AMD chief says Apple will eventually use AMD chips

[AppleInsider]

Advanced Micro Devices chief executive Hector Ruiz said Wednesday that Apple Computer will eventually use its microprocessors alongside those from Intel.

Ruiz made the comments during a dinner speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, according to Bloomberg.

"Everybody wants choice,'' he said, adding that rival Intel Corp's practices have stifled the PC industry's growth. "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"

Adding AMD as a supplier would be simple for Apple because the company has already adapted its Mac OS X system software to work on Intel chips, which use the same instruction set as AMD, Ruiz said.

The Sunnyvale, California-based AMD is the world's second-largest chipmaker, behind only Intel.

The two chipmakers have been intertwined in a fierce battle for market share with AMD recently pushing Intel's share of the market to less than 80 percent for the first time in four years.

Apple has declined to comment on the report.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2070)

[Hobbes]

Sounds to me like pure wishing and pie-in-the-sky speculation on Ruiz's part.

If wishes were horses, etc.

[vinney57]

Not going to happen Hector.

[Navy)Soul)]

that would be of great appeal to non mac users, the introduction of amd chips would open up a whole new buisness opportunity to apple. I am doubtful of whether it will happen or not but it will be an interesting story to follow. It also makes me wonder on how intel would react to apple introducing those chips.

Sometimes though all these changes so quickly make me wonder if i shoulda waited to get my imac. I was fortunate enough to wait (because of all these rumors about new imacs coming out) to get the dropped price and new chips. I just hope we get lots of updates on the matter

[palegolas]

Of course he wants AMD processors in Apple machines. But he obviously isn't close to anything regarding this deal. If he was, he would be Steve-silent as a chopped down log. He's angry because intel beat AMD to it, and showed off a great roadmap of processors that fit Apple's roadmap like a glove. In fact, now that I think of it... perhaps the future lineup from intel is co-planned by the two CEO's of intel and Apple from the start. Now this AMD guy just wants to make some fuzz.

[hmurchison]

I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.

[hmurchison]

that would be of great appeal to non mac users, the introduction of amd chips would open up a whole new buisness opportunity to apple. I am doubtful of whether it will happen or not but it will be an interesting story to follow. It also makes me wonder on how intel would react to apple introducing those chips.

Sometimes though all these changes so quickly make me wonder if i shoulda waited to get my imac. I was fortunate enough to wait (because of all these rumors about new imacs coming out) to get the dropped price and new chips. I just hope we get lots of updates on the matter

Welcome to the boards and don't wait too long. The current iMacs are a phenomenal deal. I'm totally salivating over the 24" model. I have me very few people who dislike the iMac after using it. Speed and quietness are nice companions to the Mac OS.

[Porchland]

The headline is misleading. There's a big difference between "Apple to use AMD chips" and "Apple should use AMD chips."

[canadianmacguy]

The headline is misleading. There's a big difference between "Apple to use AMD chips" and "Apple should use AMD chips."

Very good point - I was shocked to read the headline, but the story clarified it for me.

[JeffDM]

That was a silly thing for him to do unless he didn't really care if Apple wanted to deal with them and he was interested in getting some press.

[ecking]

The headline is incredibly misleading. He's essentially saying he can imagine apple knocking on their door evebtually, not that they have.

But the thing is apple probably can never use AMD chips because they offer to few cmputer models, it'd be too confusing to consumers. They only offer 5 computer models, 1 or 2 with AMD chips just wouldn't make any sense.

[backtomac]

I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.
Agree with Murch. It's a matter of time. When the dust settles on the Intel migration and AMD have an appealing product apple will make the move. However, given Intel's strong roadmap that may be a year or two down the road.

[IVK]

AMD has some top-notch stuff; I can't wait to see what comes of their interrogated chipsets in future products. But when Apple was looking to make the switch AMD's roadmap didn't leak as bright as Intel's. Their mobile processors, server, desktop, a mobile chip in a Mac mini from AMD would have meant fans as well. Their Performance-Per-Watt was a little higher than Intel’s.

[Playmaker]

2 letters my friends B.S.

[RobM]

Never say never, folks.
There were many, many mac heads out there who NEVER could have imagined the shift away from ppc to IBM - let alone to Intel.

my 0.02c

[nascarnate326]

Oh, please no. iMac with AMD = nascarnate with x86 Intel PC.

Insead of upgrading chips every 2 months, why dont they update the machine its self. I want the G4 style iMac back! Death to the chin!

[Zandros]

But the thing is apple probably can never use AMD chips because they offer to few cmputer models, it'd be too confusing to consumers. They only offer 5 computer models, 1 or 2 with AMD chips just wouldn't make any sense.

I agree with this. Apple will probably never make people choose between different processor brands on the same computer, and won't expand their product offerings that much either. Perhaps they could use AMD in low end and Intel in the high or the reverse, but I doubt it.

Edit: 100 posts, yay! :D

[DaveGee]

Never say never, folks.
There were many, many mac heads out there who NEVER could have imagined the shift away from ppc to IBM - let alone to Intel.

my 0.02c

Fair enough (oh but one correction - IBM was *still* PPC). As for the rest, just as soon as AMD has something as powerful (in speed, power consummation AND price) Apple no doubt WILL at the very least investigate using AMD... BUT... looking into my patented 'Not too distant future crystal ball(tm)' I don't see anything even remotely exciting (as in faster OR cheaper) coming out from AMD.

On the other-hand, Apple would be crazy not to have investigated some form of agreement (even in simple terms) with AMD already.

Dave

[theapplegenius]

Hector Ruiz: APRIL FOO.....oh wait..

[Navy)Soul)]

Welcome to the boards and don't wait too long. The current iMacs are a phenomenal deal. I'm totally salivating over the 24" model. I have me very few people who dislike the iMac after using it. Speed and quietness are nice companions to the Mac OS.
well ive already purchased my 20''
* Processor 0656776 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* Graphics Memory 0656798 256MB VRAM
* Memory 0656637 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM 2x1GB
* Hard Drive 0656528 250GB Serial ATA Drive
* Optical Drive 0656529 SuperDrive 8X (DVDRDL/CDRW)
* Modem 0656633 NO MODEM
* Apple Software Solutions 0656200 None
* MAC OS Language 0656524 KYBD/MSE/MAC OS KIT
* Country Kit and BT/AP 0656523 Country Kit

i wouldnt be to sad if they did offer an amd anytime soon though

[RobM]

"Fair enough (oh but one correction - IBM was *still* PPC)"
mea culpa, dave - apologies to all. Meant to write Moto.

And you're right, imo. They would be talking to AMD - have to be, mad not to.
ATI is important to Apple and now it's been gobbled by AMD I would think that there are frequent communications - I can also imagine in some dark and uber secret Lab z they test AMD chips, prolly the same Lab where they tested Intel.

[mdriftmeyer]

Not going to happen Hector.

Of course it will happen. In fact, the OS will already be running in-house on AMD chips.

[mdriftmeyer]

Apple currently offers a specific level of Server tier. When they expand that area it is only reasonable that they will have offerings of both.

Apple is still a main member of the Hypertransport Consortium. The motherboard issues aren't difficult hurdles.

If Apple moves passed the 1U XServe and offers a 2U or 3U or a Blade configuration they will expand their vertical markets.

These areas AMD is gouging Intel. Take a look at Sun, HP, IBM. They all have AMD.

[Catman4d2]

marijuanna ladies and gentleman...

[jamezog]

In fact, now that I think of it... perhaps the future lineup from intel is co-planned by the two CEO's of intel and Apple from the start.

That's been my suspicion ever since the Mactel announcement last year.

[Gambit]

marijuanna ladies and gentleman...


Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen.*:err:




Anyway, while it is completely possible that Apple will eventually use AMD chips, this dude just*inadvertently showed his hand ..........and he's bluffing.* Any work with Apple would have been done in complete silence, as others have mentioned. This just proves there really is nothing going on.


Anyhow, didn't ATI piss Apple off more than a few times last few years?

[McHuman]

I like how he says, "Why would Apple want to be held hostage". What an idiot. It is intel who is hostage to Apple. Apple is raping them with incredibly low margins for intel. Pretty soon, AMD will be in the Apple vice. Apple comes out on top.

[jamezog]

I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.

Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.

[Navy)Soul)]

If we can think of this why not intel, it would take a little more to scare intel, I mean they do realize how much success apple has gained because of them. I dont think they are worried at all.

[Clive At Five]

He probably screwed himself over by saying such a thing.

Even if it was in SJ's head, he hates when others invite Apple into their homes (so to speak) before Apple does.

-Clive

[Tazznb]

Not going to happen Hector.

Apple was using Intel chips in a secret remote lab while you were making the same quote against about using Intel instead of PPC.

Apple is all about opportunity, too.

[wtfk]

They may or may not use AMD chips, but the did not "adapt" OS X to Intel. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the port was to PowerPC, not Intel. NeXT already ran on Intel, and when they developed OS X, they developed it for both Intel and PowerPC, but they HID the Intel side.

Additionally, of course Apple isn't being "held hostage." If they want to do business with AMD, they'll let AMD know.

[JeffDM]

Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.

I can see it, but not in the same models at the same time. Apple switched between IBM and Motorola for their PPC chips several times, depending on the product and task in question. Their server line might possibly have Opterons if there's a worthwhile advantage even if the workstations have Core X chips, or the workstations and servers would have Opteron, but the rest of the line might be Core. I think there may be a lot of factors to consider, it it may need to be a very significant advantage to the needs of the users. Intel has had a performance advantage for media work for quite some time, so machines intended for that would likely remain Core.

It seems like AMD is having a hard enough time transitioning to 65nm processes, so it's probably not any time very soon.

[melgross]

I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.

Heh! Apple could vigorously deny it, and then do it the next day. Wouldn't be a first.

But, I see no need for it. No expectation that AMD will surpass Intel anytime soon.

We seem to be back to the '90's, where AMD was always playing catch-up.

[melgross]

The headline is misleading. There's a big difference between "Apple to use AMD chips" and "Apple should use AMD chips."

More like; "AMD says; "Apple, please use our chips!"."

[Franck]

The Sunnyvale, California-based AMD is the world's second-largest chipmaker, behind only Intel.

According to what ? I thought it was IBM. :\

[melgross]

The headline is incredibly misleading. He's essentially saying he can imagine apple knocking on their door evebtually, not that they have.

