[Bob Marley]

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.

[Northeastern292]

Originally Posted by Bob Marley 

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).

[Bob Marley]

haha, theres no way im waiting so long for a x3000

[post_break]

Originally Posted by Bob Marley 

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...

[Bob Marley]

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]

It's not going to happen, they are sticking with intel.

[imitchellg5]

It'd be very unlike Apple to be in bed with on company for a year and then switch. Not gonna happen.

[brokenjago]

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.

[Acapella75]

Why would you want a worse processor in the macbook? The Intel C2D smokes anything AMD can offer.

[imitchellg5]

Because the AMD processor is cheaper, therefore theoretically the MacBook prices should go down.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

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?

[Acapella75]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

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.

[Big Mac]

Q: When will MacBooks feature AMD processors?

A: Not for a long time, if ever.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

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

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

[Simon]

Possibly. But those are already discounted prices (see the Intel PDF).

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Bob Marley 

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.

[sieb]

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.

[mfbernstein]

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).

[Waragainstsleep]

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.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

[Mr. Strat]

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.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Mr. Strat 

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.

[mactropolis]

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

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Mr. Strat 

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.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Northeastern292 

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.

[mactropolis]

Originally Posted by Eug 

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?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mactropolis 

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).

[applgeek]

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.

[zenwhen]

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.