Intel versus AMD, interesting article...

VakeJ · Jan 25, 2006

Hello:

I hope this is the correct forum for this article. It's not Apple related, but thought it was quite interesting based on the move to dual core processors.

CNET compared the 5 AMD and 4 Intel dual core processors. I've seen similar articles and AMD usually outperforms Intel. I wasn't surprised that AMD came out on top, but I was surprised by the margin.

I'm a little curious why apple didn't team up with AMD. Could simply be that Intel is more widely used.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=prmo1

kaidomac · Jan 25, 2006

VakeJ said:
Hello:

I hope this is the correct forum for this article. It's not Apple related, but thought it was quite interesting based on the move to dual core processors.

CNET compared the 5 AMD and 4 Intel dual core processors. I've seen similar articles and AMD usually outperforms Intel. I wasn't surprised that AMD came out on top, but I was surprised by the margin.

I'm a little curious why apple didn't team up with AMD. Could simply be that Intel is more widely used.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=prmo1

From what I've read, it boils down to resources: AMD is a chipmaker; Intel makes chips, bridges, busses, graphics chips, etc. etc. etc. Intel brought the whole deal to the table; AMD would have only brought the chip. I don't know if that's completely correct but it sounds like a good enough reason to me!

technologist · Jan 25, 2006

It really should have gone in "Anything Goes," really. Maybe someone will move it.

There's also the performance-per-watt equation that Apple gave when it announced the decision. Both the chips in the C|Net article are fairly hot, energy-intensive chips. So is the G5. The Core Duo that Apple is using is much more efficient than the Pentium-D or any current AMD chip, and much faster than the G4 or AMD Turion (both single-core.)

Intel versus AMD, interesting article...

VakeJ

kaidomac

technologist

Shop Amazon