Apple in advanced discussions to adopt AMD chips - Page 8

And exactly which VIA cpu competes with the i3, i5, or i7. And which chips compete with the Xeons Apple uses?

The only area could be handheld mobile devices, in which category I'm including the iPad.

In what way would they be able to present an argument for Apple to switch anything to them? That's what matters.

In your post, you are forgetting that we have to see some reason why Apple would want to use their product.

While I was an early supporter for Apple to use the Atom, as some here might remember, as Apple has shown success with ARM, I now no longer see Atom, or any of its derivatives from VIA or anywhere else, to be a viable option.

With Apple buying one Chip design firm, and rumors they're recently bought another (with some evidence that the A4 may have been at least partly developed by them), why would they move to yet another company for any of their mobile chips, which would be the only conceivable area in which VIA could hope to have a product for?

The chip industry is like a musician. They're only as good as their current recording.

AMD doesn't have hyperthreading, they use good old fashioned silicon. But for certain applications it does beat Intel's 2 core chips. Even the new Nehalem cpus.



Overall Intel's current cpus are better IMO. But AMD have closed the gap and who knows what the future holds. I suspect that IF Apple do move to use AMD cpus it has more to do with integrated gpu options and that OCL is in mind.

I've been finding it amusing that we see a role reversal here. I don't know if it hit you, but now intel's chips are running at a much lower speed than are AMD's. Yet, they are better. AMD has got problems. And Sandy Bridge will have desktop chis running at 35 watts, the same as current mobile models. Meanwhile AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!). did you look at the power consumption charts?

Those are all valid points.

As I said before its hard to envision a scenario where AMD has a better cpu than Intel for a given machine, But Apple may be looking at the computational power of the combined cpu/gpu and perhaps AMD can be competitive here in the future.

Time will tell.

This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.

I don't think Nvidia is making Tegra II for the cell phones. If you're right, it will be one hell of a cell phone.

4 cores x 1 thread/core = 4 threads.


Look harder.


The most important thing here isn't CPU performance, or price. It's GPU performance, and AMD will beat Intel here by a lot.


And you're forgetting 130 W Bloomfields and Gulftowns.

I am being kind by not talking about Opteron here.

Did you know AMD will soon have a 25 W quad-core mobile CPU? So AMD will have next month what Intel might have next year.

I do think that Apple might seriously consider using the latest AMD Phenom II X4 quad-core CPU's for a couple of reasons:

1) AMD might have developed a full motherboard chipset--including an advanced ATI GPU--that combined with the Phenom II X4 CPU runs MacOS X 10.6.3 at surprisingly fast speeds but at lower power consumption. That makes them really viable for the iMac.

2) AMD could offer large-scale discounts that Intel could not offer, especially for the iMac.

Considering how Apple has managed with Intel's i5 and i7 in the MacBook Pro line, I would have to say there's no problem with that.

All of this could be about ATI, not AMD. We don't know what's being said.

It could also be AMD saying; "Plueese use our chips."

[QUOTE=bitemymac;1617782]This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.
QUOTE]

Please try to break the images up so they don't stretch across the page next time.

Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine. But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP. AMD is relying on the GPU for most of that, and right now, that could lead to problems. One is that they can't control which gpu is being used. So FP will vary.

In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.

And let's not forget that Intel has 6 core chips, all with hyperthreading.

Of course, this also depends on AMD not screwing up as they did.

I obviously wasn't talking about one thread per core. I don;t know why you would think i do. Obviously I was talking about hyperthreading.


Mostly a mixed bag, but a little better overall, but at a high power cost. 87 watts for intel vs 125 for AMD. Sucking a lot of power for that bit of speed.


You're forgetting about that test you sent me to. Intel won on graphics performance.


Those are higher end chips.


Don't, its lower performance.


I'll believe it when I see it. I don't trust AMD.

Right now, they are higher power consumption.

Intel can offer any discount AMD can. And they can afford it better.

I've actually fallen a little behind in just where AMD stands relative to Intel, but I really thought they had gotten a grasp on their power issues. Frankly some of the chips they are proposing require far more power efficiency than is seen in older AMD chips.

