Why Intel, Not AMD?


We've been wondering about this one ourselves for quite some time. Macworld/Maccentral has put together an interesting analysis of the reasons Apple CEO Jobs ultimately opted for Intel, the dominant supplier of x86 chips, over its AMD challenger.

The article argues that low-voltage chips - which require significant innovation - have not yet been perfected at AMD. Intel, with processors such as the Pentium M, a high-octane, yet low-voltage chip, was the supplier which could deliver high-performance processors for Apple's important laptop market.

Moreover, Intel appears to rarely experience supply problems, something which forced Jobs and the Apple senior executive suite to reconsider IBM/Freescale. IBM long ago failed to deliver on the much-touted '3GHz in 12 months' promise, due to yield problems at its new Fishkill, NY fab.

But Intel, the article argues, has road maps for virtually any processor road map you care to name. Regardless of whether Apple wants processors for desktop or laptop machines - or even future portable devices - there's an Intel processor for the job. Essentially, they have most markets covered.

Intel's 'secret weapon', some analysts say, is Yonah, a low-voltage, dual-core x86 processor which could find its way into PowerBooks and iBooks of the future.

Analysis: And there could be something in the idea that Jobs didn't want to be the 'minority platform on the minority processor' anymore. That would have still been the case with AMD. And Apple will, of course, be able to go head-to-head with PC Intel offerings, regardless of whether Intel emphasizes MHz as a measurement of performance or not.