Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > When will MacBooks Feature Turion 64?

When will MacBooks Feature Turion 64?
Thread Tools
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 12:30 AM
 
ARGHHHH.

I honestly dont know why apple does not make turion 64 macbooks at 2GHz(for low-end white) and 2.2GHz(for high-end black and white).

Doing this would be cheaper than Intel's core 2 duo, and maybe would allow Apple to add some integrated ATI express graphics? Anythings better than intel's gay media accelerator. +it will be able to play some moderate games with 1 GB ram.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brushton, New York (middle of nowhere)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Bob Marley View Post
ARGHHHH.

I honestly dont know why apple does not make turion 64 macbooks at 2GHz(for low-end white) and 2.2GHz(for high-end black and white).

Doing this would be cheaper than Intel's core 2 duo, and maybe would allow Apple to add some integrated ATI express graphics? Anythings better than intel's gay media accelerator. +it will be able to play some moderate games with 1 GB ram.
My brother may agree with you (I talked him out of getting a notebook with GMA900).

However the X3000 will smoke the other integrated chips very soon.

Apple is firmly sticking with Intel. End of story (but Apple will soon crack).
The Mac Collection:

Power Mac G4 Sawtooth at 450MHz, Power Mac G4 Gigabit Ethernet at 400MHz, three Power Mac FW800's at 1.0GHz, MacBook Pro at 2.0GHz, my late father's G3 iMac at 350MHz, an iMac at 500MHz, a PowerBook G4 (12-inch VGA) and a PowerBook 170
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 01:23 AM
 
haha, theres no way im waiting so long for a x3000
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Bob Marley View Post
ARGHHHH.

I honestly dont know why apple does not make turion 64 macbooks at 2GHz(for low-end white) and 2.2GHz(for high-end black and white).

Doing this would be cheaper than Intel's core 2 duo, and maybe would allow Apple to add some integrated ATI express graphics? Anythings better than intel's gay media accelerator. +it will be able to play some moderate games with 1 GB ram.
Have you seen the space the motherboard of a macbook takes up? My toshiba has some ATI integrated graphics chip and it cant even load the UT2k4 menu let alone play it unlike my macbook which gets around 50 fps...
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 03:38 PM
 
Still, the price cut could allow apple for more flexible graphics. Maybe feature nVidia GeForce 6100/6150 graphics? My compaq desktop 512 mb RAM w/ 6150 go and 120 GB hard drive can play call of duty 2 on low settings(which is still amazing) smoothly.
     
Sub
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 04:12 PM
 
It's not going to happen, they are sticking with intel.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 04:40 PM
 
It'd be very unlike Apple to be in bed with on company for a year and then switch. Not gonna happen.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 05:48 PM
 
You seem to be in a little world of your own. Apple is staying with Intel because Intel's chips are currently way better than anything AMD has to offer.
Linkinus is king.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2007, 09:12 PM
 
Why would you want a worse processor in the macbook? The Intel C2D smokes anything AMD can offer.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2007, 10:18 PM
 
Because the AMD processor is cheaper, therefore theoretically the MacBook prices should go down.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2007, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Because the AMD processor is cheaper, therefore theoretically the MacBook prices should go down.
Really?

Care to share how much Apple is paying Intel per chip?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 04:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Because the AMD processor is cheaper, therefore theoretically the MacBook prices should go down.

And you honestly think Apple will pass the savings on to us little folks? I think they are more likely to keep the money they save to increase their profit margins. And that is assuming they dont get the C2D at a good volume discount from Intel.

That said, I stand by my previous statement. Apple has to improve upon their products from generation to generation. Going with a Turion would definately be a step back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 04:53 AM
 
Q: When will MacBooks feature AMD processors?

A: Not for a long time, if ever.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post
Care to share how much Apple is paying Intel per chip?
That's more or less public information: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/p...price_list.pdf

Core 2 Duo "Merom"
• T5600 - 1.83 GHz / 2 MB / 667 MHz - TDP 35 W - $241
• T7200 - 2.00 GHz / 4 MB / 667 MHz - TDP 35 W - $294
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 06:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
That's more or less public information: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/p...price_list.pdf

Core 2 Duo "Merom"
• T5600 - 1.83 GHz / 2 MB / 667 MHz - TDP 35 W - $241
• T7200 - 2.00 GHz / 4 MB / 667 MHz - TDP 35 W - $294
I'm sure Apple is getting a substantial discount off the advertised price.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2007, 07:22 AM
 
Possibly. But those are already discounted prices (see the Intel PDF).
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2007, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Bob Marley View Post
Anythings better than intel's gay media accelerator.
Under powered, maybe? Insufficient? Not really useful? I don't think that silicon devices can have a sexual preference, and your wording makes your post seem pejorative against a large group (either Intel or the Gay community, I'm not sure which) that has little to do with MacBook hardware adequacy.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Under Your Stairs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2007, 04:45 AM
 
Apple, like any other OEM, gets deep volume discounts when using an Intel processor with an Intel motherboard/chipset combo. AMD still doesn't offer a package deal.
Sieb
Blackbook
(2Ghz, 2GB, 100Gig, week 21)
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Jose
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2007, 01:50 PM
 
Moreover, Apple has 4 of its 5 major systems using the same basic components: MacBooks, MacBook Pros, Mac Minis and iMacs all use the Intel 945 chipset with Intel Core or Core 2 processors. This no doubt simplifies the supply chain and manufacturing process enormously.