Even if they haven't lets say Apple is pissed off with Intels dicking around with Arrandale which is pretty much a slut of a processor. Almost all of that badness coming from the included GPU, that many customers simply don't want. So Apple looks to the alternatives and at the same time what it currently owns technology wise. They call a pow wow with AMD and offer to jump start their lagging low power technology, with tech from Intrinsity or PA Semi.

In any event if one looks at what AMD/ATI have accomplished with low power GPU's I'm fairly certain that they can also lower the power of their new chips.


Dave

More importantly SMT still has problems with many apps that you don't see with real cores. Intel has made great strides but that doesn't mean a 4T/2C machine will always perform as well as one of AMDs 4C chips.

I think the most important thing here has nothing to do with AMD, rather it is the issue of deal with a business that can't meet customer needs. That is Intel is basically forcing its GPU upon customers that have no need for it, don't want it and see Intels attitude as problem.

In any event, you are right, for many of Apples machines absolute CPU performance means very little.

This is exactly what the Mini needs. Arrandale would have been good in this platform but Apple really doesn't need to cram a full blown GPU into this machine. Well not the base model anyways.

In any event much of the negativity with respect to AMD processors seems to be based on old issues that they have worked past. Beyond that everyone seems to have forgotten that Apple used AMD technology for years in its PPC machines. It was good tech back then and it has gotten a lot better over the years.


Dave

Intel may be able to do that I can't really say for sure. The problem as I see it is that discounts are pretty useless if they don't have a chip tech you want. Arrandale has to be a real irritation to Apple right now as it has so much potential saddled with so much crap.

Dave

What about the 13" MBP?

I've never had 'issues' with AMD products. They are often thrown in budget PCs with, eg: crap power supplies that give up, but I've never had problems with their CPUs or chipsets.

I don't agree. Arrandale is a great chip. Apple has found the best way to deal with both graphics IPs. When you don't need it, the gpu is idle. When you don't need it, you REALLY don't need it. The quality of Arrandale's graphics is irrelevant.

It's the cheapest and smallest machine in the line. What about it?
Core 2 seems to be fine for it right now. Later in the year they will be refreshed.

You said, "AMD has no multithreaded chips," with the implication that Intel does because their CPUs have Hyper-Threading. That's irrelevant because Intel's Clarkdale/Arrandale has 2 cores, 4 threads, while AMD's Phenom X4 has 4 cores, 4 threads.


I'm talking Llano's graphics here, as well as their Fusion strategy in the future, which Intel doesn't have an answer to now and won't for a while.


So are the 125/140 W AMD ones you said (compared to the rest of their line).

"AMD is at 125 watts and higher for their top models (as high as 140 watts!)."

Guess you forgot about your previous post.

Also, there won't be any 140 W Thubans, but there will be 95 W Thubans.


Like the Clarkdale vs. Phenom test, it's mostly mixed. But this time, AMD doesn't have that power consumption disadvantage and they beat the Gulftowns on price.

Magny-Cours is also ahead on Spec Int and FP.

Ars has an article that contends that their isn't room for a an iWhatever, the Intel HD and dedicated graphics (on the13" MBP).

That's the rub. With Intel packaging the integrated graphics with the cpu they've actually weakened the platform.

Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.

I am about to build a new HTPC/video encoding PC, and I would be stupid to pay 3X more for the intel cpu and 2X more for intel chipset mobo to get comparable performance out the it. I can save roughly $800 going with Thuban 1090T with AMD 890 chipset mobo. $800 can be used on SSD and high-end ATI/AMD video card instead to make it into a serious gaming rig. For $800, you can even build a second Thuban 1090T system. I guess HT is more important for some people. Perhaps, we should measure threads/chip or performance/thread?

Of course we're comparing two cores to four, but as we all know intel does have 4 core chips, and will have cheaper ones before too long. They will also drop these prices as they do every few months. It won't be too long before Intel's 4 core chips will cost the same as AMD's, at least the ones that aren't already. Then what will AMD do?

