Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips - Page 5

Who's to say the processor will be weaker or slower? Apple is at the fore front of LLVM compiler technology which makes abstractions and optimization for low-level hardware much simpler. This is over and above what OpenCL brings to the table, BTW...

And completely irrelevant as Apple has their own modified GCC complier, integration with LLVM being a pretty important optimization. For someone claiming to be so aware this is a pretty big oversight on your part...

No, I'm going to WHINE LOUDER just to annoy you. So THERE!

Why don't you move to China where they tolerate different points of view?

Or walk into a lamp post so your rose tinted glasses can trigger your overly sensitive water sensor?

Or better still, send some KGB guys around to gaffer tape my typing hands together.

*Looks around. Oh, we're in America. *(Checks dictionary under democracy...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

Rumors have it that intel made all sorts of financial contributions and guarantees that AMD couldn't match to get Apple to move from PPC to x86.

The intel roadmap was just a PR justification for the exclusivity of Apple/intel.
Chances are that the Apple/Intel exclusivity agreements etc. are running out.

You don't think that intel out of the goodness of their heart let Apple get advance access to several of their CPUs used in the Mac Pro, etc.? These were all part of a consent agreement with all sorts of side deals that were forged between Apple and intel, in which Apple guaranteed to use exclusively intel CPUs for X years, and in exchange Apple likely got all sorts of concessions, pricing guarantees, early access privileges, etc. Just like the iPhone/AT&T agreement, these contracts have a limited life time and when they are near the expiry date, you'll see people getting active renegotiating and considering their options.

Just my reading of the events, and likely not too far off...

I have a phenom 2 setup now with an Asus board and I have ZERO stability issues. I have left my computer on for days and had no crashes. I havent even seen a blue screen since Windows 7. I think this is a fantastic move for Apple and might give me the ability to buy some of their products. I love Apple but I dont love the current cost and this might be a great and wonderfully awesome most incredible absolutely fan-frickin-tastic move!!

I really agree! But it would be unwise to stop building Intel machines. I am PRO choice!
Personally I always liked AMD back in the days. Remember AMD breaking the 1GHz barrier!
They're able to pull some tricks out of their sleeves, and most certainly while partnering with Apple.

People, don't just look at AMD for their CPU's but also as the owner of ATI, wich is already inside a lot of Macs.

Apple using AMD will definitely lower cost/price of Mac mini and iMac for sure. I love using MacOS not intelOS. I would enjoy it even more when I can have MacOS running pc for less $. This is feasible by going with AMD. Cut cost and increase profit margin with no sacrifice in performance. It's a win win.

You don't need to go to Apple to see Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs. Your average Hackintosh owner has a good chance of having an AMD CPU. Just takes a few minor patches for the kernel, that's all. The rest of Mac OS X runs unmodified on AMD CPUs. Something Apple engineers do in less than an afternoon (plus however long it takes run the build chain to create a new install DVD).

Hardly anyone is writing machine code. Everything is done in the compiler. The relevant open source compilers that Apple uses have multiple CPU platforms in mind, certainly AMD and Intel, not just Intel alone. So LLVM will not perform worse on a AMD CPU than on an intel CPU, that's the whole point of the LLVM architecture, and Apple is rapidly moving towards doing all compilation on LLVM, the writing is on the wall.

Just for those FYI. Apple was one of the first to join AMD's Hypertranaport Conaortium in the 1990s. This is what sparked the x86 rumors.

I have a feeling, AMD - being much more desperate for exclusive deal with strong manufacturer like Apple is - would accept to design, say, chipset modification only for Apple. Something that would be required to work with OSX, basically rendering OSX application on general Intel or AMD platforms useless.

RIP hackintosh.

There's nothing wrong with current AMD performance - especially performance for the money, and new incoming AMDs might even change top of the performance pyramid. Only problem I can see there is, AMD - to my knowledge - has nothing to compete with Intel mobile processors in terms of low power consumption/processing power... but I might be wrong here, haven't really check on AMD recently.

But then again, even if there is no public available info, ho's to say AMD hasn't got something in their sleeve they have already presented to Apple?

As people already mentioned, Apple was never about top raw performance in their desktops and notebooks... and for Mac Pro, new Opterons could do wonders with good multicore utilisation.

I can see this happening.