Switching to AMD for just one of these platforms negates that advantage. And given that the Core 2 offers better performance and power-saving features, it's unlikely they would jeopardize all that to (potentially) save a few bucks on MacBooks (and further diminish the difference between the MB and MBP).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2007, 07:16 PM
 
Apple is not interested in making their Macs as cheap as possible. They are more concerned with performance and power. And design.

Of course, everyone else would love a cheaper Mac, but if they were Dell cheap, they might not be quite so desirable.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2007, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
That's more or less public information: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/p...price_list.pdf

Core 2 Duo "Merom"
• T5600 - 1.83 GHz / 2 MB / 667 MHz - TDP 35 W - $241
• T7200 - 2.00 GHz / 4 MB / 667 MHz - TDP 35 W - $294
FYI iSupply estimates that Apple gets a 13% discount from the 1Ku prices.

AMD 1Ku prices:
TL-60 (64-bit, 2.0GHz, dedicated1 1M L2 cache, 1600MHz HyperTransport™ bus) $263
TL-56 (64-bit, 1.8GHz, dedicated 1M L2 cache, 1600MHz HyperTransport bus) $220

Keep in mind that Turion 64 X2 is slower at the same clockrate and they don't offer anything faster than 2Ghz. Plus the TDP is a tad higher, IIRC.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: State of WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 10:28 AM
 
I'll go along with dumping integrated graphics, but AMD chips are really junk. They're OK for the kiddies who want to overclock their CPUs, because when they blow them up, they haven't lost anything of value. But serious IT people stay away from them because they're crap.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2007, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Strat View Post
I'll go along with dumping integrated graphics, but AMD chips are really junk. They're OK for the kiddies who want to overclock their CPUs, because when they blow them up, they haven't lost anything of value. But serious IT people stay away from them because they're crap.
Given the prices and unlocked multipliers (on the C2E chips), Intel has become a lot more popular with the "xtreme l33t overlclocker d00ds" lately.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milkyway Galaxy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 01:54 AM
 
I'm for the Anything-but-GMA crowd as well... Tho its unlikely, if they did feature an AMD gig at least we'd get a semi-real ATi GPU....ßßß
Death To Extremists!
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Strat View Post
I'll go along with dumping integrated graphics, but AMD chips are really junk. They're OK for the kiddies who want to overclock their CPUs, because when they blow them up, they haven't lost anything of value. But serious IT people stay away from them because they're crap.
Source and evidence please. I've been using AMD processors for over a decade, and they are both solid performers and extremely reliable. Of course I always buy NEW chips and handle them properly, which is necessary for ANY CPU.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Northeastern292 View Post
My brother may agree with you (I talked him out of getting a notebook with GMA900).

However the X3000 will smoke the other integrated chips very soon.

Apple is firmly sticking with Intel. End of story (but Apple will soon crack).
Smoke? Well, X3000 is faster than current Intel chipset but by no means will be a fast one in general terms.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milkyway Galaxy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Smoke? Well, X3000 is faster than current Intel chipset but by no means will be a fast one in general terms.
Haven't researched much about the X3000, tho we can imagine it would indeed smoke the GMA950.

Questions is, how is it by 2007 Graphics Cards standards? How weak?
Death To Extremists!
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2007, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mactropolis View Post
Haven't researched much about the X3000, tho we can imagine it would indeed smoke the GMA950.
Theoretically it should be much faster than GMA 950, but in some early real-world tests it was actually slower, presumably because of the early immature drivers. That was a few months back though.

Questions is, how is it by 2007 Graphics Cards standards? How weak?
Lower than low end (but better than current Intel integrated graphics).
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 03:57 AM
 
apple knows intels product pipeline, and they know that intel is beating AMD's butt. They want power, and affordability. they could be getting an even bugger discount han estimated. note that isupply ESTIMATES. Who knows what discount they are getting. Also factor in that AMD Processors are Usually hottter. To pecee manufactures, it is not as much of a problem. But apple cares. A LOT.
--applgeek
You can email me at appledude05@gmail.com or aim me at applgeek

I am a proud blogger at freecasts.net!


Joy Of Tech!
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2007, 12:41 PM
 
Apple is currently using Intel as a vendor because they are able to provide the best CPU's available and it looks like things are going to stay that way for quite some time.

Intel is the market leader in CPU sales. Apple knows they can count on them to deliver product.

Apple has no interest in providing a powerful graphics solution for the lower end Macs. The GMA950 provides a very real difference between their pro and consumer lines. If you cant afford a MacBook Pro, and you want a mac, you will buy a MacBook. If you want graphics performance, at all, you pay for it.

They have to have a reason for you to pay that extra money other than an aluminum case.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2