For many applications where the CPU core of ARRANDALE would be ideal it is very relevant. The built in GPU on this SKU weakens its position in the marketplace. Frankly it makes many AMD solutions look appealing because systems aren't all about he CPU, everything has to work in an orderly and performant manner in a modern PC.

There is no doubt that in some benchmarks AMD chips follow Intel chips when looking at CPU performance. However raw CPU performances is only part of the equation.

Dave

Everything will be refreshed later in the year. The question is how do you get past C2D in the 13" MBP? There are actually ways to do that with Intel hardware at the cost of a larger motherboard and in fact personally I'd rather see Apple trash the Optical Drive and concentrate on higher performance in the 13" machine. Apparently though they believe they need to market the little laptop with an Optical drive.

The point people have repeatedly tried to make here is that if Apple wants the same formula in the next 13" machine, that is an internal optical drive, they will need to look at AMD for solutions. Or get Intel to make custom hardware, because frankly Intel doesn't seem to have anything on the roadmap to really provide the GPU performance Apple wants.

Dave

Don't they have FP too? Also, most workloads are integer-heavy.


Intel will have the lead, but there are situations when dual-core Intel CPUs go up against quad-core AMD CPUs, as well as quad-core Intel vs. 6-core AMD.


Are you talking about Bulldozer's module? If so, one extra integer core adds 12.5% or 50% to the die (seen both numbers, can't remember the correct one), and that adds 5% to the entire die. An additional integer core gives 80% extra performance over a module without the integer core.

AMD does have problems making large CPUs but that's mitigated by their dual-die approach for servers.


Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.


I think total performance per watt and per $.


From the roadmaps I've seen Intel isn't really shifting the boundaries of core counts with Sandy Bridge, except at the high end. Ivy Bridge looks to be where the next large change occurs.


Add more cores.

Intel's lead in single-threaded performance was mainly due to turbo modes when making Intel-Mhz/AMD-Mhz comparison of stock cpu speed. This will be changed for the case of Thuban. Thuban will employe even more aggressive turbo scheme than intel by allowing three cores to boost 400 - 500 Mhz. Turbo mode will benefit even the multi-threaded loads when less than 3 cores are stressed.

I actually don't really care to go with intel or amd, as long as I am not getting ripped off and ensures most value per $.

I don't think it's a problem for the devices that will be using these chips. It's overblown. Look at the 13" MBP. It was sold out at numerous locations the first day it went on sale. That's what matters. These will be used for consumers who don't care about another 25% of graphics performance. For those who do, AMD's on chip solution is no good anyway, and something along the lines of what Nvidia, or better yet, Apple did, will be far better than worrying about Intel's IP here.

It's really a non issue, except on the tech boards.

First of all forget about trashing the optical drive. Most people want them. There's a survey at either Macsimumnews or Macnn, I forget which, that showed that 78% of those polled wanted optical drives. I believe it.

I imagine that we'll see a version of the i3, or possible the i5 in a later MBP. I'm not worried about the graphics performance. See my above post.

AMD made the point that FP is secondary with these chips. The cores are integer. There is FP hardware, but it's fairly weak.


And we have 4 core Intel up against 4 core AMD, and six core Intel against 6 core AMD. Intel wins every time there, and not by a little.


It's 50%, and it doesn't add 5% to the die. It's more like 20% per core. Intel's hyperthreading adds 5%, thats what you're thinking about.

The extra core does give what AMD CLAIMS is an 80% increase in INTEGER performance per core, as opposed to the known quantity of 30 to 40% improvement per core for hyperthreading. It also uses much more power, and needs more heat dissipation that Intel's chips.


It's very funny, you know, because when Intel first began using the dual die per package, AMD was criticizing them for it.


Thats totally wrong. However many cores are there, per core performance is as important as it ever was.


Intel's ahead on the P/W spec, and is usually ahead on the P/$ as well. As usual, Intel will drop prices on its chips, putting pressure on AMD.


I'm willing to bet that Sandy Bridge will beat the pants off Bulldozer.

