Prior to publication of this (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede), sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=23714

So what is going to make Apple different now? This can go either very well, or horribly bad for Apple. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Everything I've read recently was suggesting an INTEL switch, not AMD. There was a WSJ article and a few tech articles on the net.

Same time, it was not clear what FASHION they'd be using either. Maybe apple sees using an X86 based OS X core, and running higher end work stations on AMD, and the imacs, and powerbooks on Intel P4s and P-M respectively.

I think the biggest reason for the switch would be cost. People who use macs don't care about the guts of the thing. If apple can increase their profit margins or lower costs, they'll make more money.

A mix would be the smart thing. AMD makes better desktop chips, while Intel makes better mobile chips. Also Apples have historicly been used a lot for multimedia, which is where AMD tends to shine in benchmarks.

interesting.. The first article i read about it gave me the impression that Intel would MANUFACTURE apple's chips for them.. Not actually use X86 chips.. that changes things a little.

Dr.

It's gonna be an intel, not amd.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Here's another perspective on it.
It's obvious to us that Intel feels that although Dell is doing a fantastic job by not using Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), there is a sense in which Chipzilla hates having all of its eggs in one basket.

So it makes perfect sense to have rumours emerge that Apple might use your chips. And if you're Apple, it makes perfect sense to have rumours emerge where yeah, you might use Intel chips, but you might use AMD processors too.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=23726

So, it's likely Apple had the news released as a bargaining tool. Makes sense.

They all do it, Dell does the same thing (leaks news about going AMD) whenever they are up to renegotiate, but then stay intel only. It just makes sense on all parts.

Betty-

I am not sure if I'd say AMD leads the way in multimedia, on the PC, a lot of the hihg end, multithreaded, SSE2+ applications usually shine with the P4s netburst technology and the large on die memory.

The bigger issue, I see, is that Intels price point (to manufacturers) is far better than AMD can do.

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

:lol:



Report: Apples will soon have Intel inside

SAN FRANCISCO — Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce Monday morning that Apple will discontinue using microprocessor chips made by IBM in favor of Intel (INTC) chips, according to CNET Networks's News.com and The Wall Street Journal.

The move will end a stormy, decade-long relationship between Apple Computer (AAPL) and IBM (IBM).

Officials from Apple, Intel and IBM could not be reached Sunday to confirm the report.

story (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-06-06-apple-intel_x.htm)

Betty-

I am not sure if I'd say AMD leads the way in multimedia, on the PC, a lot of the hihg end, multithreaded, SSE2+ applications usually shine with the P4s netburst technology and the large on die memory.
Sure about that?
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-16.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-17.html
I particularly like this one:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/
Here a P4 overclocked to 5.2Ghz with 2M of cache is barely able to keep up with an FX55 running at 2.6Ghz with 1M of cache. Double the freq and double the cache, and they break about even. AMD simply has better architecture.

The bigger issue, I see, is that Intels price point (to manufacturers) is far better than AMD can do.
I didn't know that. I always thought it was better marketing. Learn something new everyday.

be interesting to see how the Digital Rights Managment thing shakes out in the near future.

They did it!

Steve Jobs announced it!

Sure about that?
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-16.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-17.html
I particularly like this one:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/
Here a P4 overclocked to 5.2Ghz with 2M of cache is barely able to keep up with an FX55 running at 2.6Ghz with 1M of cache. Double the freq and double the cache, and they break about even. AMD simply has better architecture.


I didn't know that. I always thought it was better marketing. Learn something new everyday.

Impressive benchmarks, hadn't seen the X2 marks...

Well, the issue has to do with process transitions. All of intels fabs are now 90nm and 300mm waffers. I think AMD might be there now, but Intels been there for a year, with like 2.5 years for their newest plants.

Intel is now moving to 15" wffers from 12" and already begining their 65 process transition. It means more chips per waffer and cheaper production costs...

Intel is more expensive to consumers, but they just kill to people like Dell.

well, there we go.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html