Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips

2456720

Comments

  • bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    Buying an Intel chip never made sense to me. When I build a computer, I use AMD. I get similar performance at half the cost.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,494member, moderator
    I don't want this to happen—EVER!!!



    Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.



    I hope, assuming that this article is true, that this is just a negotiating ploy on Apple's part.



    I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,486member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't want this to happen—EVER!!!



    Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.



    I hope, assuming that this article is true, that this is just a negotiating ploy on Apple's part.



    I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.



    Whoa.



    This move could be toward a more integrated. iPad-like solution. Ultra thin, ultra portable. Might not be all bad news.
  • hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 11,865member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't want this to happen?EVER!!!



    Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.



    I hope, assuming that this article is true, that this is just a negotiating ploy on Apple's part.



    I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.



    AMD has been shipping Opteron servers for ages in 24/7 environments. I'm not too worried about them delivering garbage.
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,026member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by min_t View Post


    Apple doesn't want to be held hostage by outsiders as they were in the past with Motorola/IBM, Adobe/Micro.... They are determined not to make the same mistake again. Wouldn't be surprised at some point, Apple buys Adobe and AMD for future-proofing their roadmap.



    That would be a shock!
  • theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 1,871member
    The fact that Universal Binaries are basically 'just works' technology for Apple, and the fact that jumping from AMD from Intel is a lot lower barrier than jumping from PowerPC to x86, this really just puts Apple into the position to 'negotiate' with Intel to either put up or lose a valued customer.



    Moving optimized binaries for each architecture, while disk storage is really a minor thing (except on SSDs, but even that is becoming a non-issue. Developers who use Xcode have 'just works' code (hmmm, where have we seen that issue come up), and Apple delivers optimized libraries for each architecture, so 'most' of the app variances are minimal due to the x86 base architecture.



    as for the 80% performance... per core performance is becoming less of an issue, heat and multi core footprint and GPU performance is a bigger deal. When it comes to a User 'experience' Grand Central Dispatch becomes a great weapon (mips wars ended 8 years ago... as an 'old' dog, really it's all about delivering bandwidth... pipes from the disk, now pipes from the internet, and pouring it into the interface... if you use 6 expensive cores, or 8 cheap cores and a kick*ss GPU, doesn't matter to me, as long as it's 'snappier ' and costs less than last years model).



    Bottom line... This either pushes Intel to drop prices and/or improve the GPU to Apple's design desires, or AMD gets the platform, which is more and more 'the reference' platform for marketing your performance envelope (price/power-efficiency/performance).



    My boss used to say, "I'll always buy Sun (RIP) for my Data Center, but I'll buy enough IBM/AIX to make the Sun Sales Rep see that I'm exploring options" The fact that Apple is truly able to explore options makes Intel a more motivated partner to meet Apple's needs.
  • cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Maybe they are considering AMD chips for the macbook as a means to reduce costs and distinguish it from the MBP. I have zero interest in AMD's current offerings though.
  • kennethstevenkennethsteven Posts: 4member
    Apple positions itself as a premium brand, it would hurt their image if they begin cheaping out on parts. People are willing to pay more money for a PREMIUM computer. Despite quality or performance, AMD is seen as a budget brand. Switching to Intel legitimized Apple as a quality brand, and Apple has grown leaps and bounds because of it. Why fix something that is not broken?
  • hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 11,865member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    The fact that Universal Binaries are basically 'just works' technology for Apple, and the fact that jumping from AMD from Intel is a lot lower barrier than jumping from PowerPC to x86, this really just puts Apple into the position to 'negotiate' with Intel to either put up or lose a valued customer.



    Moving optimized binaries for each architecture, while disk storage is really a minor thing (except on SSDs, but even that is becoming a non-issue. Developers who use Xcode have 'just works' code (hmmm, where have we seen that issue come up), and Apple delivers optimized libraries for each architecture, so 'most' of the app variances are minimal due to the x86 base architecture.



    as for the 80% performance... per core performance is becoming less of an issue, heat and multi core footprint and GPU performance is a bigger deal. When it comes to a User 'experience' Grand Central Dispatch becomes a great weapon (mips wars ended 8 years ago... as an 'old' dog, really it's all about delivering bandwidth... pipes from the disk, now pipes from the internet, and pouring it into the interface... if you use 6 expensive cores, or 8 cheap cores and a kick*ss GPU, doesn't matter to me, as long as it's 'snappier ' and costs less than last years model).



    Bottom line... This either pushes Intel to drop prices and/or improve the GPU to Apple's design desires, or AMD gets the platform, which is more and more 'the reference' platform for marketing your performance envelope (price/power-efficiency/performance).



    My boss used to say, "I'll always buy Sun (RIP) for my Data Center, but I'll buy enough IBM/AIX to make the Sun Sales Rep see that I'm exploring options" The fact that Apple is truly able to explore options makes Intel a more motivated partner to meet Apple's needs.



    Excellent first post and welcome to the boards TheOtherGeoff. I agree wholeheartedly
  • quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,486member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kennethsteven View Post


    Apple positions itself as a premium brand, it would hurt their image if they begin cheaping out on parts. People are willing to pay more money for a PREMIUM computer. Despite quality or performance, AMD is seen as a budget brand. Switching to Intel legitimized Apple as a quality brand, and Apple has grown leaps and bounds because of it. Why fix something that is not broken?



    Maybe AMD will churn out custom chips.



    Does this have anything to do with further A4 development, and perhaps bringing PA Semi into the picture?
  • cuppingmastercuppingmaster Posts: 57member
    So, if Apple did decide to go for AMD chips, would it eventually be like the PPC to Intel transition? Where, the differences are so vast, that all software must be rewritten to accommodate the switch properly?