But the thing is apple probably can never use AMD chips because they offer to few cmputer models, it'd be too confusing to consumers. They only offer 5 computer models, 1 or 2 with AMD chips just wouldn't make any sense.

"Hoping" that they will knock on their door, is more like it.

[rain]

Old Dutch chief says Apple will eventually have a potato chip in every mac.

[melgross]

AMD has some top-notch stuff; I can't wait to see what comes of their interrogated chipsets in future products. But when Apple was looking to make the switch AMD's roadmap didn't leak as bright as Intel's. Their mobile processors, server, desktop, a mobile chip in a Mac mini from AMD would have meant fans as well. Their Performance-Per-Watt was a little higher than Intel’s.

"Interrogated" Chip sets?

Right now, AMD is behind in every area that serves Apple's purpose.

Late 2007, or early 2008, Intel will be going to integrated memory controllers as well. Until then, AMD will have nothing to offer Apple. And when that does happen at Intel, whatever AMD does have to offer will be moved a step back again.

Show us what models have a better performance per watt. I don't know of any that match Intel's Apple offerings. Or, that of total performance.

[auxio]

The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...

So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?

It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.

Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.

I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.

[melgross]

Apple currently offers a specific level of Server tier. When they expand that area it is only reasonable that they will have offerings of both.

Apple is still a main member of the Hypertransport Consortium. The motherboard issues aren't difficult hurdles.

If Apple moves passed the 1U XServe and offers a 2U or 3U or a Blade configuration they will expand their vertical markets.

These areas AMD is gouging Intel. Take a look at Sun, HP, IBM. They all have AMD.

IF, and that is a big if, Apple ever moves to four socket, or higher, servers, it might be worth considering. But Apple has shown no inclination to do so.

By the time they do (if they ever do), it may not matter. Intel is moving to a better memory model. I think the issue will disappear about the time Apple might be ready.

[ajmas]

This is possible, since they already had mixed suppliers when they were dealing with the PowerPC. The only thing is that Apple will only do this if it is in their interest. Currently AMD doesn't seem to have anything that fills the more performance per watt category, but the day the do that and give Intel the run for their money, then you may just well see Apple knocking on the door, as long as it doesn't screw their relationship with Intel.

[auxio]

Right now, AMD is behind in every area that serves Apple's purpose.And that can change in a heartbeat -- as it has many times already. Just like the graphics chipset wars...

[melgross]

They may or may not use AMD chips, but the did not "adapt" OS X to Intel. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the port was to PowerPC, not Intel. NeXT already ran on Intel, and when they developed OS X, they developed it for both Intel and PowerPC, but they HID the Intel side.

Additionally, of course Apple isn't being "held hostage." If they want to do business with AMD, they'll let AMD know.

The port was several ways.

First it ran on 68000 machines,. Then it ran under x86, when the boxes failed to sell. Then it ran under PPC. Now it's back to x86 officially.

[melgross]

According to what ? I thought it was IBM. :\

It could be IBM, if the game chips will count, once they get the numbers.

[Navy)Soul)]

The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...

So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?

It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.

Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.

I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.
just because they take the same stance in buisness as apple doesnt mean we have to like them O.o

[melgross]

The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...

So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?

It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.

Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.

I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.

AMD's chips have been decidedly inferior until just the last few years, when Intel's missteps allowed them to pass by.

The shoe is now on the other foot, so to speak. Now it's AMD that has to prove themselves.

The only advantage they have right now is in four to eight socket systems.

That's why it's strange that Dell would choose this time to move over to such a great extent.

Perhaps AMD is now doing what they have been accusing Intel of doing?

[auxio]

AMD's chips have been decidedly inferior until just the last few years, when Intel's missteps allowed them to pass by.AMD has always been able to beat Intel on low-end chips. I've been using AMD chips in cheap PC boxes (specialized task PCs) for years.

But yes, only recently have they been able to also encroach on the high end as well.

[auxio]

Perhaps AMD is now doing what they have been accusing Intel of doing?As I've stated before, show me a well-intentioned startup and I'll show you a potential "evil empire". It's the nature of the game when big money is on the line.

[melgross]

And that can change in a heartbeat -- as it has many times already. Just like the graphics chipset wars...

No, it won't.

AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.

They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.

They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.

By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.

AMD will have a lot of work to do.

[auxio]

No, it won't.

AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.

They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.

They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.

By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.

AMD will have a lot of work to do.Kinda sounds like the Apple of the mid-90s doesn't it? ;)

Though I admit that it's going to take more than a heartbeat for AMD to catch up. Just as it's taken Apple a long time to come back from near-death.

[gregmightdothat]

Kinda sounds like the Apple of the mid-90s doesn't it? ;)
How so?

[gar]

Oh, please no. iMac with AMD = nascarnate with x86 Intel PC.

Insead of upgrading chips every 2 months, why dont they update the machine its self. I want the G4 style iMac back! Death to the chin!That's not an update, it's a downgrade and also means a price hike instead of reduction.

It's just like with people.
Take away the chin of Homo Sapiens and it degenerates to Neanderthals.

[melgross]

AMD has always been able to beat Intel on low-end chips. I've been using AMD chips in cheap PC boxes (specialized task PCs) for years.

But yes, only recently have they been able to also encroach on the high end as well.

AMD's problems were that they would design a truly good high end chip, only to have massive production problems.

When that leading edge chip came out, AMD would have to discount it to sell to the low end, as Intel had surpassed it a while back.

AMD was relegated to being a second tier supplier because of that.

So, yes, their low end chips were somewhat better, but that wasn't the plan.

[melgross]

It's just like with people.
Take away the chin of Homo Sapiens and it degenerates to Neanderthals.

I had a French teacher in high school who looked like that.:lol:

[thmst30]

I hope Apple does consider it. More competition between these two chip makers is always good for the consumer. They force each other to lower prices, and try to make the next best chip. Competition=Good;)

[wtfk]

The port was several ways.

First it ran on 68000 machines,. Then it ran under x86, when the boxes failed to sell. Then it ran under PPC. Now it's back to x86 officially.

APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.

[McDave]

..."Everybody wants choice,'' he said, adding that rival Intel Corp's practices have stifled the PC industry's growth. "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"

"Choice" & "Knowing Apple" in the same paragraph - hmmm

Hector doesn't realise that Apple products work specifically because of lack of 'choice' in their end-to-end solutions and that others fail because they sell on the perception of 'choice' and in doing so fail to produce a cohesive, workable solution (or obsess so much with the techology they never saw one to aim for in the first place).

I don't think he "Knows" Apple very well at all but we'll see.

McD

[McDave]

APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.

Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions :err:)

McD

[Joe_the_dragon]

amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.

[slughead]

I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.


IBM wouldn't move with Apple, so IBM got the boot.

It wasn't possible to get a fast PPC into a laptop formfactor, so Apple decided to get a whole new supplier.

When migrating to a new instruction set, you must move ALL your products so that way developers can develop for 1 OS build.

AMD may fit in eventually, but AMD does not use chips that Apple wants right now.

[sunilraman]

EDIT: This is in response to the article not previous posts.

Not fracking bloody likely. Core/2 is spanking AMD's ass a nice shiny bright red. Frack off. Sorry, AMD, I loved ya, but you got the whole of 2007 to strike back in 2008 with some serious 45nm 8+ core stuff. AMD is going to lose a bunch of market share in 2007 because of Core/2, and PentiumD's out the bargain basement door.

[sunilraman]

Oh, and Paul Otellini is so in Steve's pocket -- Paul's virtually giving Intel chips away to Apple. Paul's like, here, take it man, take it alll..... Frack those Euro bastards* AMD..!!!

*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI :no: :lol: :lol:

[JeffDM]

*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI :no: :lol: :lol:

I was pretty sure AMD started in the US. They do have fab(s) in Germany though.

[franksargent]

No, it won't.

AMD has already given its roadmap for the next year and a half. They have already come out with newer chips. nothing big there.

They have stated that they won't have a new design for at least a year from now. And what they have shown is nothing startling, just some performance enhancements. Their new chips are using more power then they said they would, and nothing seems to be on the horizon that will change that.

They will get a lift from going to 65 nm, as Intel did. But they aren't there yet. They just about moved to 90 nm.

By the time they are mostly on 65, Intel will will be moving to 45. They (Intel) have already moved some lines to a better memory model, and have acknowledged that they will be adopting integrated memory controllers late next year, or early 2008.

AMD will have a lot of work to do.

:smokey:

I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.

But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.

So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!

:smokey:

[Vokbain]

The idea of having AMD chips in my Mac make me sick. I don't want those nasty chips anywhere near my hardware.

[JeffDM]

The idea of having AMD chips in my Mac make me sick. I don't want those nasty chips anywhere near my hardware.

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

[slughead]

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

Some people don't read before they buy.

It's funny, people spend a few grand on a car and read everything about it before hand. For computers, it's almost an impulse buy by comparison.

[sunilraman]

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

Yeah, AMD64 Athlons and FX's and Semprons have all been good value if they're on decent motherboards like Asus, which I swear by... As far back as the Pentium 4 was introduced until recently, it was a well-known secret that AMD was a much, much better choice for Desktops compared to the rubbish that is/was Pentium 4.

In the mobile space though the Pentium M has been a solid choice for a few years now, and now going into Centrino Duo, AMD has not come up with really competitive options.

[sunilraman]

Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.

[melgross]

APPLE (not NeXT) ported it to PPC. Before that it was Intel. Both NeXT and Apple had done a lot of porting before that, but OS X came from Intel and never left it. They just didn't TELL US they've been maintaining the Intel version.

Yes, I know that Apple did that. I didn't spec the entity, I just gave the history of the ports in sequence for the official versions.

[melgross]

Don't rise to it Mel! - wtfk did say "OS X" not NeXTstep. Though the latter was definitely 680x0 first - '030s if I recall (unless they hid special 286/386 versions :err:)

McD

Heh. What we don't know, we don't, well, you know.

[melgross]

amd has Hyper Transport and amd 4x4 will kill the mac pro on price FBDIMMS are way to high next to non ecc ddr.

Not impressive.

FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.

4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.

The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.

When Intel moves to that: Game over.

