What the heck happened to AMD?

Afraid that Intel has more experience and resources kid...
Intel is once again taking the lead and Apple probably made the best choice.
But I love my Opteron 175

I'm glad it's Intel and not AMD. I dislike both Intel and Apple anyways.

Can you add a choice in the poll for "dislike both anyway" or something? I don't want to choose any of those!

Nothing happened to AMD. That's the point.

The problem that has plagued the PowerPC relationship in recent years has been guaranteed availability and scalability. This has been a problem since the G4 with Motorola and now with the G5 and IBM. (I'm still pissed that Apple didn't release a 1.1GHz PowerPC 750GX Gobi G3 iBook, but thats another story). While Apple's processor needs numerically are not great and AMD could no doubt satisfy it, Intel's manufacturing capabilities provide a piece of mind that would ensure a smooth transition. The last thing Apple wants is to make a huge leap by going x86 and then having it turn into a G4 launch fiasco and having to downclock the products to maintain yields and beg IBM to help Motorola with production. AMD's recent delay of their AM2 platform would have killed Apple.

Performance-wise AMD doesn't have an advantage over Intel in the form-factor profiles that Apple requires. AMD doesn't have a product to compete with Yonah in the notebook market and an X2 produces too much heat to fit into the 1.5" thick case of the iMac. Intel's product line up will just improve as Merom and family comes out. It's not that AMD's processors don't perform, because they do, but the difference just doesn't make up for the stability of going Intel.

Now in a 4-way server environment Apple would have certainly gone AMD, because Intel just can't compete with the Opteron in that situation. But as it is, the G5 towers can easily be replaced by Conroe or Woodcrest and an Opteron just doesn't offer enough advantage in a 1 or 2 way situation.

Finally--an intelligent post

It's also safe to say that Intel cant afford to loose face any more. I'd bet they offered Jobs a deal he couldn't refuse.

Evidently, your not overflowing with it...

Theres nothing wrong with Intels mobile chips so whats the problem???

If Intel went mobile for all there chips they'd put AMD out of business.

PS. I am an AMD Fanboy.

Intel makes like what a billion a month? Thats more than enough to throw at the Mobile division and Advertising (which they do too much already). Also they can fire everyone responsible for the Press"Hot".

I thought Intel was going mobile by going with the Merom family. Whether that will put AMD out of business is another debate.

Sorry It_Commander, but this is bullshit.
AMD has Fab36, IBM fab capacity and chartered to keep supply more than stable if Apple or Dell ever needs it and you should have known this.
AMD has plans to build another fab in 2009 (I believe this one would be a 450mm fab since 300mm doesn't makes any sense for future-proofing).

And why??
If AMD wanted they could release socket AM2 earlier, but as I said in my other thread, why bother doing so if current processors can give Intel a run for their money??

Did you know that dual core Turions can be released at 2.66GHz and only consume 25-30W?
If an X2-3800 beats Yonah in almost all tests, now imagine a dual core Turion64 at 2.66GHz that only consumes 25W. That would be a sweet processor to have (Don't forget 64 bit computing on the go).

Please, I'm dying to see those benchmarks.

Like I said in my original post, AMD would know doubt be able to supply enough chips to Apple since its needs aren't that high. But we are talking about stability or perceive stability for an Apple base that has repeatedly not had it. To that effect news like this isn't reassuring for customers:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/d [...] 22840.html

AMD claims that the problem is lack of packaging materials which although it may be true, sounds kind of funny. Lack of packaging materials will effect Apple even if they don't buy retail box, because even trays need packaging. The article saids OEMs get priority, but like I said it doesn't bode well for perceived stability and marketing purposes.

Personally, the use of "because they can" as the reason for the AM2 delay doesn't seem reasonable. The problem with the reason is the fact that the AM2 delay puts its launch right on top of the Merom family launch. Even if we assume that AM2 will still maintain the performance lead over Intel, we can generally agree that the performance lead won't be as great as it currently is with the P4. AMD's power and heat lead will be similarly reduced or eliminated. This would mean that AMD will have to out market Intel. Now Intel may be a poor chip designed, but they certainly are a good marketer either due to good strategy, which can be debated, or by sheer amounts of money that they can throw out. Why would AMD put themselves in a position where they have to try to fight for the same TV time or newspaper space?

Marketing isn't the only issue. Intel can also outprice AMD if need be. AM2 will still be using the 90nm process while Intel will be using 65nm. Merom is also the 2nd generation on the 65nm and by Q3 the yields would have improved enough to surpass Intel's current 90nm process. It isn't just the processor either. By Q3, Intel will be double transitioning their chipsets from 130nm to 90nm and from 200mm wafers to 300mm wafers. The wafer transition alone increases die production by 240% and reduces energy costs by 40%. AMD may have better performance, but if Intel cuts their prices and the chipsets can easily sustain a 50% cut, AMD will have a hard time competing.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chips [...] 14142.html

It would make much more sense for AMD to launch as originally planned in April. That way they can do it on their own terms and market at will. Even if they don't have the initial volumes at launch, but the time Intel launches a few months later AM2 would have been mature, the market would have accepted it, and the prices would have dropped and stabilized. AMD could then easily evaluated Merom's performance and release faster processors as needed on their already proven platform.

If there was a technical glitch or other hard reason to postpon the AM2 launch then of course AMD was justified. However, the "they did it because they can" argument just doesn't fly with me. AMD has the advantage right now. Why would they sit around, if they have the product ready, when they can just as easily lead the market?

That's very nice and all, but could AMD have provided it to Apple sufficiently ahead of time last year so they could have launched in January instead of Yonah? The dual core Turion requires the new Socket S1, which we've heard the least of compared to AM2 or Socket 1207.

In this case I was refering to Conroe vs. AM2 or Woodcrest vs. Opteron. The G5 tower won't be replaced until those roll out so I wasn't referring to the current Xeons which we know will lose. I've posted Dempsey scores before that compare nicely to the Opteron 280 so the Opteron isn't invincible.