low cost Semprons with cheap Celeron systems and you'll see a similar failure rate. Not the fault of the CPU.

 

AMD's ability to penetrate the enterprise server market to the extent it has in recent years is proof that your statement is based on ignorance and prejudice.

 

I couldn't agree more. Intel cpu with Intel chipset is still by far the most stable set up.

 

AMD Opteron with AMD chipset is quite a stable machine. AMD with VIA chipsets have been working quite well for some time (depending on the quality of the MB). AMD or Intel with NVIDIAs chipsets have been nothing but trouble. Google for nforce and data corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it just my old laptop, or is the resolution of the battery different from the rest of the mobo?
Unlike most other off topic discussion here about Intel vs AMD, I think you are right on. The resolution does look different and is most likely an altered image. I guess it was just a slow news day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I think you are right on. The resolution does look different and is most likely an altered image. I guess it was just a slow news day.

 

 

Here's the article that sparked it.

http://theinquirer.net/?article=30530

 

Perhaps you should email the author of the article and see if he has a higher resolution version you can inspect before passing judgment.

 

I don't think it should be any surprise that Apple would have some AMD based prototypes. Should Intel have trouble delivering on their promised roadmap, having an AMD design ready to roll wouldn't exactly be the dumbest thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I would rather Apple use AMD chips instead of Intel. I think AMDs get much better performance.

Apple makes stuff that works (mostly)!

 

AMD junk is not an option for anyone who values stability and dependability..

 

I know it has gotten better since the AthlonXP, but anything else would have been sadly impossible, and AMD chipsets is still junk, to put it VERY politely..

 

Apple makes Macs for people who work hard, and having them {censored} out on you is not an option if you're recording for a living..

 

Stability is absolutely the paramount thing, and if that means 10% less performance for the $$$, then so be it!

 

AMD is still very much a third rate company when it comes to quality, and no Anorak Propaganda will be able to change that..

 

regards

 

 

Lol i guess apple assembles computers for retards like you :offtopic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always used AMD processors, but since switching to a P4, I've noticed everythings a LOT snappier. Bye bye AMD.

 

Well actually thats incorrect.

 

I've always used AMD processors before I started using Macs. Just recently I've bought a P4 and it seems a lot snappier than my old Athlon XP3200+ system was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I would rather Apple use AMD chips instead of Intel. I think AMDs get much better performance.

Apple makes stuff that works (mostly)!

 

AMD junk is not an option for anyone who values stability and dependability..

 

I know it has gotten better since the AthlonXP, but anything else would have been sadly impossible, and AMD chipsets is still junk, to put it VERY politely..

 

Apple makes Macs for people who work hard, and having them {censored} out on you is not an option if you're recording for a living..

 

Stability is absolutely the paramount thing, and if that means 10% less performance for the $$$, then so be it!

 

AMD is still very much a third rate company when it comes to quality, and no Anorak Propaganda will be able to change that..

 

regards

*retard alert*

the only actual test i have ever heard of testing the stability of intel against AMD was done by tomshardwareguide, usually accused of being in bed with intel. they left the machines on 24/7 doing soemthing or other, and even these guys showed that the intel machine crashed first, and most.

my amd machine has *never* crashed. so, STFU, idiot. if u want to say something like that then BACK IT UP with some evidence or facts. you know nothing.

 

as to the guy who has a p4 and finds it faster, thats bc 1) u have ur p4 at 3.6ghz 2) the 3200+ was over-rated 3) its old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but since switching to a P4, I've noticed everythings a LOT snappier.

 

This "snappiness" comes from the P4's "hyper threading". A hack Intel needed to slap on a few years back, helping keep the P4's extremely deep pipeline filled. You'll notice none of Intel's newer CPUs will have this "feature", since the answer now is multi core - something AMD has had for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "snappiness" comes from the P4's "hyper threading". A hack Intel needed to slap on a few years back, helping keep the P4's extremely deep pipeline filled. You'll notice none of Intel's newer CPUs will have this "feature", since the answer now is multi core - something AMD has had for some time.

 

and comparing it against an athlon xp is not fair at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill have to agree if you want to compair AMD to Intel, then make sure it is apples to apples of course your 3.6 ghz P4 is faster than an athalon XP 3200+ you nub! compair it to a 3000+ 64 bit venice core or similar. But i will say that my Intellimac is much snappier than my AMD system, but there are more contributing factors. such as: Number of cores, Bus speeds, Ram types, instruction set lengths, and fianlly the OS. just because my intellimac is faster at this point, does not necesarily mean that the intel is better. Ive been in the computer biz for some time, and what most people need to get through thier thick skulls is that, more things than jus the proc contribute to the speed of the system. did Apple make a good choice switching to intel? well, for now yes, the multi-core intels were a wise choice for the computers they put them into, i mean damn a laptop, the imac and the mac mini, all systems that require low power consumption and higher performance. And lets be realistic, Intel is a large company that has set the industry standard for year before AMD was concieved, although AMD has better performance and a 64 bit archetecture, most joe shmoe users have never heard of AMD (still) or have not heard much and therefore they are leery of it, JObs is trying to appeal to daily users or devs. which I think he has done quite nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For the record all the new intel chips support "64 bit" as much as any athlon64...... their jus not called pentium 64s :)

No x86 will be true 64bit for quite a long time due to the simple fact of needing to run 32bit applications 99% of the time, same reason why u cant get mips/sparc/itanic versions of windoze :P

 

An athlon64 is only really better at gaming anyway and I dont see apple marketting a gaming rig when they have the professional DTP crowd to bring in the cash :D

 

Edit: im a amd & mips fanboi but u cant deny that intel are gonna have the crown for atleast 6 months with conroe :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always used AMD processors, but since switching to a P4, I've noticed everythings a LOT snappier. Bye bye AMD.

 

Well actually thats incorrect.

 

I've always used AMD processors before I started using Macs. Just recently I've bought a P4 and it seems a lot snappier than my old Athlon XP3200+ system was.

 

WHAT!?

 

You cannot compair a recent P4 CPU to an old AMD Athlon XP 3200+... It's like saying Windows XP is ALOT snappier than Windows 98... Well, duh! There's years between the two! Just like the comparison you are making...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record all the new intel chips support "64 bit" as much as any athlon64.

 

The Intel "Core Duo" would qualify as a "new Intel chip", and it certainly doesn't support 64bit.

 

No x86 will be true 64bit for quite a long time due to the simple fact of needing to run 32bit applications 99% of the time

 

Well, then I guess that means HDTVs aren't truly high definition yet, because 99% of the content viewed on them is still only NTSC or PAL.

 

Wow... I'm floored by your powers of deduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you do no that the amd FX-57 is about 10% faster than the FX-60 so the FX-57 would beat the conroe in speed/performance and gaming w00t amd still the best because in 2-3 years amd is coming out with quad core and the amd athlon 64 FX-57 can be overclocked to 3.5ghz stable on stock

 

 

o and an amd athlon Xp 2800+ IS 20% FASTER THAN A duron durons are so old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you do no that the amd FX-57 is about 10% faster than the FX-60 so the FX-57 would beat the conroe in speed/performance and gaming w00t amd still the best because in 2-3 years amd is coming out with quad core and the amd athlon 64 FX-57 can be overclocked to 3.5ghz stable on stock

o and an amd athlon Xp 2800+ IS 20% FASTER THAN A duron durons are so old

 

??????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...