[melgross]

:smokey:

I do think the AMD/ATI merger will be interesting though, since the FPU performnance of GPU's (in general) is supposed to be significantly better the FPU performance of any AMD/Intel CPU (see tomshardwre.com for a recent article). Given that AMD has had IM controllers for several years now, they have siginificant IP that Intel doesn't have at this time, that may change, however. Also, HT2 should be on coming on line sometime in the not too distant future. AMD does need to close the gap at 65nm, 45nm, etcetera.

But just think where Intel would be now without competition from AMD, no 64-bit chips, no multi-core chips, no IM controllers, no HT, etcetera.

So I wouldn't be too quick to write off AMD just yet, if you do (and it does happen), will Intel be forced to innovate as they've done recently? History suggests Intel won't!

:smokey:

It's always good to have a competitor nipping at your heels. Ask MS.

I would never want to do away with AMD. In fact, if they could somehow come out with new designs that beat the pants off Intel, more power to them. I just don't see it happening from current roadmaps.

[melgross]

I think whatever bad experience you had with AMD was probably not AMD's fault. In the past, compatible chipsets were made by rubbish companies, and the situation has improved since then.

AMD had some pretty bad chips out there for years. They weren't shunned simply Intel didn't want anyone using them.

[melgross]

Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.

Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable.

So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.

I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers.

That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.

[shanmugam]

Not impressive.

FB-DIMMS will drop in price once they are more broadly utilized, as all memory has done. Even the extra cost from the heatsinks Apple uses will decline.

4x4 doesn't look to be a big deal. And Apple used Hyper Transport before. We thought it was a big deal, but the new machines have far more memory bandwidth.

The only partial advantage AMD has, is the integrated memory controller, but independant tests of AMD vs. Intel systems has Intel crushing them on almost every test.

When Intel moves to that: Game over.

is it not bad that one company innovates like

Dual Core machines
Integrated memory controlloer
Power/heat oriented concepts

and then the other company follows (steals?) and take the credit becoz then can beat this guy with price and marketing????

i feel for AMD :(

CPU (PC) world will be better with AMD and INTEL fighting for each quarter (n penny) for sales ...

[franksargent]

Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.

:smokey:

Agreed! I'm SERIOUSLY looking into a DIY using either the 6600 Conroe, or a Xeon for HD x264/VC-1/DivX encoding. However MB's for the Xeon are rather expensive, plus the added cost of an additional CPU, but benchmarks I've seen show encoding times (for 4 cores) cut in half versus a 2 core setup. Sweet!

That 6600 is priced very nicely, ~$240 for a kickass Asus MB, and has WAY OC potential! Somewhere in the $1,200 price range would provide the most bang for the buck!

:smokey:

[melgross]

Here's another of my famous links:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518

By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing.

They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.

[sunilraman]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518
By the way, just because it's the Inquirer, doesn't mean that one can dismiss their findings. They are really good at this type of thing

0. Overall, it's very consistent with AnandTech and TomsHardware. Also, good that it's not like AT and TH which love to do their 20-page articles.

1. Keep in mind overclocking headroom which AT and TH and some others have shown to be higher in the Conroe lineage, as opposed to the FX lineage. When overclocked heavily though, the Conroe's power consumption goes up accordingly and sucks juice like the overclocked FX albeit slightly less.

2. A warning to note is that the FPS differences are very high because it pushes towards CPU-limited scenarios. AMD fanboys have shown less differences in more "mainstream" GPU scenarios.


They just have that British schoolboy sense of humor, which rubs most of us the wrong way.

PPFT. English schoolboys are brats, plain and simple. And they don't grow up until their 40+. I'm just biased about the Brits. But I need to make a journey to the MotherLand one day. God save da Queen yo.

[sunilraman]

Yup. The Core, and Core 2 series of chips are wildly clockable. So clockable that many are wondering why Intel isn't running them at higher rates as standard.

Simple. Think about our new buzzwords for this year: Performance-per-watt. And performance-per-watt-per-dollar.

Intel has 'spec-ed the Yonah, Merom, Conroe, Allendale, Woodcrest all within specified thermal envelopes. They've settled on working to CPU multipliers off the base 266mhz bus speed -- so they've got these bunch of CPUs with their clock speed specified for their performance-per-watt-dominating quality.

It happens, we are lucky that in the Core2 Conroe/Allendale the headroom at 65nm and the general nature of the CPU is huge overclockability. The thing is that Intel can't clock the existing lineup higher as it is because once you increase the CPU frequency, clearly, the power consumption goes up.

I can only think that Intel will release them in higher clocked versions by the end of the year, when AMD has their newer kit out in fair numbers. That would damp AMD's introductions of their 65nm versions.

Higher clocked versions, or more powerful in benchmarks, at same or lower thermal envelopes. It's the performance-per-watt game...

[melgross]

Simple. Think about our new buzzwords for this year: Performance-per-watt. And performance-per-watt-per-dollar.

Intel has 'spec-ed the Yonah, Merom, Conroe, Allendale, Woodcrest all within specified thermal envelopes. They've settled on working to CPU multipliers off the base 266mhz bus speed -- so they've got these bunch of CPUs with their clock speed specified for their performance-per-watt-dominating quality.

It happens, we are lucky that in the Core2 Conroe/Allendale the headroom at 65nm and the general nature of the CPU is huge overclockability. The thing is that Intel can't clock the existing lineup higher as it is because once you increase the CPU frequency, clearly, the power consumption goes up.



Higher clocked versions, or more powerful in benchmarks, at same or lower thermal envelopes. It's the performance-per-watt game...

The power goes up rapidly on all chips when the freq. is raised. The voltage has to be raised, and the current rises faster. Can't help that.

But, watch, Intel will raise the clock when AMD comes out with their 65nm versions near the end of the year.

[fuyutsuki]

PPFT. English schoolboys are brats, plain and simple. And they don't grow up until their 40+. I'm just biased about the Brits. But I need to make a journey to the MotherLand one day. God save da Queen yo.

Well, being over here myself I reckon you're just about right. ;)

If you do make the trip someday, expect to pay twice as much for everything (because we're all dolts and just do without complaint) and keep the Ali G impression for the most absurd possible moment. That stuff gets a lot of laughs around here, what with the high population of grown up schoolboys. :lol:

[fuyutsuki]

Just to throw in a bit of the PC Gamer perspective (I know, they're a small market segment) they're all wetting themselves looking to get Intel Conroes on solid overclockable, stable motherboards. PC Gamers are definitely in strong transition now from AMD to Intel. Only the die hard AMD fanboys are holding fast to the AMD FX's.

Good point. Something I've always wondered is which is larger: the pc gamer segment or the Mac market?

Gamers by and large spend a lot on software (games) and hardware (mobos, cpus and gpus) to keep their gamer karma in good stead.

Mac users tend to spend a fair bit on software (Mac apps sell quite strongly compared to their Windows equivalents as many Mac devs know) and hardware (all ourcredit card are belong to Apple, plus the odd penny for Crucial etc.) to ... maintain our Mac karma and more to the point get our work done too!

Both are minorities, for sure. But both are well catered for because hardware conscious gamers and the sort of alpha Mac users like us who attend such sites as these, simply spend more per head than the average consumers out there and actually take an interest in our machines.

My conclusion is that both segments are piling into Intel now. The former from AMD and the Athlon 64, the latter from PPC. Intel deserves some cred for offering the best option for both groups simultaneously. (Super clocking for gamers and sweet, sweet silence for us on the Mac.) I'm sure Otellini is lying back behind his super villian spread of Cinema Displays stroking a cat and plotting with a grin on his face. :lol:

I wish all the best for AMD in the long term. As their competition with Intel is what has led the x86 platform far beyond IBM and Moto's lacklustre stewardship of PPC, which in theory should have been the leader given good care. Competition is what will carry our Macs along with the rest of the industry forward. So don't write AMD off. At least, I guess, until the present roadmaps have panned out and Intel hits some snag with its currently amazing architecture... AMD have the power to design great chips from the ground up. They really need to do that again now to handle the Core family going into the future.

PS: Apple would have some rebranding to do re: AMD chips. In the murky future, they're going to have to stop calling x86 "Intel" all the damn time. Unless AMD pull out a trademark and we all decide it's become generic. If Creative invented the iPod, I can't see the problem with this. ;)

[sunilraman]

The power goes up rapidly on all chips when the freq. is raised. The voltage has to be raised, and the current rises faster. Can't help that.

But, watch, Intel will raise the clock when AMD comes out with their 65nm versions near the end of the year.

Yup, exactly. It seems that they had specific performance targets within thermal envelope targets. It happens that there's all these enormous headroom if you're not obsessed about power draw, and decibels.

Agreed, when AMD brings out their 65nm stuff Intel will have higher clocked but within low-thermal envelope gear. I can't imagine clock speeds going DOWN from this point onwards, I really think the next stage (Core 3 say) will be 3ghz and upwards. But maybe I'm still locked into the MHZ race. Especially due to influence from visiting all those overclocking websites.

[sunilraman]

Good point. Something I've always wondered is which is larger: the pc gamer segment or the Mac market?

Heh 8) Very interesting. I think the PC gamer market is somewhat bigger, say 6-8% out of our Macintosh's 4.x %.

...My conclusion is that both segments [Gamers and Mac] are piling into Intel now. The former from AMD and the Athlon 64, the latter from PPC. Intel deserves some cred for offering the best option for both groups simultaneously. (Super clocking for gamers and sweet, sweet silence for us on the Mac.) I'm sure Otellini is lying back behind his super villian spread of Cinema Displays stroking a cat and plotting with a grin on his face. :lol:

Heh... great imagery re: super villain spread of CinemaDisplays :lol: ... Like the super bad guy in Inspector Gadget... with the cat. Muahha hahhaha h a.

I wish all the best for AMD in the long term. As their competition with Intel is what has led the x86 platform far beyond IBM and Moto's lacklustre stewardship of PPC, which in theory should have been the leader given good care. Competition is what will carry our Macs along with the rest of the industry forward. So don't write AMD off. At least, I guess, until the present roadmaps have panned out and Intel hits some snag with its currently amazing architecture... AMD have the power to design great chips from the ground up. They really need to do that again now to handle the Core family going into the future.

Despite my burning desire to get a Conroe and overclock the f*k out of it, I still acknowledge and admire what AMD has done up to this point. Certainly they're on the back foot for a year or more going forward, but is that not when sometimes come-from-behind-victories happen? Heh.

