Intel + Apple Exclusivity Agreement

I think apple's just going to come back and say that the reason they didn't use their product is because it sucks compared to intel products for their market area.

^ well actually they are very well priced when you think about it.

You get a fairly powerful PC in it's area (laptop, workstation, all in one)
You get a nice looking PC
You get exclusivity to an OS with some apps which you might need.
You get availability to the windows OS when there isn't the app you want for Mac OSX.

Maybe. You have to remember that PPC thermal outputs were scaling up faster than their performance. And that coresponded to the arrival of the Intel C2's that were beating everything else.

And then Apple went with Intel after years of "The Motorola 68K and PPC architecture is superior to the Intel X86 architecture because ... "

And with respect to the EU fine, it's highly significant that they are keeping the money instead of awarding damages to AMD.

And so long as you drink the Apple Kool-Aid, everything runs smoothly. As soon as you want to do something unique tho...

@b-unit, depends what you mean by unique because the only thing that macs fail at is gaming, but so does linux.

I never got the recognise for "AMD4WIFE" i deserve did I....

anyhow so what if Intel did an exclusive with Apple.


Really AMD need to grow up. Next we well get Chelsea FC ( a UK team btw) does an exclusive with Samsung. So F...king what.

It seems now that even if your successfull there is always someone trying to bring you down. So what if Microsoft Include IE with windows its what 75% of people want anyway..

Soon there will be no customization at all. You MUST buy the Q8200 and pay the 600 dollar Apple tax.

Because Apple is a very closed hardware/software company. Its why you cannot buy OS X to put on a custom made PC and also why you need to buy Mac specific hardware to be able to use it that comes at a premium.

So instead of having 2 CPU types that can cause potential bugs and glitches (the only reason why Macs are more crash resistant, I know they are not as good as they claim, is becaus there is only one type of CPU, mobo and so on) they have one that OS X is coded for thus being able to give them their claim to "no as prone to crashing". Yes I kinda fixed it because yes Macs do crash.

Think of a Mac as a really shiney and expensive console (hardware wise) that couldn't play a game if it tried.

And to the OP, What in the hell is wrong with AMD? Lets see, I remember that there was a gaming PC company back in the Athlon X2 days that only sold AMD based gaming PCs. Is that not the same thing?

Even if Intel did as said before, it was probably Apple who wanted to. As I stated before Apple uses very minimal hardware in order to maintain a less buggy OS and also control their people.

TBH, I am sick of AMDs legal crap. I wish they would just shut up and focus all that cash they are wasting on actually making a CPU that beats Intel and pushes Core i7 prices and DDR3 down more.

Actually Intel already has a 6 core in the server market. And AMDs 12 coe is set to be a M2M (much like a Q6600 if you will......). And that 12 core is mainly set for the server market while Intels 6 core coming out next year will be set for server and desktop with a 8+ core variant for servers with SMT giving is 12-16 threads.

But thats not what I am talking about. I mean something amazing. That wont affect us.

And its just annoying to see every month them with some legal BS even if they know it was probably Apple who asked for the exclusivity. AMD knows how Apple is and has been for the past 15 years yet they still pursue useless crap. You don't wounder why AMD had no problems with Apples exclusivity with IBM? IBM does help AMD but when IBM was making the PowerPC chips AMD wont say a thing. Its the same thing essentially.

I personally think they want to rip Intel apart. not by beating them in the CPU market. But legally. That way they don't have to truly worry and can raise prices on their current stuff to make money. And trust me, if Intel went down AMD would absolutely start charging more per CPU. Any company would and thats whats sad....

sorry hellboy ... you shall be remembered.

Shall we pop in a wiki entry for you and AMD4WIFE ... heh heh.

Mac's do crash ... not as often but the bright coloured cute cube ones we have do.

Especially when doing some DTP work ...

I tend to stay away from them ... the lack of static shielding causes testicular cancer ... at least that's my theory why all Mac owners are bald and limp a bit.

Umm, you understand it takes money to do those things, right?

Ill bet AMD legal spent no more time on this EU case than it took to prepare some exec to deliver testemony.

And the last time I checked, those laywers arn't designing CPUs.

A CPU designed by a lawyer would:

Have very little onchip cache and rely on a huge extrernal cache to simplystart up;
Have no less than 8 snoop filters;
Require excessive voltage to startup;
Have a single pipe;
Have a superior ALU;
Have no IRQ's.
Require multiple input requests for a single output ... providing the cache was full.
Require exotic cooling costing twice the price of the CPU.

Sounds like Itanium ... well sorta.