The talks will be about future products. I'm guessing most likely the AMD Llano processor:

http://arstechnica.com/business/news...in-laptops.ars

4 cores and a GPU inside a package that consumes 2.5-25W. AMD's integrated GPU is far more likely to out-perform Intel's IGP and if it can rival the 320M in the latest laptops, it would be a very good option as they can use the same CPUs in all the laptops and just add a dedicated GPU in the higher end models. AMD's GPU is a DirectX 11 GPU too - that feature doesn't mater on its own but it means they use a modern architecture whereas NVidia typically reuse older ones.

Even if the GPU didn't quite match the 320M but came between it and the 9400M, it would still save money and give the low-end a quad-core CPU.

This isn't kicking off until early 2011 and Intel have their 32nm Sandy Bridge coming at the same time. The delay to the MBP update this year seems to have been caused by Intel supplies but obviously they made sure PC manufacturers got chips. Intel has made sure Apple got some higher end chips first but perhaps Apple's relationship with NVidia hasn't gone down well.

Steve's "not to worry" statement might not have been "not to worry, the updates are coming soon" but "not to worry, we'll make sure this won't happen next year".

We all know Daniel has a serious personality disorder, but two of his many personalities authoring the same article side by side? That's a new twist!

There you go. I knew there isn't anything overly exciting in AMD's current mobile offerings, but as I said, I haven't been checking on AMD news recently.

And also as I said - I will not be surprised if AMD comes out with customized platform(s) for Apple - hardware that will not be available from OEMs, which would cripple hackintosh scene. If AMD gets exclusive cookie from Apple, there's a price AMD will (gladly) going to pay.

You don't annoy me. You just sound feeble and pitiable. I truly hope there is more to your life than this.

I think it's simpler than that - PC manufacturers get advertising kickbacks for putting those stickers on their cases, and Steve doesn't need the money nor want ugly stickers from anyone on Mac's

I do find it interesting there are no Intel logo's on Apple's product pages (definitely not for the iMac, and the few pages I did glance at for other machines). To me that's more telling than the lack of a sticker on the computers themselves (I don't think they would put an AMD or PowerPC sticker back in the day on either).

Yes, but as others have (rightly) pointed out, AMD has different internal optimizations than Intel.

Getting code to run is one thing (and obviously pretty easy to do). Getting it to run and take maximum advantage of the hardware with the best possible performance is another. That's what I'm commenting on. I have no doubt Apple has been optimizing for AMD all while it has been writing for Intel. If anything should be clear by now, Apple likes to have their options OPEN and an AMD CPU showing up in one or two Mac's shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - if it happens.

Yes, but when Apple went Intel you had a strong outcry that Apple should have went with AMD. The reasoning was that at the time AMD had the perceived stronger line-up. Apple, however, had the benefit of having access to Intel's product line-up and testing.

Apple isn't going to do anything that hurts performance.

Good, progressive post, Marv'. I tend to like your seasoned posts. This one, particularly forward looking with some interesting info'.

A quad core AMD with ATI inte' graphics... would be nice to drop into the Mac Mini at some point?

Personally, I hope AMD (FINALLY) come back at Intel with some competition and give their products, in performance and price, a run for their money. It's good for consumers, it can be good for Apple and keeps things healthy. (I remember the electrifying race to 1 gighz between Intel and AMD!)

I just hope if Apple goes AMD, they pass on the 20% cheaper cpu price to the consumer..? I'll still maintain a hundred pound price cut across the board is the minimum of what's required. And they still wouldn't be cheap!

Lemon Bon Bon.

That's what my decision has always come down to in situations in which I had a choice.

When building systems, I always looked into the CPU first, because that defined my choice of MB. And in every case, I chose AMD.

Feeble and pitiable. That it? I was hoping for something less pithy.

No. This is my life. So, I guess we can keep one another company.

Lemon Bon Bon.

LOL. Do you remember the days when Intel were the Anti-Christ (or was that M$?)

Who'da thunk we have Apple fan boys giving Intel the love?

Lemon Bon Bon.

Yes...pretty weird...considering almost everyone gave Apple ear ache for not going AMD at the time...

Lemon Bon Bon.

And for the rest, Apple will convince them that they now use the bestest CPUs in the whole world. Apple PR and advertising are second to none.

Sorry, have no intention to offend whatsoever, but this is an enormous garbage comment. In the next couple of years amd will again outpace intel by all accounts, because in the merger of cpu and gpu, intel outpaces amd by about 20% say in cpu but in gpu AMD absolutely kills intel, and the vapourware (turned software framework) that was larabee. Plus from a purely technical stand point amd will have a better cpu and gpu fusion, and intel is still struggling to make this work.