The key to Intel's success in regaining the CPU crown is going down to 65nm and 45nm. That gave them the jump on everyone. "Hitting the wall at 90nm" was a pretty catastrophic scenario in CPU-land. IBM/Moto couldn't hack it, AMD managed to, and still do, produce some nice stuff at 90nm with decent clocks and thermal envelopes in their current range.

It was clear for a few years IBM/Freescale would not be able to pull 65nm in any reasonable amount of time to save Apple.

Aside from the Core Microarchitecture and other chip designer-y stuff, is it not that they said that the way to keep Moore's Law going is to go down to 65nm and onwards to 45nm.

Beyond 45nm, I wonder what's on the horizon. And WTF happened to the promise of optical computing? Shuffling photons around could be much cooler (literally and figuratively).

[Side Geek Note] Apparently in Star Trek: Next Gen somewhere in there they talk about the computers, where imagine instead of electrons flying about you have photons or subatomic particles or something moving about, not only in real space (not fast enough), it moves in "subspace" (standard term for anything faster-than-light in the Star Trek universe).

[JeffDM]

AMD had some pretty bad chips out there for years. They weren't shunned simply Intel didn't want anyone using them.

I'm not sure what you mean. Some of the older Athlons ran pretty hot, but my understanding is that that was nothing in comparison to Prescot & Nocona. K6II and K6III were pokey but they weren't unreliable. I even had a 386 AMDs that worked fine. All the problems I had with AMDs were when they were mated to boards with VIA or SIS chipsets. Granted, I haven't owned many AMDs, since '98 I've been mostly using second hand or refurbished workstations, be they Alpha, Xeon or PMG5.

[Zandros]

IF, and that is a big if, Apple ever moves to four socket, or higher, servers, it might be worth considering. But Apple has shown no inclination to do so.


Didn't Tulsa beat those 8xx Opterons pretty good? Granted, most of it seems to be thanks to the 64 MB cache on the IBM chipset but still. What could these chips do with HT and the integrated memory controller... Netburst must have been severly handicapped by latencies and bandwidth.

[sunilraman]

Well, being over here myself I reckon you're just about right. ;)

If you do make the trip someday, expect to pay twice as much for everything (because we're all dolts and just do without complaint) and keep the Ali G impression for the most absurd possible moment. That stuff gets a lot of laughs around here, what with the high population of grown up schoolboys. :lol:

Heh. I'll keep it in mind for when I eventually if ever, make the trip to the UK. 8)

[wtfk]

Heh. What we don't know, we don't, well, you know.

I was aware of every bit of it. Inaccurate statements are the source of many truly false claims.

[auxio]

How so?Let's recap...

When Windows 95 came out, it was miles ahead of Mac OS (System 7.1 at the time). Protected memory and cooperative multitasking [edit: should be preemptive multitasking] to name a couple important features lacking in Mac OS at the time. I won't try to argue about which one was more stable (that's like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges -- they both make you sick).

Over on the hardware side, PCs were offering much more for much less than the price of a Mac. Hence the reason why Apple toyed with the idea of "clones" briefly (since it had worked so well on the IBM PC side).

Apple didn't have anything in the pipeline (at the time) which would bring them back on par with the Wintel world (very much like the position AMD is in now). If it weren't for the deep coffers built up in the 80s, they'd have been dead in the water.

Of course, we all know how the next chapter of the story has turned out for Apple, which is why I'd never count out AMD.

[Chucker]

Let's recap...

When Windows 95 came out, it was miles ahead of Mac OS (System 7.1 at the time).

Windows 95 came out in late 1995; System 7.5 came out in late 1994.

Protected memory and cooperative multitasking to name a couple important features lacking in Mac OS at the time.

You mean preemptive multitasking. Mac OS had cooperative multitasking.

This is somewhat true, but the implementation in Windows wasn't exactly too great, and Microsoft wanted to move to NT to make it better. They failed multiple times. It wasn't until XP that they succeeded to merge the consumer and NT lines.

Over on the hardware side, PCs were offering much more for much less than the price of a Mac.

That's a pointless assertion. You can't prove it either way.

[gregmightdothat]

Let's recap...

When Windows 95 came out, it was miles ahead of Mac OS (System 7.1 at the time). Protected memory and cooperative multitasking to name a couple important features lacking in Mac OS at the time. I won't try to argue about which one was more stable (that's like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges -- they both make you sick).

Over on the hardware side, PCs were offering much more for much less than the price of a Mac. Hence the reason why Apple toyed with the idea of "clones" briefly (since it had worked so well on the IBM PC side).

Apple didn't have anything in the pipeline (at the time) which would bring them back on par with the Wintel world (very much like the position AMD is in now). If it weren't for the deep coffers built up in the 80s, they'd have been dead in the water.

Of course, we all know how the next chapter of the story has turned out for Apple, which is why I'd never count out AMD.
Oh ok, I had no idea where you were going with that analogy at first :P

[auxio]

Oh, and Paul Otellini is so in Steve's pocket -- Paul's virtually giving Intel chips away to Apple. Paul's like, here, take it man, take it alll..... Frack those Euro bastards* AMD..!!!

*AMD is European right? Or worse, now, European-Canadian with AMD-ATI :no: :lol: :lol:And Otellini is such an American sounding last name. Comes to mind right beside Smith and Jones... :rolleyes:

And I can't remember where Intel CPUs are fabbed again... could you check yours for me? :lol:

[auxio]

Windows 95 came out in late 1995; System 7.5 came out in late 1994.I guess the timeline on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS) is wrong then... maybe you should submit a correction to the article. I wasn't using a Mac at the time, so I don't know the exact dates. Regardless, Mac OS was still a historical footnote in any operating systems textbook at the time.

You mean preemptive multitasking. Mac OS had cooperative multitasking.Right, sorry, you got me. That's what happens when I skim through a Wikipedia article and post too fast....

This is somewhat true, but the implementation in Windows wasn't exactly too great, and Microsoft wanted to move to NT to make it better. They failed multiple times. It wasn't until XP that they succeeded to merge the consumer and NT lines.Sure. But at least it was there and working to some extent (ie. running more than one major app at a time wasn't quite as much of a gamble on the PC side).

That's a pointless assertion. You can't prove it either way.I remember shopping for a computer at the time and I found that Macs were at least $1000 more than an equivalent PC. Sure you can't directly compare the Motorola CPUs to the Intel CPUs (the slippery argument Apple fanboys love to use), but you also can't argue that the PC I got for $1000 cheaper would do everything I needed to do at the time as well as the Mac. Sure it wouldn't play Marathon, but it did play Leisure Suit Larry pretty well. :lol:

[JeffDM]

re: preemptive vs cooperative multitasking:
Sure. But at least it was there and working to some extent.

I think Windows 95 worked better in this regard, but I still switched to NT before too long.

I remember going to a Mac user's home around that time. When the computer was dialing in to the Internet, he told me not to click anywhere else or else the dialing might fail. That didn't leave a good impression on me.

[auxio]

I think Windows 95 worked better in this regard, but I still switched to NT before too long.Sure, but how many games could you play under NT at the time? ;)

If you want to move out of the realm of consumer OSes, then Linux also had a very good preemptive multitasking implementation at the time. As did many other UNIX-based OSes (NT was based on the Mach microkernel, which had been used in flavors of BSD UNIX since the late 80s).

I remember going to a Mac user's home around that time. When the computer was dialing in to the Internet, he told me not to click anywhere else or else the dialing might fail. That didn't leave a good impression on me.I helped my wife (girlfriend at the time) set up her Mac around 1997. After experiencing a lot of crashes, we finally learned that running too many programs at once was simply a no-no, and that you had to actually set the maximum amount of memory large applications could use (either that or buy ludicrous amounts of RAM). And remember to "rebuild your desktop" every so often -- oh, and if all else fails, try "zapping the PRAM". :lol:

[Chucker]

I guess the timeline on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS) is wrong then... maybe you should submit a correction to the article. I wasn't using a Mac at the time, so I don't know the exact dates. Regardless, Mac OS was still a historical footnote in any operating systems textbook at the time.

The System 7 version history section on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7_(Macintosh)#Version_History) says that 7.1.2P was released in July 1994, and 7.5.1 in March 1995. That puts 7.5 somewhere in between; IIRC, it was released in late '94, but maybe it slipped until January or something. For whatever reason, Wikipedia does not give a date, or even a month, for it.

Wikipedia's Windows 95 page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95) gives August 24, 1995, which sounds right to me. That definitely puts it after 7.5.

Sure. But at least it was there and working to some extent (ie. running more than one major app at a time wasn't quite as much of a gamble on the PC side).

Yes, that's true, but in my experience, BSoDs were a much larger problem on the Windows side than system crashes were on the Mac side.

YMMV, of course.

Neither OS's foundation was particularly future-proof. Neither company was happy with the architecture. Apple tampered with A/UX, NuKernel, Copland, Pink and other projects at the time, and Microsoft with NT, and Apple even briefly considered moving to NT as well.

I remember shopping for a computer at the time and I found that Macs were at least $1000 more than an equivalent PC.

What does "equivalent" even mean?

Sure you can't directly compare the Motorola CPUs to the Intel CPUs (the slippery argument Apple fanboys love to use), but you also can't argue that the PC I got for $1000 cheaper would do everything I needed to do at the time as well as the Mac. Sure it wouldn't play Marathon, but it did play Leisure Suit Larry pretty well. :lol:

But a $100 computer can also "do everything you needed to do at the time". The difference is whether it's comfortable to work with.

[JeffDM]

Sure, but how many games could you play under NT at the time? ;)

If you want to move out of the realm of consumer OSes, then Linux also had a very good preemptive multitasking implementation at the time. As did many other UNIX-based OSes (NT was based on the Mach microkernel, which had been used in flavors of BSD UNIX since the late 80s).

Some games worked, some didn't. It really wasn't a concern. It helped me cut back on the time wasted playing games, and the money spent constantly upgrading to play them. I think the much-improved stability and reliability gained was more than worth the trade-off. The difference compared to the UNIX varients was that I could run all of my productivity software. Most of the standard programs didn't have an adequate counterpart on Linux/BSD/etc., and I really didn't think they were very good desktop OS. Other than games, NT made a fine desktop OS at the time, even if it was more of a server/workstation OS.

[fuyutsuki]

Apple didn't have anything in the pipeline (at the time) which would bring them back on par with the Wintel world (very much like the position AMD is in now). If it weren't for the deep coffers built up in the 80s, they'd have been dead in the water.

