Why Apple Picked Intel Over AMD

An Anonymous Reader writes "Macworld has a piece looking at why Apple chose Intel chips over AMD's offerings when it decided to move away from IBM." From the article: "The reason, industry analysts say, is that Jobs has a clear goal in mind: innovative designs. And such designs require the lowest-voltage chips, which IBM and Freescale were not going to make with the PowerPC chip core--and which AMD has not yet perfected 'This is a practical, pragmatic Steve Jobs decision,' says Shane Rau, Program Manager, PC Semiconductors for market research firm IDC. Intel serves up the most complete line of low-power chips for mobile and small form factor computers, and a good-looking future roadmap for it. Also, Intel's mammoth production capacity erases any supply worries. "

Comments

I'm amazed the Mac Heads are still agonizing!

[callipygian-showsyst]

I'm amazed the Mac heads are still agonizing over their "betrayal". Perhaps Apple will learn its lesson and not spend millions of dollars running televion spots with specious arguments about why Apple's "better".

I remember a few years ago at an Apple user group meeting here in Cupertino, CA. I asked someone if he every tried Photoshop on Windows. "EEEEW! Intel" he screeched. "It's thegmented! Everything is tho thlow." (The lisp was a result of a tongue piercing.)

So here was a computer user who should only care about ultimate usability of a system (something Apple may have been better at!) who was "brainwashed" by the Apple crowd into reciting silly half-truths about Intel whenever the subject came up. Face it, a CPU that only has an XOR and JNZ instruction and dealt in 64K memory blocks would work just fine if it ran fast enough. How the CPU works is of no concern to someone who just runs Photoshop all day long....