AMD and APPLE will be a marriage made in heaven in say a couple of years, I had always believed this would eventually take place, and I 've been saying it a long time, in view of the fusion of cpu and gpu of course. My only concern is that now amd has gone fabless, or in any case spun off its fab business, and the viability of AMD in that interim time. So, if they can stay afloat and focused they will deliver, but they still have to go through the hard times. Apple could easily buy amd too, but I don't think they would like to scale up this much, apple that is.

[QUOTE=TBell;1614273

Apple isn't going to do anything that hurts performance.[/QUOTE]

But for Apple, performance != speed. Instead, performance = battery life.

Even though some of the debate centers on current CPU technology, I'm going out on a limb that AMD has shown SJ some fancy stuff coming down the pipe that has piqued his interest, especially in regards to mobile technology.

Let's champion this potential broadening of partners if only because it will hone all three companies to produce even better technology as well as help drive prices down further.

With Apple performance doesn't ONLY equal speed, it includes many metrics, including battery life.


PS: 9 posts since creating account yesterday and an inability to format a quote correctly. I'm thinking iGenius is back again.

The package doesn't consume 2.5-25 W, one of the cores does.

I think you are right, but you might be in the wrong forums, shouldn't you be at forums.macrumors.com?

Here's some more recent information about where amd is headed:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...Late_2010.html

If they have the extra funding in time to rump up production, implement the new cpu cores in the next iteration of llano, and come down 22nm, they have nothing to fear from intel. Intel on the other hand had better pull some amazing gpu tricks off their sleeves if they want to keep the best in class position in processors, and something tells me they won't.

There's also the dark horse of nvidia that is rumored to be bringing along their x86 line up with integrated gpus. But I think they can only hope at also runs status, nothing more.

I have an account here too…


I will say that AMD seems to be in the best position it's ever been in the last 4 years, while Intel doesn't look too good. That situation was reversed in 2006/2007.

Intel has to get Larrabee working well and released otherwise they will have nowhere to go (I think that's why the project was started). The latest roadmaps and rumors say that Larrabee is scheduled for 2011 and a CPU with integrated Larrabee cores for 2015 (which is a delay from ~2008 and ~2012 respectively), that is, unless Larrabee gets canceled or delayed again (again). So AMD could have a GPU advantage for the next half decade or so.

22 nm for AMD won't be here until late 2012 / early 2013, but Llano's only the start of Fusion. Like you say, I expect Llano's (2012?) successor to have Bulldozer cores. The modular approach to Bulldozer means that it's possible to do things like replacing one module with a bunch of GPU cores. That could be AMD's road to tighter CPU-GPU integration. There's speculation that future Bulldozer modules could have integrated GPU cores to perform FP calculations. Whatever way it is, I have a feeling AMD chips are going to see large FP gains every year. As for Intel, they may be able to keep up (AVX) with AMD in terms of CPU cores to CPU cores, but AMD has GPU cores, while Intel looks to only have GMA for the next few years (at least on-die). Haswell in 2013 may have on-package vector coprocessors so I'm anxious to see what those are.

Intel's trying to go the whole way with Larrabee; AMD's going one step at a time with Fusion.

In that case, no quads on the low-end as it's 4 x (2.5-25W) + the GPU (probably 10W). From the link just posted, it seems dual core with the GPU will manage 30W but quad with the GPU can be as high as 59W and the cores adjust to fit.

Clearly the integrated package makes sense for the low-end but with Intel, it was a no-go because their IGP is so poor. Apple can't upgrade the CPUs ever again in the low-end beyond the Core 2 series until Intel back down and let other chipsets work.

This leaves AMD as the only option unless Intel buy NVidia and use their IGPs inside their processors. Some sites say the Llano has a GPU with 480 stream processors. AMD typically use more SPs than NVidia but that seems excessive in a GPU for this purpose. That's the same as the 40nm DX11 5650 (15-19W):

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mob...0.23697.0.html

The Llano goes to 32nm and I imagine they will lower the clock speeds and even if they cut the speeds in half and get the power draw under 10W, that'll match the 320M. Still dual core but they'll get closer to Apple's projected 10 hour battery life and the high-end will definitely get the better performing AMD GPUs. It would be more of a side-step than an upgrade but gives Intel a clear message.

It says "mainstream chips with two of four x86 cores will fit into 30W thermal envelope." That would be attained by low clock speeds.

