Why not AMD mac machine?

"Consumers" are more familar with Intel than AMD, but I doubt that was the main reason; I suspect because EFI is an Intel technology.

Could be because of Viiv.

Because Intel quoted them a lower price on microprocessors.

koorb wrote:

Could be because of Viiv.

Viiv is nothing mroe than renaming the Pentium 4 to something a little less intelish (viiv is roman numerals for 64)

There may be many reasons why no Macs on AMD procs.... and some of them may even fall into "conspiracy" space......

Amd for the most part has always gotten more attention from those who know hardware..... and those not confused by the "ghz lie"......

ask any off the street joe which is faster a 2.0ghz A64 3000+ or a 3.0ghz Pentium4 and they will give you the wrong answer.... (the amd is faster still)

This is why amd changed its naming scheme for processors to hopefully gain more proper acceptance by average joes who don't understand that among other things AMD's increase in processed instructions per clock being higher than Intel is why they don't need to put the clock boundaries.....

VI is 6 in Roman Numerals
IV is 4 in Roman Numerals
BUT
64 would be LXIV (50 plus 10 plus 4)

As far as I know, there is nothing in the Intel viiv spec which uses 64 bit technology.

SimonJ

I was told by many that Apple chose Intel because of their high volume manufactoring capacity.


Regards,
Vincent

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

I was told by many that Apple chose Intel because of their high volume manufactoring capacity.

Considering the amount of machines that Apple sells, I really don't think that was the problem.

Apple choose Intel because AMD does not have a low power chipset story in notebooks.

Ang3lFir3 wrote:

(viiv is roman numerals for 64)

Um, no.

Simple...Apple is very focused on their laptops because it is a rather large part of their sales. Intel has a better laptop platform than does AMD.

Keep in mind that Apple could easily switch to AMD in the future.

Now that they're making the transition to x86, they have multiple CPU vendors to choose from.  All of them are binary-compatible.  They can use processors from Intel, AMD, Via, even STMicro.

They could even mix and match (e.g. Use a low-power Via chip in the Mac Mini, and use an AMD Opteron in the their high-end line).

Also, now that they've transitioned, they have more negotiating power.  They can play Intel, AMD, and Via off of each other to negotiate for better pricing.

Basic rule in business: Commoditize your complements.

It's why the PC industry is so successful.  It's why IBM endorses Linux.  It's why Apple offers a not-very-profitable online music store.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

Detroit Muscle wrote:

Ang3lFir3 wrote: (viiv is roman numerals for 64)

Um, no.

Since you are stuck in literal-land, then fine, you are correct.

If you spent half a second considering that they might, just maybe, be using a play on roman numerals, marketing, and 64-Bit architecture, then, um YES.

About the only people who understand how to write accurate roman numbers above 12 are geeks, freaks, and dead romans, so open your mind to the possibility that this is a marketing symbol.

SimonJ wrote:

VI is 6 in Roman Numerals
IV is 4 in Roman Numerals
BUT
64 would be LXIV (50 plus 10 plus 4)

As far as I know, there is nothing in the Intel viiv spec which uses 64 bit technology.

SimonJ

According to wikipedia, 64-bit tech is in all but the core-duos.

ScanIAm wrote:

About the only people who understand how to write accurate roman numbers above 12 are geeks, freaks, and dead romans, so open your mind to the possibility that this is a marketing symbol.

And... pretty much everybody in Italy.

I don't see 64-bit processors being much use for laptops or for OS X. Even on 64-bit G5s, most of the operating system is 32-bit. Only a few applications (Mathematica) actually use the 64-bit features. Second of all, while 64-bit processors make sense on Power Macs (you can get up to 16GB RAM now), how many laptops actually suffer from the 4GB barrier? While it may be a concern in the near future, currently I don't see the need.

Detroit Muscle wrote:

Ang3lFir3 wrote: (viiv is roman numerals for 64)

Um, no.

let me clarify Viiv could be called similar to the roman numerals for 6 AND 4 ...

jeez
 

And im not gunna touch the duo core comments.... as I simply don't give Intel the time of day I can't comment on their new tech (my remarks were more on the A64 vs P4 w/EM64T line...[which i thought i made clear])

I'm also not going to get into a huge AMD vs Intel debate (i've settled it before with superpi times if ne one thinks that's a decent comparator.. if not please explain as i would be curious and open)

Noone can ever really explain Apple.  I suspect it is all the acid Jobs did....