I have no doubt people want them. People wanted Floppy Drives, Serial and Parallel Ports, too, when Apple removed them in favour of USB and Optical Drives. What I don't think people realize is how often they, as consumers, are actually using these large power-hungry components in their modern notebooks.

I do think that Apple will likely have to give up the CPUs with the Northbridge in the next revision, which in turn means the next 13" MBP will need to get a discrete CPU. Unless they pull some major engineering feat like it appears they did with the next generation iPhone logic board I think that finally means the ODD moving to the outside of the device.

Note that removing the ODD doesn't mean that ODDs can't be used or that they would be removed from all machines. The fact that Apple hasn't supported Blu-ray may not back up this eventual more to remove the ODD but it certainly doesn't hurt the argument.


Just an idea: While they current MBPs take a 12.7mm HDD, dropping it to only take a 9.5mm HDD would shave 3mm off the case size. If they went to a dual drive system using 7mm drives that more than make up for the smaller HDD drives capacity. It's also the standard for SSDs and a size you can get HDDs in now. Of course this would require the removal of the ODD.

Note that the largest capacity drive in the new MBPs is a 512GB HDD. Why didn't they go with 640GB, 750GB or even 1TB in the HDD. I think Apple will be pressing SSDs harder and harder and that this MBP revision is just an overdue stopgate for a major HW revision. The NAND nanometer size will show a 50% increase in capacity this year as well as a major price drop.

I know we have never come close to seeing eye-to-eye on this, but I can't see how the ODD is a long term option for notebooks when it's doing nothing but holding back notebooks in some many areas while offering so little use to most notebook users.

BTO the optical drive. Simple as that. If someone wants it let then order it.
Having another drive bay and larger battery would be great. If I had my druthers
I'd not have any moving parts in a portable though because of SSD size versus cost
I'd have to have a HDD for large storage.

Anxiously awaiting Intel's 25nm SSD


I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.

I wish it was. While I think that would be a great solution for many companies that doesn't seem like something Apple would do.

I'm likely getting a new 13" MBP next week and with it the OptiBay drive for a 2nd HDD. the problem with this setup is the wasted space. I get no additional battery, no discrete GPU and that 5" of port side space is still just a wasted slot. But for me, this is a best option.


Me too. I don't understand why Apple isn't using Intel SSDs. According to Anand they couldn't with the first generation if they wanted to maintain their EPEAT Gold rating, but with the 2nd gen they are in the clear.

PS: Did you see that TRIM support is probably coming to Mac OS X?

(story)

Very interesting indeed. I thought Apple might skip out on TRIM support in lieu of some of the SSD vendors adding in their own Garbage Collection. I'd rather have it in the OS working for every SSD that supports TRIM.

You know to veer back on topic. I think regardless of whether Apple decides to use AMD (I think they should in the low end) I'm probably going to build something with an AMD chip. I'll probably build a Mini ITX HTPC computer using a dual core Llano. It should be small and energy efficient.

SSD's are only good when, and if, Apple implements TRIM. Until they do that, it's not great. There are utilities to help with this on the Mac now, but they're all clumsy, take time to use, and aren't efficient. I doubt that more than a few techies will have even heard of them, much less get, and use them.

I can't understand why Apple hasn't rushed on this, since they offer SSDs.

Good post. You got in before I did. Almost all new SSDs support TRIM. Not just Intel.

I know, my comment about Apple using Intel SSDs is because of their cost v. performance ratings.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp19.html

There are others that are now better. Check out Anandtechs latest articles. It's SSD week.

I'll repeat. Why the heck isn't Apple supporting trim Yet? It's not that much of a problem to do.

Is that like Shark Week?

It looks like I'm behind on the SSD news.

•

http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage
Dear Mr. Jobs.

Support TRIM in Mac OS X. It's not that big a deal Mel Gross

Sent from my iPad

iPad next Friday.

You know, I wonder if this is the kind of nit he picks, or whether he's aware of it at all? It's doubtful he gets into the kinds of arcane techie stuff that doesn't affect the user on a more visceral plane.