Infraction for Lemon Bon Bon for mentioning "Cheap" and "Apple" in the same sentence

lol just kidding buddy

Look the move to Intel wasn't so long ago that I have forgotten my rage and childish venting on these very boards. At that time I was not impressed with Intel processors (Netburst) and couldn't undertand why Apple was switching to them. I then began to do a bit of research and found out about the new core and it's design and what that was going to do for Intel. The rest, as they say, is history.

I'm once again getting that same feeling. AMD's lineup TODAY isn't good in performance or performance/watt. However I think they know this and have already made changes. The ship should be back on course with Thuban coming out very soon and clearly they've bet the company on Bulldozer and Bobcat cores.

If AMD is discussing providing hardware for Macs you can best believe that Bulldozer and Bobcat are the carrots being dangle. Every high volume PC vendor carries AMD and Intel based computers in their lineup. Apple is getting a bit too big to be Intel only.

Frankly I'd love to see an Opteron based Mac Pro. Yes Intel has the performance crown today but I think the battle will be much tighter in 2011 and Intel refuses to beat AMD on pricing.

Personally, it's hard to see nVidia IGP chipsets being particularly relevant or scalable even if Intel gave nVidia a DMI license. DMI is meant as a low bandwidth link to a southbridge and only offers something like PCIe x4 performance. You can't expect to hang a modern GPU off DMI especially if OpenCL and synergy between CPU and GPU increases the need to pass data back and forth. What's more, IGPs work so well without dedicated memory because IGPs generally have the shared system memory controller on die so they have higher memory bandwidth and lower memory latency than the CPU. Any nVidia IGP chipset will have to go over the already bandwidth constrained DMI link to access memory which seems unworkable. If a nVidia IGP integrates it's own memory controller then you are duplicating functionality, increasing motherboard space for dedicated VRAM, and increasing power consumption all of which goes against Apple's reasoning for wanting a good IGP. Perhaps you could have a nVidia IGP connect through both DMI and the PCIe x16 links for bandwidth support, but that would certainly require complicated driver support, may break the ability to attach a discrete GPU in higher-end models, and would increase motherboard complexity and cost having to route all those traces. The current on die northbridge architecture with built in memory controller, PCIe controller, and IGP just isn't suited to support third-party IGP chipsets, but this isn't really Intel being malicious to nVidia since ATI is doing the same thing this is where the industry is leading. nVidia IGP chipsets is not just a licensing issue but a technical issue as well, and nVidia is simply naturally being squeezed out of the market. The writings been on the wall for years, which was why I kind of found it surprising that Apple seemed to be pushing so hard with the 9400M publicity since it was basically a dead end.

LOL. Heh...

Looking forward to this year's round of iMac and Mac Pro round of updates, Hmurchison?

I'm at least curious...

...who knows...they maybe AMDs in them... (tongue in cheek.)

Lemon Bon Bon.

A sensible post. I agreed with it totally. You get the feeling some updates have been hanging around waiting for Intel. We've been here before with Moto and IBM. AMD gives Apple options. And as Apple are on the cusp of hitting 4 million computers per quarter at some point this year...then it would be prudent to explore their options.

Who knows what tricks AMD have up their sleeve. 4 million cpus is alot of business. That isn't pocket change. And AMD need the money. And they don't have the 'chipset' vendetta Intel have. They are bang per buck competitive.

I've historically shouted for them in the fight with INtel. They're the underdog, I guess. Can't wait to see if anything comes of this. I bet we're a year or so from anything happening in the Mac range though?

*nods.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I believe Apple has already laid the groundwork for this type of scenario with:

1 - Accelerate.framework, so developers can concentrate on their application while Apple deals with the specifics of each processor.

2 - LLVM/Clang, because it is BSD-licensed, will allow Apple to optimize their compiler and not have to share code that would violate inside information about AMD CPUs and GPUs Apple is privy to through NDAs. Apple will still share "generic" code relating to LLVM/Clang so it can continue to be improved, but the "secret sauce" will be absent.

But apple will sell a $600 - $800 crap desktop with a slow and small HDD low end on board video and low ram as well + a LAPTOP CPU at a price where you can good desktop cpu + a good video card.

It's funny, your comment infers that notebook-grade components should be less expensive than their desktop-grade counterparts. Note that in computing when you go to smaller, denser and more power efficient you end up paying a premium for parts. This is why no laptop is ever less expensive and more powerful than a desktop.