Of course, we all know how the next chapter of the story has turned out for Apple, which is why I'd never count out AMD.

Nicely put. Back in the period in question I was an AMD fanboy through and through and that kind of tale certaingly pulls the heartstrings. The TEXAN chip maker (they're as German as Apple are Taiwanese) then finally pulled a tour de force with the Athlon at the end of the 90's and I still have my original one of those which I busted a good iMac's worth on alone at the time! So yes, Apple, AMD, and in fact every company worth its salt are good things for the competition they drive and the increase in the number of labs and engineers who craft tomorrow's finest mouthwatering new kit. That said, I'm still totally geared up for an Intel Mac once the financial gods remember me! :lol:

Motorola G4 all the way until then. It's not that bad really. :no:

[auxio]

The System 7 version history section on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7_(Macintosh)#Version_History) says that 7.1.2P was released in July 1994, and 7.5.1 in March 1995. That puts 7.5 somewhere in between; IIRC, it was released in late '94, but maybe it slipped until January or something. For whatever reason, Wikipedia does not give a date, or even a month, for it.

Wikipedia's Windows 95 page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95) gives August 24, 1995, which sounds right to me. That definitely puts it after 7.5.And 7.5 somehow made Mac OS leap ahead into the current state of OS technology? That's what my real argument was. Mac OS was 1980's technology until Mac OS X came out. Windows 95 was still head and shoulders better in many ways, even if it was still pretty bad.


Yes, that's true, but in my experience, BSoDs were a much larger problem on the Windows side than system crashes were on the Mac side.I can't remember how many times I saw the bomb/unhappy Mac on my wife's old Mac. It certainly felt like a lot more than I ever saw the BSoD when using Windows 95.

Neither OS's foundation was particularly future-proof. Neither company was happy with the architecture. Apple tampered with A/UX, NuKernel, Copland, Pink and other projects at the time, and Microsoft with NT, and Apple even briefly considered moving to NT as well.At least NT was a reality -- and there were plans in the pipeline to combine it with 95 (which essentially happened with Windows 2000 -- which I used happily for a few years before XP finally came out). Apple had nothing but vaporware in it's pipeline at the time.

But a $100 computer can also "do everything you needed to do at the time". The difference is whether it's comfortable to work with.It worked fine for me when I was using Linux on it to learn software development at the time. I'd flip over to Win 95 to edit reports and such with MS Word and play a couple of games.

You can't argue that Macs were any easier to deal with. Maybe the GUI was a bit simpler to get the hang of, but you still had extension conflicts, rebuilding the desktop, zapping the PRAM, and other Applisms that users had to deal with (but had no idea what they were doing).

Perhaps some of the components were better than PCs (like the audio system and the Apple monitors), but I didn't need that at the time. I needed a computer to learn software development, telnet into my computer labs, email, and write a couple of reports in Word with. The PC I bought happily filled those needs and I learned to use it pretty well. I learned all the quirks of Windows 95 and Linux rather than paying $1000 more and learning all of the quirks of Mac OS.

[Splinemodel]

I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.

Except that Intel does a lot more research, has more advanced technology, and a more elegant roadmap.

[Chucker]

And 7.5 somehow made Mac OS leap ahead into the current state of OS technology? That's what my real argument was. Mac OS was 1980's technology until Mac OS X came out. Windows 95 was still head and shoulders better in many ways, even if it was still pretty bad.

Windows 95 was way behind Mac OS in other areas, so what are you getting at?

I can't remember how many times I saw the bomb/unhappy Mac on my wife's old Mac. It certainly felt like a lot more than I ever saw the BSoD when using Windows 95.

That's too bad. I have a complete opposite experience.

At least NT was a reality -- and there were plans in the pipeline to combine it with 95 (which essentially happened with Windows 2000 -- which I used happily for a few years before XP finally came out). Apple had nothing but vaporware in it's pipeline at the time.

No, it didn't happen untIl XP. 2000 was not a consumer OS. You can whine all you want about how you could use it at home, but it was never meant that way.

Perhaps some of the components were better than PCs (like the audio system and the Apple monitors), but I didn't need that at the time.

You're twisting reality. Example? At the time, it wasn't unusual for a PC not to have a sound chip at all; you had to have a sound card on PCI. Built-in audio wasn't usual until a few years later.

It also wasn't until Windows 98 that it supported multiple monitors, and only so in a very buggy manner.

I needed a computer to learn software development, telnet into my computer labs, email, and write a couple of reports in Word with. The PC I bought happily filled those needs and I learned to use it pretty well. I learned all the quirks of Windows 95 and Linux rather than paying $1000 more and learning all of the quirks of Mac OS.

Yeah, yeah.

[Zandros]

Except that Intel does a lot more research, has more advanced technology, and a more elegant roadmap.

True. I'm rather concerned if AMD can afford to follow Intel to 32nm, and Intel still has the NUMA, CSI and IMC cards to pull out if they can't do anything else. Though sometimes Intel just seems to go ahead on raw power, as in the case of Kentsfield and Clovertown. I can't see anything elegant with those implementations of a four way core.

I still wonder how effective NetBurst could have been if one had eliminated the latencies and bandwidth obstructions. I'm still amazed how Intel could increase the pipeline length of the Northwood with circa 50% and still retain the same performance at the same clock speeds. Those engineers are good.

[SpamSandwich]

Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.

Meh... it's still good press (rumor-mongering) for Apple fiends.

[melgross]

Yup, exactly. It seems that they had specific performance targets within thermal envelope targets. It happens that there's all these enormous headroom if you're not obsessed about power draw, and decibels.

Agreed, when AMD brings out their 65nm stuff Intel will have higher clocked but within low-thermal envelope gear. I can't imagine clock speeds going DOWN from this point onwards, I really think the next stage (Core 3 say) will be 3ghz and upwards. But maybe I'm still locked into the MHZ race. Especially due to influence from visiting all those overclocking websites.

The MHz, now GHz race, is quite valid, as long as one is comparing oranges to oranges.

AMD K8 designs have better performance with higher clocked chips. So do Core 2 chips.

But one speed on a K8 doesn't compare directly to the same speed on a Core 2.

AMD used to name its chips on the clock rate that the performance would be if it were an Intel chip.

Of course, with the new chips, that doesn't work anymore. There are too many complexities in the new designs.

[talksense101]

It will be good to use AMD's next generation chipsets in the Mac. Hypertransport access to secondary devices including a co-processor will greatly boost processing power for specific tasks. If Apple were to put in a special processor/board for improving the performance of their multimedia/whatever by a large magnitude, it would benefit everyone. Intel is trying to come up with a similar offering, but AMD is ahead in this game.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2768

[sunilraman]

The MHz, now GHz race, is quite valid, as long as one is comparing oranges to oranges.

AMD K8 designs have better performance with higher clocked chips. So do Core 2 chips.

But one speed on a K8 doesn't compare directly to the same speed on a Core 2.

AMD used to name its chips on the clock rate that the performance would be if it were an Intel chip.

Of course, with the new chips, that doesn't work anymore. There are too many complexities in the new designs.

Fair enough. But personally I want to see a 45nm 5ghz 50W TDP Core-based Quadcore Intel by end of 2007. :D :D :D

[sunilraman]

It will be good to use AMD's next generation chipsets in the Mac. .. Intel is trying to come up with a similar offering, but AMD is ahead in this game.

Sorry, but where have you been this past year? Intel's Core and Core2 on mobile and desktop platforms now clealry edge out AMD. :err:

Intel's "similar offering" is here, the Core MicroArchitecture and other goodies now starting to be realised on Core2 and going forward...

AMD's next-generation 65nm stuff will compete with Intel's next-generation 45nm stuff in a year's time and going forward.

[melgross]

The key to Intel's success in regaining the CPU crown is going down to 65nm and 45nm. That gave them the jump on everyone. "Hitting the wall at 90nm" was a pretty catastrophic scenario in CPU-land. IBM/Moto couldn't hack it, AMD managed to, and still do, produce some nice stuff at 90nm with decent clocks and thermal envelopes in their current range.

None of them "hacked" it. AMD least of all. AMD was so far behind everyone else in moving to 90nm ( they just finished a little while ago), that they were able to take advantage of the solutions that both IBM and Intel had found.

AMD's thermal's are pretty bad right now. up to 125 watts. Right there with the old Intel chips, and well above any of the new Core and Core 2 designs.


It was clear for a few years IBM/Freescale would not be able to pull 65nm in any reasonable amount of time to save Apple.

Both companies could have, if they wanted to. But neither did.


Aside from the Core Microarchitecture and other chip designer-y stuff, is it not that they said that the way to keep Moore's Law going is to go down to 65nm and onwards to 45nm.

Beyond 45nm, I wonder what's on the horizon. And WTF happened to the promise of optical computing? Shuffling photons around could be much cooler (literally and figuratively).


Now we're getting into some VERY interesting stuff.

Each time they more to a smaller die shrink, they are going to encounter even greater thermal problems. It's a matter of physics. Intel is working on vertical transistors, as a way of getting the same (or fairly close to) number of atoms into the gates. This is a tough road to travel. Other technologies are being worked on.

45nm will be attainable. But, after that it's a crapshoot. The best figuring at this time is that the smallest they can go with current thinking is somewhere between 32 and 20 nm. That's even with better materials and designs.

They used to think it was about 15 to 10 nm. but those thermal problems hadn't been considered. It was thought that the difficulty would be confined to being able to make masks at that size, and that would be the smallest they could go, even with the theoretical x-ray beam equipment that they had no idea how to produce.

But, now they know otherwise.

The leakage, and other problems which are even more daunting, increase geometrically, as the square (height x width) of the lines matter more than the width alone at these sizes.

There have been some major breakthroughs in optical computing. Just recently, a chip was produced in the lab that contains hundreds of lasers. this has been done before, but this is the first time it has been done on silicon. The holy grail.

But, it will take some time before this can be used for actual computing purposes, and it is mostly useful for transmitting information between chips than in doing actual computations.

for example, it will decrease the cost of bringing optical fiber the last mile, and the last hundred feet.

It will also be instrumental in allowing supercomputers to increase their performance, and in having an extermely high speed link between them.

Shades of the Forbin Project with Colossus.


[Side Geek Note] Apparently in Star Trek: Next Gen somewhere in there they talk about the computers, where imagine instead of electrons flying about you have photons or subatomic particles or something moving about, not only in real space (not fast enough), it moves in "subspace" (standard term for anything faster-than-light in the Star Trek universe).

