Pure performance wise, Apple already lost on the laptop, and starting to lose the desktop. I know that speed is only a part of the experience, but it would have been a big part a few years later if PPC evolved like it did last year.

You know everyone says this but what does in mean really?

Yes it would have been good for AMD to get the extra business, but I wonder if they could keep up with a demand that IBM (Big Blue after all) could not.

I guess I am an “Intel fanboi” but they have shown reliability both in there manufacturing and in there products, not that AMD is not a reliable company they just haven’t had enough time to prove there products.

Also remember that as far as gigahertz go Intel has the faster chips (purely clock speeds, not “equivalency” numbering, AMD’s Athalon64 4000+ is only a 2. GHz chip, the FX55 is only a 2.6) and given that the majority of Mac’s that are sold to businesses and institutions are used for some kind of encoding or decoding (music, movies, Photoshop, ect…) or desktop multitasking, which are tasks that the Intel P4 and Pentium D (given that it is not an all new architecture) perform best at. The strength of AMD’s processors are there floating point units, (Good for game benchmarks among other things) Of interest to Apple but defiantly not a priority.

It would have been nice for AMD but if you look at the facts I don’t think it could have realistically happened.