    In any case, I assume Apple is going for differentiation in graphics technology.
  • hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 11,865member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kennethsteven View Post


    Apple positions itself as a premium brand, it would hurt their image if they begin cheaping out on parts. People are willing to pay more money for a PREMIUM computer. Despite quality or performance, AMD is seen as a budget brand. Switching to Intel legitimized Apple as a quality brand, and Apple has grown leaps and bounds because of it. Why fix something that is not broken?



    For Geeks.



    Consumers don't care and they see AMD branded hardware in every Best Buy across the US. Opteron has enjoyed a good reputation amongst IT professional.



    I'm not stuck on any hardware. I choose Macintosh because of the software and that included the slow era with the G4.
  • zeromeuszeromeus Posts: 177member
    If Apple would like to use AMD to lower their price points, good for them. If Apple uses solely AMD, I'm dropping Apple.
  • benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    The only way i see this happening is if Apple takes a sizable if not controlling stock in AMD. That way they can steer future products towards their uses while having economies of scale advantages they didn't with moto and IBM. And let's also face it, if they burn intel, their options for future CPU partners would be getting pretty limited.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cuppingmaster View Post


    So, if Apple did decide to go for AMD chips, would it eventually be like the PPC to Intel transition? Where, the differences are so vast, that all software must be rewritten to accommodate the switch properly?



    In any case, I assume Apple is going for differentiation in graphics technology.



    Uh, no it would be like getting a PPC from IBM instead of Motorola...with the disadvantages of Apple being the only real customer.
  • hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 11,865member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cuppingmaster View Post


    So, if Apple did decide to go for AMD chips, would it eventually be like the PPC to Intel transition? Where, the differences are so vast, that all software must be rewritten to accommodate the switch properly?



    In any case, I assume Apple is going for differentiation in graphics technology.



    No. AMD is the same ISA (X86) . Building in support would be a piece of cake by comparison.
  • extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't want this to happen?EVER!!!



    Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.



    I hope, assuming that this article is true, that this is just a negotiating ploy on Apple's part.



    I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.



    AMD also tends to have far more related heat issues then Intel. Something Apple clearly doesn't need to deal with.
  • duskdusk Posts: 36member
    I doubt pricing is such a big issue. Apple is not really in present in the budget area.

    AMD is at the moment just no where near intels performance. Maybe those AMD guys only mean that Apple is to adopt more ATI GPUs in the near future.

    The only thing but that is still at least a year out are AMDs APUs. An APU is the integration of CPU & GPU but on a much tighter level than just by putting a GPU core next to a CPU core. They plan to unite the architecture and harness the power of both. If they can pull this off and this thing is power efficient it is definitely interesting for Apple.

    It might enable one or two (1+1 southbridge chip) designs that save space and offer high performance. As much CPUs performance increases aren't really needed by many people tighter integration more power efficiency and a better balanced performance is the way to go. The pure CPU crunching power is only needed by few people and even here in the parallelism increases and this is where AMD might catch up with the APU too Intels more conservative approach.



    What they will really deliver is a big unknown. The first Liano APU is not really what I was talking about but only a 32nm improved current design with more power management features. The Bulldozer mobile APU mix thing will probably come later in 22nm.

    Maybe Bobcat the Atom competition is also what Apple is after since according to AMD it should deliver Althon II X2 performance in under 1 W that is fast enough for any MBA but sipping power. Who knows if they can do it and if they can why shouldn't Intel reach the same Speed/Power draw by then.
  • robzrrobzr Posts: 19member
    I've long been a fan of AMD for a good price to performance ratio, and it's very interesting what they are doing with the Magny-Cours but as far as I can tell, the thermal dissipation still sucks (admittedly, I don't follow CPU tech real closely). If you look at what Apple has been doing with notebooks and consumer desktops (iMac, Mac Mini), a high design priority has been energy efficiency (and with the energy situation and green consciousness, will get even more important in the future). Low thermal dissipation results in longer battery life, less energy consumption, smaller packaging (passive cooling? smaller power supplies), quieter computers, etc. Unless AMD has some interesting tricks up their sleeve, it really doesn't look like they can compete with Intel on this front.



    However with Apples (and everyone elses) focus on parallelism, multi core is where it's at for raw power. High thermal dissipation and tons of cores - like the 12 core Opterons now shipping - now that would fit in a Mac Pro or X-Serve real nicely.... As someone else pointed out, Opterons have been in the enterprise space with Sun, HP and others for a while. From my perspective, that is where AMD would fit into Apples plans more naturally. Can you imagine a 24 or 48 core Mac Pro? I'd consider getting one for geek bragging rights alone...



    One last thing - "80% the performance for 60% the cost" is not in line with Apples spare-no-expense, give the buyer high quality and make him pay for it philosophy that I personally like so much. I don't think they would do it for a cost savings alone.



    Rob
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,494member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Whoa.



    This move could be toward a more integrated. iPad-like solution. Ultra thin, ultra portable. Might not be all bad news.



    BS. No matter what, AMD is considered to be a second tier supplier.



    Sure, if you want a $400 piece of junk, get an AMD machine.
  • hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 11,865member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


    If Apple would like to use AMD to lower their price points, good for them. If Apple uses solely AMD, I'm dropping Apple.



    Makes zero sense and I heard the same from some just after the Intel announcement. Mac users are about the software and always have been. PPC was rarely the fastest but it was fast enough to be productive.
Sign In or Register to comment.