Star Trek was cute? Wasn't it?

[melgross]

Didn't Tulsa beat those 8xx Opterons pretty good? Granted, most of it seems to be thanks to the 64 MB cache on the IBM chipset but still. What could these chips do with HT and the integrated memory controller... Netburst must have been severly handicapped by latencies and bandwidth.

According to more recent tests, as far as the two core models are concerned, when one goes to 4 and 8 sockets, memory bandwidth becomes much more important.

[melgross]

I guess the timeline on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS) is wrong then... maybe you should submit a correction to the article. I wasn't using a Mac at the time, so I don't know the exact dates. Regardless, Mac OS was still a historical footnote in any operating systems textbook at the time.

Right, sorry, you got me. That's what happens when I skim through a Wikipedia article and post too fast....

Sure. But at least it was there and working to some extent (ie. running more than one major app at a time wasn't quite as much of a gamble on the PC side).

I remember shopping for a computer at the time and I found that Macs were at least $1000 more than an equivalent PC. Sure you can't directly compare the Motorola CPUs to the Intel CPUs (the slippery argument Apple fanboys love to use), but you also can't argue that the PC I got for $1000 cheaper would do everything I needed to do at the time as well as the Mac. Sure it wouldn't play Marathon, but it did play Leisure Suit Larry pretty well. :lol:

Windows 95 had a theoretical advantage over the Mac OS at the time, but did Wiki bother to tell you that it didn't have much practical advantage?

It crashed at least as much. If you ran a 16 bit program along with a "protected" 32 bit one, neither was protected.

By continuing the ISA bus inside the machines, the "Plug N Play" didn't work. Neither did USB. It was based on DOS, even though MS, at the time, denied it.

There ware so many problems that it's hardly worth mentioning all of them. By the time Apple came out with System 9, both 95, and 98, were outdated, and a total mess.

Then MS came out with "me".

Oh, the tales we can tell...

[melgross]

True. I'm rather concerned if AMD can afford to follow Intel to 32nm, and Intel still has the NUMA, CSI and IMC cards to pull out if they can't do anything else. Though sometimes Intel just seems to go ahead on raw power, as in the case of Kentsfield and Clovertown. I can't see anything elegant with those implementations of a four way core.

I still wonder how effective NetBurst could have been if one had eliminated the latencies and bandwidth obstructions. I'm still amazed how Intel could increase the pipeline length of the Northwood with circa 50% and still retain the same performance at the same clock speeds. Those engineers are good.

Those two chips are simply an intermediary between the current two chip designs and new ones with built-in memory controllers.

They aren't as bad as all that either. The cache on Intel chips is not only larger, but is more spohisticated. Each core can get the entire cache of each of the two cores if needed, and can share otherwise. AMD can't do that. Also each of the two cores on a die can go to memory seperately. That mitigates some of the advantage of the on die controller.

[melgross]

It will be good to use AMD's next generation chipsets in the Mac. Hypertransport access to secondary devices including a co-processor will greatly boost processing power for specific tasks. If Apple were to put in a special processor/board for improving the performance of their multimedia/whatever by a large magnitude, it would benefit everyone. Intel is trying to come up with a similar offering, but AMD is ahead in this game.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2768

There is nothing impressive here.

By AMD's own timeline, they are at least 18 months to two years behind Intel on moving over to 65 nm completely, which Intel had already managed. They haven't started yet. Intel will be moving to 45 around the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2008, so AMD will be two years behind that as well.

The K8L has already proven to be a disappointment to everyone, as the tests on systems have shown. About 0 to 5% improvement over the current K8 line doesn't give them much to brag about. With high end K8L designs using 125 watts, they are well behind there as well.

As far as some of the other technologies go, they have to catch up in cache technology. At best, what they have shown will come close.

The fact that they are still going to use 3 athrimetic units, where Intel now uses 4, will continue to dog them for quite a while. Going to 4 will just consume more power.

Intel will be moving to on die memory controllers with 45 nm.

I could go on, but it would be pointless.

[melgross]

Fair enough. But personally I want to see a 45nm 5ghz 50W TDP Core-based Quadcore Intel by end of 2007. :D :D :D

As do we all.

[Zandros]

They aren't as bad as all that either. The cache on Intel chips is not only larger, but is more spohisticated. Each core can get the entire cache of each of the two cores if needed, and can share otherwise. AMD can't do that.

I know, but i feel that if someone wants to solve a problem, the answer would be "throw more cache at it", as opposed to the previous "throw some more clock cycles at it". Same case with the four way chip, "throw more cores at it". That's what I mean with not very elegant. It's a very easy thing to do, and the same reason I'm impressed how Intel's engineers handled the Prescott.

Also each of the two cores on a die can go to memory seperately. That mitigates some of the advantage of the on die controller.

They can? I thought only Xeon chips supported dual FSBs. The problem is that they still have to go through the MCH which, as far as I know, will be a bottle neck.

Are we really sure on each process shrink drawing more power? Intel always insist on almost doubling the transistor count with each shrink, so I think that plays a large part. If you just keep the same chip, you would most likely reach a lower thermal envelope and reach higher clock speeds as a result. Transistor leakage is a problem that increases with each shrink though, but how much of an effect has it?

[sunilraman]

...Transistor leakage is a problem that increases with each shrink though, but how much of an effect has it?

I think it is a major technical challenge in going to 45nm and 32nm or lower. AFAIK.
STUPID ELECTRONS!!! :lol: We need to find another subatomic particle to use in CPUs.

[mzaslove]

I think it is a major technical challenge in going to 45nm and 32nm or lower. AFAIK.
STUPID ELECTRONS!!! :lol: We need to find another subatomic particle to use in CPUs.

My vote is for the bovine-related particles, moo-ons, found only in the rare Upsidaisium element, but then we would need Moose and Squirrel for that... which could give AMD their chance.

[DaveGee]

Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen.*:err:


True but laced with just the right kind of special spices it makes for one heck of a delivery system. :smokey:

[Catman4d2]

"Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen"

why does everybody always correct me? this is the most pc anal retenant frikin mb i have ever been on... humor doesnt have to be accurate it just has to be silly ironic or humorous,people who are fans of george carlin will get that one... he would say that often during his early standups oh excuse me "stage performances" im gonna sneak over to a few you peoples houses and wipe my ass with your toothbrushes...

this message board just is not what it used to be. bow go ahead and bash me for my spelling and caps or what the fuck ever.....

your all so wonderfully reknown with knowledge about all the wonderful things that dont make a damn or wont even two years from now.... every frikin post i make is torn apart and for the negative.. crap man ive been on the internet since the early box modems and green and black screens i think i know how to make a somewhat cohesive post.

BLAH BLAH APPLE SUCKS I DONT LIKE ITV CAPS HURT MY EYES BICKER BICKER BICKER PC PC PC AND THEN MORE BICKERING AND THEN THEN WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A CUBE POSTS BLAH BLAH BLUE RAY IS BETTER

"NO... "DEATH RAY IS BETTER" DIE DIE DIE

DID I MENTION THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS AND ENEMA?

[JeffDM]

"Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen"

why does everybody always correct me? this is the most pc anal retenant frikin mb i have ever been on... humor doesnt have to be accurate it just has to be silly ironic or humorous,people who are fans of george carlin will get that one... he would say that often during his early standups oh excuse me "stage performances" im gonna sneak over to a few you peoples houses and wipe my ass with your toothbrushes...

this message board just is not what it used to be. bow go ahead and bash me for my spelling and caps or what the fuck ever.....

your all so wonderfully reknown with knowledge about all the wonderful things that dont make a damn or wont even two years from now.... every frikin post i make is torn apart and for the negative.. crap man ive been on the internet since the early box modems and green and black screens i think i know how to make a somewhat cohesive post.

BLAH BLAH APPLE SUCKS I DONT LIKE ITV CAPS HURT MY EYES BICKER BICKER BICKER PC PC PC AND THEN MORE BICKERING AND THEN THEN WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A CUBE POSTS BLAH BLAH BLUE RAY IS BETTER

"NO... "DEATH RAY IS BETTER" DIE DIE DIE

DID I MENTION THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS AND ENEMA?

I think my irony detector exploded.

[RobM]

"why does everybody always correct me? "

'coz they know you'll bite ?

oh - and great rant, btw.

[TednDi]

"Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen"

why does everybody always correct me? this is the most pc anal retenant frikin mb i have ever been on... humor doesnt have to be accurate it just has to be silly ironic or humorous,people who are fans of george carlin will get that one... he would say that often during his early standups oh excuse me "stage performances" im gonna sneak over to a few you peoples houses and wipe my ass with your toothbrushes...

this message board just is not what it used to be. bow go ahead and bash me for my spelling and caps or what the fuck ever.....

your all so wonderfully reknown with knowledge about all the wonderful things that dont make a damn or wont even two years from now.... every frikin post i make is torn apart and for the negative.. crap man ive been on the internet since the early box modems and green and black screens i think i know how to make a somewhat cohesive post.

BLAH BLAH APPLE SUCKS I DONT LIKE ITV CAPS HURT MY EYES BICKER BICKER BICKER PC PC PC AND THEN MORE BICKERING AND THEN THEN WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A CUBE POSTS BLAH BLAH BLUE RAY IS BETTER

"NO... "DEATH RAY IS BETTER" DIE DIE DIE

DID I MENTION THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS AND ENEMA?


Dude, chill out. Smoke a J and relax.

[Programmer]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how long this thread is. The AMD/Intel rivallry is nowhere strong than between "fanboys". Fortunately you can bet that the engineers and business guys at Apple are more rational about it.

Doubters notwithstanding, Jobs said last year that they had looked at the Intel roadmap and had been impressed enough by it to jump from PPC. Turns out this wasn't that hard because IBM and Freescale were all but ignoring Apple's demands for what it needed. Now, a little over a year later, Apple has completed its second Mac ISA transition with remarkable smoothness... and we see the on-ramp of the roadmap that Intel showed Mr Jobs. The Core architecture is very impressive and suits Apple's needs very well. I am also quite certain that Intel showed Apple upcoming technology even further beyond what is now public knowledge, and no doubt talked to them about how their 45nm (and beyond) migration is being handled.

The "AMD chief"'s comment is that Apple will eventually use AMD chips, and this is necessarily predicated on his optimistic public outlook on AMD's future. If he did not say something like that then people would probably ask why he wasn't look at Apple's business. The answer would be "because AMD can't compete". If he is correct and AMD does get back into a competitive performance, performance/watt, price/performance, and complete solution situation relative to Intel... then sure, I would expect the guys at Apple to evaluate this option.

Currently, however, AMD is not in this position (from Apple's perspective) and in the short term (1-2 years) these doesn't seem to be any publicly known information suggesting that this will change. I'm sure AMD will catch up with where Intel currently is in that timeframe, but between the two companies I expect to see more surprises coming from Intel's R&D labs than from AMD's. In the longer term these things are very hard to predict in detail, but usually in the chip industry the guy with the most money is the better bet -- especially when he also seems to have recently seen the light and undergone an enormous course correction (i.e. like Intel just did). But never say never, especially since that keeps Intel working harder.

[RobM]

Well said programmer -
I want AMD to catch up just as much as I want Intel to keep ahead > tech up, prices down - that has to be good for us.

My only concern is that there appears to be only two horses on the course.

[sunilraman]

BLAH BLAH APPLE SUCKS I DONT LIKE ITV CAPS HURT MY EYES BICKER BICKER BICKER PC PC PC AND THEN MORE BICKERING AND THEN THEN WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A CUBE POSTS BLAH BLAH BLUE RAY IS BETTER

ROFLMAO That sums up a lot of threads quite well :lol: You just missed out on WHEN IS APPLE GOING TO MAKE A NON-CASTRATED MID TOWER BLAH BLAH BLAH WHY CANT I USE ANY GPU IN APPLE BLAH BLAH APPLE TAX BLAH BLAH APPLE MONOPOLY BLAH BLAH OS X FOR ALL PCS BLAH BLAH APPLE GPUS SUCK OKAY GO FRACK OFF PC GAMERS BLAH BLAH NO CONSOLE GAMING IS BETTER NINTENDO WII IS BETTER THAN PS3 BLAH BLAH XBOX360 IS BETTER BLAH BLAH IPOD VIDEO WIDESCREEN ARGHGH APPLE DVR NOW NO I DONT NEED IT I GOT TIVO BLAH BLAH IPOD PHONE WHEN ARGFH BLAH BLAH CANT WAIT FOR MY MACBOOK/ MACBOOKPRO/ IMAC TO SHIP IT JUST LEFT SHANGHAI I CANT WAIT SO LONG WTF BLAH BLAH BLAH... I'm not correcting you, I'm just adding to the fun of your rant. Well, for me it was hella fun reading it.

BTW, I have never really hallucinated smoking pot back a few years. I did have one session where I was super inspired and drew on chalk all over my wall on how "Buddha closed the loop" (deconvolution of X dimensions into pure nothingness in preparation for return to God). Yes, good times :D Also I did have one session where I was just bundled up in my bed shivering a lot and going WTF :(

Having not done mushrooms or LSD or hallucinogenics I don't know what hallucinating is like. Pot and Ecstasy have been a real trip in and of themselves. Funnily, five or six years ago a few tokes never really made me "feel" the effects of pot really. I don't inhale fully because I'm slightly asthmatic and when mixed with tobacco I cough a lot. However 2003-2004 pot did really affect me. Fairly good buds...??

My favourite drug at the end of the day is Jaegermeister. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaegermeister ...Only alcoholic/drug thing where I actually lost sense of time once or twice. This one time at band camp... heh. Actually it was this one time after leaving a bar back to a friends place we were all drunk and dancing around and I had several shots of Jaeger, then I looked at the clock, it was 1am, then the next time, I look at the clock, it was 4am...!!! Wooo it was a little freaky and I ended up making out with a coworker 10 years older than me. Then we just cuddled. Really.

Have been drug and alcohol(only a few sips once every few weeks in social contexts) free for about a year and a half. Would be a great detox except I am taking psychiatric "establishment" medicine :rolleyes:

[sunilraman]

...My only concern is that there appears to be only two horses on the course.

Good enough for me for now. The fact that all three new-gen consoles have separate CPU/GPU architectures is comforting to some degree.

Also, since GPUs in PCs and Macs (well, more so in PC gaming) are becoming increasingly as or more important than the CPU, the wide range of PC GPUs is also comforting to some degree. Although, that is also a two-horse race.

Again, I mentioned before, it's a hardware-software oligopoly in computing today. Choose from a matrix of Intel, AMD, ATI, nVidia, Windows, OSX, Linux.

Not like buying a car (lots of choices) or filling up petrol/ gasoline where you can choose from a ton of places and even add ethanol to the mix or get a hybrid car, etc.

[RobM]

I agree - it seems to be working in our favour at the moment. Long may it last.

In my convoluted mind though, I can see in the not too distant future, a couple of the jockeys having a talk before they line up to start.

Also from your matrix - 2 are really one, ATI/AMD.

[gregmightdothat]

My favourite drug at the end of the day is Jaegermeister.

Oh dear god I hate Jaeger.

[RobM]

Oh dear god I hate Jaeger.

<ot derail>
Whassamatter with you boy ! - one for breakfast'll put hairs on your chest.
Or, have you been hanging out in some dingy bar and drinking to excess for no good reason in the vain hope it'll impress some waitress ?
<ot derail>

[Catman4d2]

I personally have halucinated the same damned brady bunch rerun for about 14 years now,and i dont take any drugs!!!!!!

its the one where greg gets high and changes the tires on his bike.

:D

[franksargent]

:smokey:

Drugs are bad! (http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=TV_Shows&movie=South_Park/Episode_204_Ikes_Wee_Wee&quote=204_bad.txt&file=204_bad.wav)

:smokey:

[melgross]

IThey can? I thought only Xeon chips supported dual FSBs. The problem is that they still have to go through the MCH which, as far as I know, will be a bottle neck.

Yes, I mean the Xeons, which are the ones that will have the need for better memory access. Xeons are more often used for servers where constant access to many smaller randomly placed files will find memory access to be more important that simply doing calculations.


Are we really sure on each process shrink drawing more power? Intel always insist on almost doubling the transistor count with each shrink, so I think that plays a large part. If you just keep the same chip, you would most likely reach a lower thermal envelope and reach higher clock speeds as a result. Transistor leakage is a problem that increases with each shrink though, but how much of an effect has it?

Well, the process shrink for their older designs kept the exact same designs. They didn't even raise speeds on the new Core chips, when they could have.

The total power is not rising, but the energy used per square mm is. So, while total power input, and heat output, is less, the power and heat is greater over a smaller area. That's the problem they are facing, and why they are reluctant to raise the frequency right now. New designs are helping to mitigate these problems, but not totally.

[melgross]

I think it is a major technical challenge in going to 45nm and 32nm or lower. AFAIK.
STUPID ELECTRONS!!! :lol: We need to find another subatomic particle to use in CPUs.

They don't need new particles. The same old particles will continue to work just fine.

The problem is related to the fact that we use charge to keep data in memory, or to do calculations. Charge uses energy to retain a bit, or to change a bit. The faster a bit changes, the more energy is required.

But, now they are learning to use "spin". The field is called "Spintronics".

In theory, no energy need be expended with this concept. In reality, some energy is always expended. But the amount of energy needed is far less.

This is how they are intending to extend the parameters down below the 20 - 30 nm levels. If they can get complex circuits working in time, which it looks as though they have a good chance of doing.

[melgross]

Well said programmer -
I want AMD to catch up just as much as I want Intel to keep ahead > tech up, prices down - that has to be good for us.

My only concern is that there appears to be only two horses on the course.

It is such a vastly expensive venture to build a new cpu chip manufacturing process line these days—billions of dollars. Each new process reduction raises the price of those fabs by 50% or more. Most chip manufacturing companies are building them in conjunction with at least one other partner.

It's why AMD is so far behind Intel and IBM in going to 300 mm wafers, and in going to 65 nm fabs.

A company needs to make such a large commitment to this that few are willing to do so these days.

[Superbass]

Hey, of course AMD will be available in Macs in a few years. Intel is supported officially, Windows is supported officially (via bootcamp), you can use a Microsoft XBOX usb controller in a mac, etc. etc. Aside from the exclusivity of OSX, mac is slowly becoming more of a packaging/distribution brand than a distinct hardware/software entity.

[melgross]

Hey, of course AMD will be available in Macs in a few years. Intel is supported officially, Windows is supported officially (via bootcamp), you can use a Microsoft XBOX usb controller in a mac, etc. etc. Aside from the exclusivity of OSX, mac is slowly becoming more of a packaging/distribution brand than a distinct hardware/software entity.

Apple would have to have a reason to do this. Dell is going to AMD chips for a few lines because they are sometimes less expensive. When you sell $350 computers, even a $5 difference in the cost of the cpu can make the difference.

They also sell 4 and eight socket servers, where Opterons still have an advantage.

But, where does Apple fit in here? While Dell might move more to the cost/performance model, Apple is more in the performance/cost model, where the first part is the more important.

AMD now has a bit of work to do. Unless they have more to offer Apple than Intel does, the will get nowhere.

The ATI acquisition will help somewhat, as now they will be able to offer a good line of chipsets as well.

But it isn't nearly enough.

[sunilraman]

...But it isn't nearly enough.

Not in 2007, certainly. We'll see what happens in 2008. 15 months in IT-land is actually, quite some time to re-revolutionize things.

[barl0w]

If I had a choice between a current AMD chip and the Core Duo 2 in a Mac, I'd pick the Intel everytime. Of course AMD is going to say that "eventually" Apple will use AMD microsprocessors. That way he can lie to the shareholders that they may just be in discussions with Apple - but it wouldn't make me want to go out and buy one if they did.

Core Duo 2 for me all the way. Then Core Duo Quadro next.

[barl0w]

Sorry to be picky, but Dell only sells up to 4 sockets in their servers. This has always been the case because they buy Intel-based (in the past) "white boxes" and re-label them as Dell's. Please see this link for their largest server:

http://tinyurl.com/z6ftj

For larger than 4 sockets, you need to go to NEC, Unisys, HP, Fujitsu or other less-known vendors.

Thanks -

:D




They also sell 4 and eight socket servers, where Opterons still have an advantage.

[melgross]

Not in 2007, certainly. We'll see what happens in 2008. 15 months in IT-land is actually, quite some time to re-revolutionize things.

It's hard to say.

But people should remember that in 2009, I think April, but that month could be wrong (I'm too lazy to look it up right now8) ), all broadcasters MUST give up their analog frequencies, and only broadcast in digital. By that time all Tv's sold must have H def tuners, at least down to some small size. There is supposed to be a program to supply digital tuners to people who have older models.

This will be a major impedus to these HD conversions. By then, something will be done. But before then, it will have to be proven that Apple, and others, are convinced that a large enough population can actually view, in HD, HD downloads.

Right now, it's a guessing game.

[melgross]

Sorry to be picky, but Dell only sells up to 4 sockets in their servers. This has always been the case because they buy Intel-based (in the past) "white boxes" and re-label them as Dell's. Please see this link for their largest server:

http://tinyurl.com/z6ftj

For larger than 4 sockets, you need to go to NEC, Unisys, HP, Fujitsu or other less-known vendors.

Thanks -

:D

Ok Porky, it was the point of 4 and up that mattered here, no matter who makes them.

[slughead]

They don't need new particles. The same old particles will continue to work just fine.

The problem is related to the fact that we use charge to keep data in memory, or to do calculations. Charge uses energy to retain a bit, or to change a bit. The faster a bit changes, the more energy is required.

But, now they are learning to use "spin". The field is called "Spintronics".

In theory, no energy need be expended with this concept. In reality, some energy is always expended. But the amount of energy needed is far less.

This is how they are intending to extend the parameters down below the 20 - 30 nm levels. If they can get complex circuits working in time, which it looks as though they have a good chance of doing.


What with all the references to grass, I was positive this thread was about drugs... now with this post, we can clearly see that I was right.

[aiolos]

The headline is incredibly misleading. He's essentially saying he can imagine apple knocking on their door evebtually, not that they have.

But the thing is apple probably can never use AMD chips because they offer to few cmputer models, it'd be too confusing to consumers. They only offer 5 computer models, 1 or 2 with AMD chips just wouldn't make any sense.

I agree,

The average consumer doesnt have a clue what the difference b/t intel and amd is, and they would just be like fx82? core 2 duo? huh????? help me dell? :lol:

Intel = one type of processor, which = simple, Apple's specialty ;)

If they were gonna switch, it would def. be a full jump, which wouldnt prob happen for couple of years after Apple was so proud of the 210 day switch and the share they've gained.

[melgross]

What with all the references to grass, I was positive this thread was about drugs... now with this post, we can clearly see that I was right.

Why? You're not familiar with the concept?

[melgross]

I agree,

The average consumer doesnt have a clue what the difference b/t intel and amd is, and they would just be like fx82? core 2 duo? huh????? help me dell? :lol:

Intel = one type of processor, which = simple, Apple's specialty ;)

If they were gonna switch, it would def. be a full jump, which wouldnt prob happen for couple of years after Apple was so proud of the 210 day switch and the share they've gained.

That's very true!

When Apple first announced the switch, back in June 2005, I went around and asked a large variety of people about which cpu was in their Mac, if they had one, and if they didn't have one, I asked which company supplied it.

The Mac people didn't always know that it was either IBM or Freescale (who are they?).

The PC people usually thought it was an Intel chip (don't they all use Intel?).

The fact that Mac sales never dipped below the previous years when the switch was underway shows, I think, that many people had no idea (dispite the commercials) that Apple was doing anything different, whatever that was.

Some of the others, who knew, waited. But, they actually seem to be in the minority, even today.

[Programmer]

Some of the others, who knew, waited. But, they actually seem to be in the minority, even today.

Of course they are in the minority -- most people aren't geeks, and the world is a better place for it. Not only does it mean that us geeks can make a better living, it also means we're not overrun with geeks! :)

Seriously though, I think that the people on sites like this one forget that they are unusual in that they are interested in obscure details about how their machine works. Most people don't care, don't want to care, and don't even really care about 20% performance differences here and there. All they know is they want it fast enough, able to do what they need to easily, that it looks good and is quiet, and that it keeps working.

[backtomac]

The average consumer doesnt have a clue what the difference b/t intel and amd is, and they would just be like fx82? core 2 duo? huh????? help me dell? :lol:

.


I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. Sure there are people who have no idea what's in their computer, but many others do. How else do you explain the gains that AMD has made in marketshare over the last several years? Opteron and athlon chips were far better than Intel's netburst counterparts and consumers began to choose AMD.

[gar]

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. Sure there are people who have no idea what's in their computer, but many others do. How else do you explain the gains that AMD has made in marketshare over the last several years? Opteron and athlon chips were far better than Intel's netburst counterparts and consumers began to choose AMD.Sure...
Everybody know if it isn't Pentium4 it sucks. ;)

AMD? Fake Pentiums, Boo...
More something for (large) corporate business users, a couple of geeks and gamers.

[backtomac]

Sure...
Everybody know if it isn't Pentium4 it sucks. ;)

AMD? Fake Pentiums, Boo...
More something for (large) corporate business users, a couple of geeks and gamers.
Are you implying that AMDs gains in marketshare came only from geeks and gamers and corporate business users? I think it went a little deeper than that.

[melgross]

Are you implying that AMDs gains in marketshare came only from geeks and gamers and corporate business users? I think it went a little deeper than that.

I don't know what he's implying, but he sort of has it right. At least until very recently.

Most people don't care what's in their machines, as long as it does what they expect it to do.

What people in the PC buying world do care about though, is price. Over the years, AMD has been found in the cheapest of machines. Manufacturers were going for those cheap products, because the competition in that low end space was factored in pennies. Any advantage there would end up in a sale.

Only more recently has AMD been gaining in the higher end machines. AMD is big in the do it yourself crowd, otherwise known as the retail chip trade. That's where they made their biggest consumer advances. Then, of course, the high end game machines. The higher end x86 market servers have been using them as well, but still have mostly Intel inside.

But, as AMD's visibility has risen, we are seeing more of their chips in mid range machines as well.

But, this might change, if Intel maintains their lead, as it seems they will do in most areas. Do it yourselfers seem to be turning to Conroe in recents months.

AMD's gains may be short lived in many markets.

[Zandros]

I don't know what he's implying, but he sort of has it right. At least until very recently.


I thought corporate businesses were the very heart of Intel's sales, and the one place where AMD penetration hadn't reached yet. At least half a year ago.

[melgross]

I thought corporate businesses were the very heart of Intel's sales, and the one place where AMD penetration hadn't reached yet. At least half a year ago.

Look at the computer companies, and what products they are selling. AMD certainly hasn't taken that business over. Not by a long shot. But, due to the lawsuits they have brought against Intel, as well as the improvement in their product line, they have made advances.

Overall though, Intel still controls almost 80% of the x86 market.

But both the high end, and the low end have been chipped away somewhat. There's been some creep into the middle as well.

[backtomac]

I don't know what he's implying, but he sort of has it right. At least until very recently.

Most people don't care what's in their machines, as long as it does what they expect it to do.

What people in the PC buying world do care about though, is price. Over the years, AMD has been found in the cheapest of machines. Manufacturers were going for those cheap products, because the competition in that low end space was factored in pennies. Any advantage there would end up in a sale.

Only more recently has AMD been gaining in the higher end machines. AMD is big in the do it yourself crowd, otherwise known as the retail chip trade. That's where they made their biggest consumer advances. Then, of course, the high end game machines. The higher end x86 market servers have been using them as well, but still have mostly Intel inside.

But, as AMD's visibility has risen, we are seeing more of their chips in mid range machines as well.

But, this might change, if Intel maintains their lead, as it seems they will do in most areas. Do it yourselfers seem to be turning to Conroe in recents months.

AMD's gains may be short lived in many markets.
The pc market is a large market. I think it is more diverse than people here are giving it credit for. Not everyone who buys a pc is ignorant of their purchase. Many are quite aware of what they bought and did so for a reason. If not why is Intel now concerned about perfromance and performance per watt? AMD wasn't hurting Intel on price with their Athlons and Opterons. Those were generally more expensive than the Intel offerings, Extreme Editions notwithstanding. If price was the only consideration all pcs sold would have celerons.

[Programmer]

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. Sure there are people who have no idea what's in their computer, but many others do. How else do you explain the gains that AMD has made in marketshare over the last several years? Opteron and athlon chips were far better than Intel's netburst counterparts and consumers began to choose AMD.

The majority of people are sold the product they buy. Get a salesman jazzed about a product, and he'll work harder to sell it. The salesmen aren't just at the stores, either. They are friends of the purchasers, writers of magazines and websites, review contributors, etc. Get one geek on board and you probably get 10 sales.

But does the average purchaser really care what his processor is? No.

[backtomac]

See my post above.

[melgross]

See my post above.

Right. but MOST people do not care, or even know what cpu is in their machine. Just try asking people you know who are not "into" it the way we are. My bet is that most won't know. They might not even remember who MAKES the machine, much less the model name or number.

This is less true for Mac users, but it still is true to a great extent. I went through this, and found that most people are very ignorant about their machines.

Most can't say how much RAM they have, or even what it is. They don't know what size the HD is, what speed it runs at, or how big the cache is. They have no idea what video card or chip is there, or how much video memory is available.

The salesperson may tell them some of those things, assuming they know, but the information is lost in the overload, and soon forgotten.

[sjk]

They might not even remember who MAKES the machine, much less the model name or number.
Or which OS it runs, though it's easy to "lucky guess" Windows assuming they even know that's the name for an operating system.

And there's risk of overgeneralizing, believing every computer runs Windows or has "Intel Inside".

I went through this, and found that most people are very ignorant about their machines.
Went through? I can't imagine ever asking most people technical details about their computers without encountering some amount of ignorance and/or confusion. I have to force myself to "talk dumb" with them and hope there's communication.

Most can't say how much RAM they have, or even what it is. They don't know what size the HD is, what speed it runs at, or how big the cache is. They have no idea what video card or chip is there, or how much video memory is available.
Yep. Plenty of people are totally unfamiliar with the basic terminology for those components and don't care or aren't interested enough to ever learn.

There's an analogous software-related ignorance, too. For instance, some people will only know names of programs they use (e.g. Internet Explorer) but have no clue about the general categories (e.g. web browser). Or they have trouble associating one with the other.

[sunilraman]

Damn those non-geeks with their ignorance and real lives filled with other things besides figuring out the exact default and max clock speed of their notebook GPU....!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!one!!

[sunilraman]

Heh. :D