curlyboy Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20061115PR207.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomie Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If its true, then WOOHOO! Any increase in competition between AMD and Intel is generally a good thing for consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 true. intel's new offerings are ridiculously high priced... like ps3 ridiculous but then, amd has been known to have high priced chips as well competition will bring prices down, always a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowned Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Personally, i think Apple should just ditch Intel and Nvidia and get a really good relationship with Amd/Ati(whatever they're being called now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I think they should stop showing favoritism and offer both platforms of GPUs and CPUs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Agreed. PS3 is an Intel Product? Who Knew? Or, did you (dark) mean that Intel's products are as outrageously priced as the PS3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It's already on the Front Page. http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=33399 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Dark just has a chip on his shoulder with PS3 because it gonna crush the Wii AMD chips will always cost more then Intel because there made with better quality and they produce less. A jump to AMD would definitely offer some rival competition and give consumers better choices. I have always thought that Apple favors Ati and now that just lets AMD in the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I was under the impression that AMD chips were cheaper than Intel, performance to performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Never. You can get a $80 Intel that would kill a $200 AMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I'm not sure how to comment on this. On one hand, competition is good and Apple would be the clear winner. On the other hand, Apple may well be spreading itself too thin (provided this is true). This would mean Apple would have to support: 1. PowerPC 2. Intel 3. AMD This makes for even thinner ice in terms of keeping OS X off of $50 Dells than it's already on. And AppleInsider states that source really isn't reliable anyhoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 PPC is dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 PS3 is an Intel Product? Who Knew? PS3 is a Sony product and the Cell is a IBM PPC chip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katmail Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 On October 17, 2006, a month before the console release, Terrasoft announced a version of Yellow Dog Linux for PlayStation 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murcielago585 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 there is no real reason why apple should move to amd. they have a good relationship with intel, intel is currently making better chips than amd for better prices, their technology seems to be evolving much faster, and same goes with ATI. In my opinion, Nvidia is superior to ATI, they have one card that destroys two of the best ati cards, while also delivering directx10 first. just not gonna happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 just not gonna happen That's exactly what people said when rumors started about Apple using Intel chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katmail Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Cheap AMD mobile chips might also allow Apple to better compete against the flurry of sub-$700 notebooks that have popped up lately, although Apple hasn't always competed in lower price segments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmanfvrga Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Don't EVER say it won't happen. Why? I heard the whining on PearPC for all of last year, that NO INTEL! Guess what? It happened. It would be nice to have both and I HOPE the prices go way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murcielago585 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 i just don;t see the point, would anyone here actually want an FX-62 or athlon 64 X2 over the core 2 duo? i understand apple isn't making much use of the core 2 duo since it's using the merom chip and not conroe. but conroe is purely proven to be a superior processor to the athlons as well as at a lower price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedragon1971 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 PPC is dead Tell that to Microsoft (XBox 360), Sony (PS3), or Nintendo (Wii), all of which use PowerPC based chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zealot Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 at least here on south america the prices of an intel with 3.2ghz its the same of an AMD of 2.0 ghz (with two cores:FX2/am2socket) .but i dont beliebe in the ghz of intel because its been always overrated ("one more thing" they get hotter than the core of the sun). On the other hand AMD manage a more stable way to use the fx2 keeping the clocks down with temperatures that reaches almost the half of the intel procesors. i think its hard to chose one of them so i say :"why Apple doesnt make a deal with both" i want apple prices go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PimpMyMac Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Um.. the PS3 expensive? If the 360 came with the HD-DVD they'd be pretty close in price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 PPC is dead Tell that to Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, and scores of other companies still supporting PPC software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 i understand apple isn't making much use of the core 2 duo since it's using the merom chip and not conroe.. The only difference between Merom and Conroe is the bus speed and a thin piece of metal that says Intel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katmail Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Merom is the Core2 dual mobile version of Conroe the Desktop of Core2 dual Merom use Enhanced energy or power efficience techologies to put those circuit to sleep if they are not in use couple with Enhanced Speedstep to reduce the processor speed when its load is low. Merom TDP is 35 watts and Conroe is 65 watts Apple first priority is Form and it use Intel Mobile Technology for its iMac and Mac Mini But it has cost you more Intel has remove its Pentium Brand and replace it with Core Brand Remember Pentium then come Pentium II ,Pentium III and lastly Pentium 4 Core now Core2 ..the next will be Core3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts