or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips

post #1 of 394
Thread Starter 
Intel has served as Apple's sole source for the microprocessors used in its notebook and desktop personal computers since the company began its transition away from PowerPC in 2006, but that may soon change given the company's recent talks with Intel's chief CPU rival Advanced Micro Devices.

Representatives for the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based AMD have recently been seen on Apple's Commuter Coach buses, and executives for the chipmaker have been spotted on their way out of meetings with members of Apple's top brass, according to people familiar with the matter.

The meetings have reportedly included briefings by AMD that have since enabled Apple to begin working with AMD processors in its labs as part of an initiative to position the chips inside some of the company's forthcoming products. While AMD offers a variety of embedded processors, Apple is believed to be investigating the chipmaker's workstation and notebook class CPUs.

It is believed that Apple is working with AMD to expand its potential sources for CPUs in order to increase its flexibility and broaden its competitive options, but also likely in response to problems it has encountered with Intel. These issues include limited availability of new processors (which is rumored to have slowed Apple's notebook refreshes) as well as new chipset designs imposed by Intel that have blocked the Mac maker's plans to continue a partnership with NVidia to deliver a standardized chipset for use with its Intel processors across all of its consumer computer offerings.

Intel has fought against Nvidia to close the market for alternative chipsets for use with its CPUs, which resulted this week in Apple being forced to use Intel's own limited integrated graphics chips inside its new MacBook Pros instead of using more capable parts from Nvidia.

Why Apple hasn't used AMD CPUs before

When Apple first announced its plans to migrate to Intel CPUs back in 2005, many observers questioned why the company wasn't also using AMD's compatible processors as a secondary option. AMD's chips at the time were considered more powerful and often cheaper than Intel's flagship offerings, including the Pentium IV. However, Apple was privy to information about Intel's roadmap, and was primarily interested in the company's new Core line of fast, yet energy efficient designs suitable for use in its notebooks.

AMD's edge in CPUs in the first half of the 2000 was blown away by Intel's new Core family, which came to market just as Apple was making its transition. AMD currently offers few advantages in terms of performance or efficiency, but does offer significantly lower component pricing than Intel. AMD also owns ATI, which produces graphics chips Apple continues to use in some of its models.. This suggests the possibility that Apple could deliver an integrated package of AMD and ATI components that delivered respectable performance and great graphics performance at a lower price than Intel's.



Having multiple sources of CPUs would enable Apple to use the best parts available from each supplier, similar to how the company has worked with both ATI and NVidia to offer competing options in Mac graphics adapters. With the dramatic growth Apple has experienced in its Mac sales over the past half decade, it may now make sense for the company to offer a wider array of competitive CPU options to target a broader range of price points and performance needs.

Reasons for new interest in AMD

Given word of the ongoing discussions and briefings, Apple may also now have access to new information about competitive products AMD has in the pipeline. The company may also have original design specifications that AMD may be more willing to adopt than Intel just to obtain Apple's high profile business. Similar to how Apple optimized the A4 ARM SoC used by iPad, Apple may be planning to develop customized x64 CPUs for its Macs that AMD could be interested in building specifically for use by Apple.

The talks with AMD could also be part of a competitive leveraging strategy to keep Intel interested in retaining Apple's core business, similar to how the company has been rumored to be discussing plans to use Microsoft's Bing search engine in preference to Google's on the iPhone.

At the same time, while AMD has historically trailed Intel's performance and efficiency in CPUs, particularly in the mobile computing space, the company's acquisition of ATI gives it far more powerful GPU technology than Intel currently has.

Both companies are rushing to fuse CPU and GPU cores into a SoC-style part for notebooks (similar to the design used by ARM SoCs in embedded applications such as the iPhone and iPad), as Intel has already done in the latest generation of MacBook Pros, pairing its integrated graphics with the Arrandale Core i5 or i7 processor.

AMD could offer very competitive options for Apple's future notebooks, particularly given the Mac maker's focus on graphics performance and its related GPU technologies, including Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.

If AMD can deliver 80% of the CPU performance of Intel at 60% of the cost, and add significantly better GPU performance and sophistication, it would not be surprising to see Apple working to adopt the company's parts broadly across its Mac lineup within the next year or two.
post #2 of 394
I'd better buy some AMD stock this year and see if I can get a mini bonanza in a couple of years. AMD is a great option for Apple. A lot of PC vendors like HP use AMD because it keeps Intel honest and allows them to hit pricepoints that are difficult with more expensive Intel CPU and chipsets.

Required reading:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871
AMD 2010 objectives and roadmap

Quote:
Final Words:
Final WordsUnfortunately for AMD, 2010 isn’t really interesting. The company will have to rely on aggressive pricing and the continued success of its graphics teams to carry it for the next 12 - 18 months.
Bulldozer, from what I know, appears to be a bold enough architecture to really challenge Intel if AMD can get it done properly. Bulldozer should arrive between Sandy Bridge and Intel's first 22nm CPUs. It's too early to tell how well Bulldozer's execution is going; AMD absolutely must sample in 2010.
It's disappointing that Llano won't use Bulldozer. With 32nm Phenom II cores, Llano will be roughly one to two architecture generations behind Sandy Bridge. The GPU side should be strong though, it is ATI after all.
AMD’s graphics strategy is much stronger. Bringing an already industry leading GPU architecture on die and then revving it every year is going to completely change the way we look at annual CPU releases. The big question here is what apps are we going to be running on these integrated GPU cores? The market has roughly two years to start finding out.


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...p_update_2008/
AMD 2010-11 Roadmap

Recommended searches:

Bulldozer
Bobcat
Leo
Dorado

Why it makes sense


Offers negotiating leverage against Intel
AMD is priced competitive
Performance is still good (per watt is improving)
AMD is more OpenCL compliant at this time and has superior graphics
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #3 of 394
Noooooooo!!!!!

Apple must stay clear of the Hellmouth!!!

(yes, I know its Sunnydale)
post #4 of 394
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.
After 3 netbooks from acer, toshiba, hp, I find contentment in my 11.6 MB Air. Hoping the 8-hr battery version shows up soon.
Reply
After 3 netbooks from acer, toshiba, hp, I find contentment in my 11.6 MB Air. Hoping the 8-hr battery version shows up soon.
Reply
post #5 of 394
I understand that Apple wants to get great deals on chips, but no way they should be satisfied with possibly getting 80% performance at 60% cost. They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible. If AMD can deliver, more power to them. I personally wouldn't buy an AMD-based Mac. I've had minor stability issues with them on the Windows side.
post #6 of 394
Although it's true that Intel's Core CPU's do have the performance crown at the top end of the market AMD does very well in the budget to mid end segment, the Phenom II CPU's are really nice for example.

Baring in mind that Apple tend to ship computers equipped with mid to low end CPU's this is not a bad partnership at all.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #7 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I understand that Apple wants to get great deals on chips, but no way they should be satisfied with possibly getting 80% performance at 60% cost. They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible. If AMD can deliver, more power to them. I personally wouldn't buy an AMD-based Mac. I've had minor stability issues with them on the Windows side.

I once had a MacBook that gave me no end of problems, didn't stop me taking it back and getting one that worked and sticking with Apple.

I've built hundreds of PC's over the years with both Intel and AMD CPU's, at the end of the day there really is no difference.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #8 of 394
Using AMD in MacBooks and Intel in MacBook Pros would certainly differentiate the lines...
post #9 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I understand that Apple wants to get great deals on chips, but no way they should be satisfied with possibly getting 80% performance at 60% cost. They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible. If AMD can deliver, more power to them. I personally wouldn't buy an AMD-based Mac. I've had minor stability issues with them on the Windows side.

Apple updates their product lines so slowly that this should NEVER matter. Because of their business model they will almost never be at 100% performance, and if they are, they will only be there for a few months. It doesn't make sense to pay Intel prices for performance that can be achieved using AMD chips.

This will be a good financial move for Apple and will come at very little cost to the consumer. It's the right thing to do. The only downside is it will give Apple haters some ammo.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #10 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonQ13 View Post

Using AMD in MacBooks and Intel in MacBook Pros would certainly differentiate the lines...

Not gonna happen. Apple will use its purchasing power to get lower prices. The best way to do it would be to implement AMD chips across all its computers.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #11 of 394
[QUOTE=hmurchison;1613808]I'd better buy some AMD stock this year and see if I can get a mini bonanza in a couple of years. AMD is a great option for Apple. A lot of PC vendors like HP use AMD because it keeps Intel honest and allows them to hit pricepoints that are difficult with more expensive Intel CPU and chipsets.


I agree completely. Intel's games or blocking Nvidia is just pure bull. If is clear that if Apple was able to continued the relationship with Nvidia, other PC makers would certainly adopt the same solutions and cut into Intel's business. Intel either needs to greatly improve their graphics offerings with bleeding edge technology or allow competition.

Its pretty simple, Intel either allows Apple to use the GPU's it wants to or it may find itself not even selling CPU's to Apple. That would not been received by investors as a wise decision. They also need to realize the high profile appearance or Apple using AMD's product line would increase investment in AMD and allow them to expand R&D. Intel has become a little to full of themselves and R&D is suffering at the expense or mega profits.

Good decision by Apple.
post #12 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Not gonna happen. Apple will use its purchasing power to get lower prices. The best way to do it would be to implement AMD chips across all its computers.

Apple will simply use these rumored meetings to force further price concessions from Intel. Unlikely they'll go with AMD, unless they use them to manufacture Apple-only chips.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonQ13 View Post

Using AMD in MacBooks and Intel in MacBook Pros would certainly differentiate the lines...

That's what I was thinking. I think Intel still kicks AMD's butt in the mobile arena where Apple sells most of its Macs. I still think a 15" plastic unibody MacBook could work.

This might also be a tactic to get Intel to agree to lower pricing and/or giving Apple a pole position when it comes to new chips so they aren't 3 months behind every other major vendor.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #14 of 394
Never saw this coming. Then again, that's what everyone said before the move to Intel.
post #15 of 394
This has happened before and it will happen again.
Remember Motorola?

A Macbook that sold for $699 with an AMD processor. Yah that would be a failure of monumental proportions. Especiially if it had better graphics chips from ATI in it. /sarcasm.
AMD wants Apples IPad graphics business and they're willing to be aggresive about getting it.
iPads are going to be sellign like hotcakes over the next 3-4 years. 1 million by 2011, by 2014 with a price reduction how many iPads and derivatives will that be. Just think of the iPad wannabee market.

No downside for Apple. What is Intel going to do. Stop selling chips to Apple. In this market.
Make it idiotproof and they'll just make a
better idiot.
Reply
Make it idiotproof and they'll just make a
better idiot.
Reply
post #16 of 394
Apple wouldn't have any problem leaving Intel or at least adding AMD.

They bailed on IBM when they saw a superior roadmap from Intel and frankly it's easy to see how
Apple could bail on Intel because of the Bulldozer/Magny Cours & Sao Paolo lineup.

Here's an AMD blogger on the "Intel Tax"

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/04/16...-on-this-year/

Quote:
First, lets compare Intels highest-end 4P processor, part of the Nehalem-EX family, with AMDs highest-end AMD Opteron 6100 Series processor:

12-Core AMD Opteron 6176 SE: $1,386
8-Core Intel Xeon X7560: $3,692
Price difference: $2,306 or a 166% price delta for 1ku pricing
But, not everyone buys the high end. Lets compare what would be considered more standard power parts:

12-Core AMD Opteron 6174: $1,165
8-Core Intel Xeon L7555: $3,157
Price difference: $1,992 or a 102% price delta for 1ku pricing

"I like money"

Frito Pendejo
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #17 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonQ13 View Post

Using AMD in MacBooks and Intel in MacBook Pros would certainly differentiate the lines...

Yeah, I was thinking that (and Minis) as well. There have been some windows where there's really not much differentiation between the consumer and pro models, and even if AMD gives procs about the same speed as Intel, the differentiation might help in mindshare. And AMD & Intel should each keep the other more honest.

Still, my guess is that this is another vengeance move by Jobs, right? Make us use integrated right after we sell out to NVIDIA in our OS? We'll show ya... Wouldn't be surprised at all to see an AMD/NVIDIA pairing soon, as unlikely as it might seem.
post #18 of 394
I highly doubt that Apple is eyeing any of AMD's current CPUs. Intel has their butts soundly beaten, especially in the mobile space. AMD has absolutely nothing to compete with the i3/i5/i7 mobile chips.

This is about Bulldozer or ATI, plain and simple. Bulldozer could be one hell of a processor, and I'll wager that AMD is very interested in courting Apple for them. Hopefully it could mean that we'll finally see some bloody Radeon 5000 cards in Macs before long.
post #19 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thefinaleofseem View Post

I highly doubt that Apple is eyeing any of AMD's current CPUs. Intel has their butts soundly beaten, especially in the mobile space. AMD has absolutely nothing to compete with the i3/i5/i7 mobile chips.

This is about Bulldozer or ATI, plain and simple. Bulldozer could be one hell of a processor, and I'll wager that AMD is very interested in courting Apple for them. Hopefully it could mean that we'll finally see some bloody Radeon 5000 cards in Macs before long.

+1

AMD pricing, the Bulldozer core and superior GPU options are likely the features Apple likes the most.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #20 of 394
AMD/ATI = fully integrated solution that is already there.

Apple might be moving away from the Premium pricing model and heading down the iPad road . . .
post #21 of 394
Wait we're not using PPCs anymore?!!?

But that's really what it comes down to... Apple has never been defined by the CPU. Even when they tried to scream to us that it was... Intel, AMD, PPC, ARM, whatever... wake me up when any of this really matters... and remember its clear that Apple isn't about power, otherwise it wouldn't be (almost) exclusively using laptop chips in 90% of the computers it sells...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #22 of 394
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.
post #23 of 394
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.
post #24 of 394
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.
post #25 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't want this to happenEVER!!!

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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #26 of 394
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!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #27 of 394
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.
post #28 of 394
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.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #29 of 394
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?
post #30 of 394
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
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 394
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?
post #32 of 394
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.
post #33 of 394
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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #34 of 394
If Apple would like to use AMD to lower their price points, good for them. If Apple uses solely AMD, I'm dropping Apple.
post #35 of 394
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.
post #36 of 394
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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 394
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.
post #38 of 394
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
post #39 of 394
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.
post #40 of 394
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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips