Ok, we have the PPC to intel switch happing, so after seeing some intel macs what do you think?
Did Steve call it right or could PPC have done just as good?
Did Steve call it right or could PPC have done just as good?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
intel(x86) vs PPC
- Thread starter zap2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really a fair poll. Intel Processors don't yet run all programs, but they are faster and the wave of the future. I'll stick with PPC for another year or two. Intel after that.
Laser47 said:
No... at the time the Pentium 2 was awful. They haven't gone back on their word... the core duo is a new chip.
give me a redesigned macbook pro (no isight) or a whatever is in my signiture now, and i would say intel. but right now, im not sure.
PPC for now. Intel next year. I still need to use Virtual PC for some work-related stuff and it's only PPC for now. But like it or not, the switchover has definitely begun.
I don't think there is much of a question, we aren't seeing much progress with PPC.
If you need current applications that haven't been converted and you need to work today, you'll have to go with PPC machines.
If you have less strict needs, you should go for the Core Duo machines because performance in the long run will be much better.
If you need current applications that haven't been converted and you need to work today, you'll have to go with PPC machines.
If you have less strict needs, you should go for the Core Duo machines because performance in the long run will be much better.
My vote is for Intel - perhaps not for what they've done so far, since we're just getting started, not all the apps run natively on x86 yet, etc., but rather for where they will be in a few months, and ultimately by the end of 2006 when all Macs are Intel-based. 
dmw007 said:Ah yes, Athlon 64 FX & Athlon 64 X2...such amazing chips!
Not the best when it comes to stability though, no? So I've heard at least...
generik said:PPC last year
Intel this year
AMD next year
PPC again in 5 years time!
And then in an unprecedented move, Steve Jobs will announce that Apple is moving to Sun chips!
~Shard~ said:And then in an unprecedented move, Steve Jobs will announce that Apple is moving to Sun chips!
![]()
Wierd Al suggested Doritos in "It's All About the Pentiums" but I agree that Sun Chips are far superior.
~Shard~ said:
I've had no problems with stability, though unlike Intel, AMD (mostly) leave to others to make chipsets for their CPUs, and stability can vary between the different chipset makers.
VIA had some really bad chipsets back in the days before Athlon 64. Truly horrible ones; truly painful. I've heard they've improved much lately, but I stick to NVIDIA anyway.
And I voted for x86. I think it's one of the best things they could do at this point. (or worst... we'll see
)
dubbz said:I've had no problems with stability, though unlike Intel, AMD (mostly) leave to others to make chipsets for their CPUs, and stability can vary between the different chipset makers.
VIA had some really bad chipsets back in the days before Athlon 64. Truly horrible ones; truly painful. I've heard they've improved much lately, but I stick to NVIDIA anyway.
And I voted for x86. I think it's one of the best things they could do at this point. (or worst... we'll see
Thanks for the clarification on this, that's essentially what I was referring to.
~Shard~ said:
I had an Athlon 64 3000+ in a HP Pavilion notebook about a year ago (sold it for my iBook G4) and it ran fine....well, as fine as windows xpee would allow it...
But as dubbz has said, the instability that you are referring to probably has something to do with rogue chipsets.